Photosynthesis Protein Synthesised

(1/5) > >>

Mefiante (January 19, 2010, 14:32:42 PM):
Scientists in Germany have successfully assembled Rubisco, a protein instrumental for photosynthesis, the process that plants use to produce oxygen and sugars from CO2 and H2O.

If the protein’s efficiency in converting CO2 can be improved, many of the implications would be far-reaching.

News 24 article (what it means).
Insciences article (how it was done).

'Luthon64
Teleological (January 21, 2010, 09:30:43 AM):
Sounds like an intelligently designed idea? What is wrong with intelligently designing evolution towards a few end points >:D?

More about chaperones:
http://movingscience.de/en/projects/biology/chaperone_assisted_protein_folding/video.html
They are part of cell's quality control systems.

How do they work? Well, some of them are two-stroke, two-speed, protein machines.

Article:
Setting the chaperonin timer: A two-stroke, two-speed, protein machine
From the article:

Quote
Protein machines and their man-made, macroscopic counterparts share several common attributes, e.g., concerted, coordinated movements, cyclical operation, and energy transduction. These machines are seldom reversible because each cycle generally involves at least one irreversible step, e.g., the consumption of fuel. Often these machines operate at variable speed, a plethora of timing devices adjusting the cycle speed in response to demand.

An exemplary bipartite protein machine is the chaperonin system, typified by GroEL and GroES from Escherichia coli. GroEL is composed of 2 heptameric rings, stacked back to back, which, in the presence of GroES, operate out of phase with one another in the manner of a 2-stroke, reciprocating motor (1, 2). Driven by the hydrolysis of ATP, the chaperonin proteins function as a biological simulated annealing machine (3, 4), optimizing the folding of their substrate proteins (SPs) whose passage to biologically functional conformations is thus assured.

Why these scientists made use of GroEL to make RubiSco ;D.

Quote
The picture of the chaperonins that emerges from our work is that of a machine equipped with a timer, the trans ring, poised to respond to the appearance of SP [substrate protein inside the cavity] but otherwise idling in a quiescent state. We note that Nature’s design of this 2-speed protein machine minimizes the hydrolysis of ATP in the absence of SP. However, it maximizes the number of turnovers and minimizes the residence time available to the encapsulated SP to reach the native state, design principles well suited to the operation of an iterative annealing device.


Mefiante (January 21, 2010, 10:57:02 AM):
Sounds like an intelligently designed idea? What is wrong with intelligently designing evolution towards a few end points >:D?
If one ignores the transparently infantile goading, and the tendentious selectivity of, and emphases within citations in the remainder of your post, then the answer is as follows: Nothing really, provided it’s done responsibly. After all, in this case not only do we know the intelligent designers, we have actual, direct, objective, repeatable evidence of them. That is, there is no need to speculate and conjecture about (a) the existence, (b) the goals, (c) the methods, (d) the nature, or (e) the identity of the intelligent designer. How cool is that!?

'Luthon64
Teleological (January 21, 2010, 11:02:36 AM):
Sounds like an intelligently designed idea? What is wrong with intelligently designing evolution towards a few end points >:D?
If one ignores the transparently infantile goading, and the tendentious selectivity of, and emphases within citations in the remainder of your post, then the answer is as follows: Nothing really, provided it’s done responsibly. After all, in this case not only do we know the intelligent designers, we have actual, direct, objective, repeatable evidence of them. That is, there is no need to speculate and conjecture about (a) the existence, (b) the goals, (c) the methods, (d) the nature, or (e) the identity of the intelligent designer. How cool is that!?

'Luthon64
Ah well, at least you are able to recognise the existence of design. You unfortunately need to reconcile it with your philosophically materialistic outlook on life. Good luck with the cognitive dissonance there.
Mefiante (January 21, 2010, 12:54:50 PM):
Please feel free to explain for us slowpokes lagging behind your towering intellect how an ability to recognise intelligent design, given verifiable the verifiable actions of verifiable intelligent designers, is irreconcilable with philosophical materialism.

Can you please do that? Because it is a supremely important point, perhaps the one cardinal one.

And please do it in baby steps, not by resort to gormless evasion.

Thank you in advance for your no doubt eruditely illuminating reply. I look forward to it.

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page