Evolution of Kinesin?

[kronos]

Hello, a friend of mine (a Young Earth Creationist:doh:) is trying to convert me and tell me that motor proteins are irreducibly complex, and I don't know enough about it to refute him (I am not really much of a science guy.) He says that the kinesins move along microtubule cables, and that it couldn't have come about by evolution. Can someone explain to me how this thing evolved so I can shut him up? He keeps insisting that since I cannot explain this, that evolution is my religion, and I am getting tired of it. Thanks.

[Greippi]

There are many molecular processes within the cell that seem pretty unbelievable from an evolutionary perspective, for example the molecular motor seen in ATP synthase. While it is mind blowingly amazing, it's not "irreducibly" complex. A study of similar proteins and equivalent proteins in different organisms starts to build up a picture of its history.

The evolutionary history of many proteins can be traced back so that it can be seen how a protein evolves (new) function over time.

 

You can't say something "couldn't" have arisen by evolution, merely that it might be extremely unlikely.

 

I don't know anything about the evolution of kinesin though, I couldn't find much literature on it, sorry.

[Moontanman]

Hello, a friend of mine (a Young Earth Creationist:doh:) is trying to convert me and tell me that motor proteins are irreducibly complex, and I don't know enough about it to refute him (I am not really much of a science guy.) He says that the kinesins move along microtubule cables, and that it couldn't have come about by evolution. Can someone explain to me how this thing evolved so I can shut him up? He keeps insisting that since I cannot explain this, that evolution is my religion, and I am getting tired of it. Thanks.

 

 

Run right now, go to the most secure place you can find, if he catches you he will eat your brain, seriously dude google is great source of information on the subject and avoid creationist sites, they care not for reality. BTW irreducible complexity is not true for any part of or process in biology. Irreducible Complexity is a logical fallacy used by creationists to muddy the water when they don't want you to see the truth.

[kronos]

Run right now, go to the most secure place you can find, if he catches you he will eat your brain, seriously dude google is great source of information on the subject and avoid creationist sites, they care not for reality. BTW irreducible complexity is not true for any part of or process in biology. Irreducible Complexity is a logical fallacy used by creationists to muddy the water when they don't want you to see the truth.

 

Don't worry, he won't eat my brain, I think his holy book tells him not to eat people (apparently God gave us plants and animals for food, not people for food. We can stone people, crucify them, burn the at the stake, and enforce our will upon them through violence, take people as slaves, and destroy entire civilizations, but eating them is a no no ) All jokes aside, I know how to counter and explain some of the common "Irreducible Complexity" arguments, like the ones dealing with the eye and bacterial flagellum, but I haven't heard this one before (about kinesin), don't know much about it, and can't find any information on the evolution of kinesin with a google search (it's tough to find...) I have debunked most of his supposed "evidence" against evolution in some detail, but this one particular thing is causing me trouble because I cannot find specific information about it's evolution. He, being the YEC that he is, takes my lack of knowledge on that subject as some supreme victory, even though I destroyed all of his other misconceptions about evolution lol. But yeah... information on the evolution of kinesin is tough to find, thats one of the only things I haven't been able to go into detail with him on. It's so difficult to talk to YEC's... they are so biased...

[Moontanman]

Don't worry, he won't eat my brain, I think his holy book tells him not to eat people (apparently God gave us plants and animals for food, not people for food. We can stone people, crucify them, burn the at the stake, and enforce our will upon them through violence, take people as slaves, and destroy entire civilizations, but eating them is a no no ) All jokes aside, I know how to counter and explain some of the common "Irreducible Complexity" arguments, like the ones dealing with the eye and bacterial flagellum, but I haven't heard this one before (about kinesin), don't know much about it, and can't find any information on the evolution of kinesin with a google search (it's tough to find...) I have debunked most of his supposed "evidence" against evolution in some detail, but this one particular thing is causing me trouble because I cannot find specific information about it's evolution. He, being the YEC that he is, takes my lack of knowledge on that subject as some supreme victory, even though I destroyed all of his other misconceptions about evolution lol. But yeah... information on the evolution of kinesin is tough to find, thats one of the only things I haven't been able to go into detail with him on. It's so difficult to talk to YEC's... they are so biased...

 

Sadly even if you could provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary he would simply come up with something else or refuse to believe your evidence. Not being able to explain how something evolved is not evidence it had to be created, it's just evidence we have figured it out yet. YECs seize on any area that is not well defined and use it to further their own agenda.

 

Arguing with YECs is always a loosing proposition simply because they do not care about the truth only the DOGMA.

 

They ignore the many cases of irrefutable evidence that shows them to be wrong and concentrate on the few places where science is still advancing but hasn't quite solved the issue.

[Greippi]

Don't worry, he won't eat my brain, I think his holy book tells him not to eat people (apparently God gave us plants and animals for food, not people for food. We can stone people, crucify them, burn the at the stake, and enforce our will upon them through violence, take people as slaves, and destroy entire civilizations, but eating them is a no no )

 

Really off topic here, but this part does actually make sense. There was a high instance of kuru (prion disease like CJD) in a tribe of Papua New Guinea who were cannibals and ate human brains.

[Variola]

I haven't gone into this too much myself, but I believe some of your friends ideas are coming from the debate of the flagellum, which some have stated cannot be evolution as it cannot work without all of its functioning parts. Dynein is a part of the Kinesin family, and dynein makes up a good part of the flagellum.

The extension to that argument is what your friend has said, that kinesin moves along the microtubles. But I don't understand how he can claim that evolution cannot be responsible for it, there are squillions of other ATP/ADP interchange systems within the cell that use the same process as kinesin, it just happens that "kinesin walk" is rather groovy looking!! ( I love kinesin!)

What are his actual arguments specifically?

[Mr Skeptic]

All jokes aside, I know how to counter and explain some of the common "Irreducible Complexity" arguments, like the ones dealing with the eye and bacterial flagellum, but I haven't heard this one before (about kinesin), don't know much about it, and can't find any information on the evolution of kinesin with a google search (it's tough to find...) I have debunked most of his supposed "evidence" against evolution in some detail, but this one particular thing is causing me trouble because I cannot find specific information about it's evolution. He, being the YEC that he is, takes my lack of knowledge on that subject as some supreme victory, even though I destroyed all of his other misconceptions about evolution lol.

 

You can't ever "win" like this. For every thing you know, there will be several things you do not. Unless you know all of biology in extreme detail, there will always be holes in your knowledge.

 

What you need is to turn the tables. Acknowledge their theory as a potential hypothesis, then verify whether it qualifies as a hypothesis, and whether it can provide better predictions. Be sure to point out that explanations are worthless (intellectual masturbation) -- only specific predictions such that the prediction follows from the hypothesis, and any other result would falsify the hypothesis, count. Explanations are nice but science could care less. "God did it" is the simplest explanation you will ever find, but utterly worthless. Predictions are what really matter, even if the theory doesn't seem to make any sort of sense at all (eg quantum mechanics, excellent predictions, crazy explanations).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It seems to me that a lot of the troubles are due to misunderstanding science as "explaining" rather than as "predicting".