k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 22 2013,16:15) | | Quote (N.Wells @ July 21 2013,08:27) | | Quote | | In your case what I must most want out of you is your flagellum powered cell model circuited as per the ID theory, |
You are the one proposing this nonsense and you are the only one that thinks that it has any promise whatsoever, so this is your responsibility.
| Quote | | Can also test to see whether real e.coli and other can be trained to either attract or repel from stimuli depending on prior experience. If cells can be trained then it’s not a simple feedback system |
Execrable English aside, you've nearly stumbled into a test for your ideas. Many examples of chemotaxis in bacteria and protists are quite well understood ( http://jb.asm.org/content....65.full ), and they don't involve anything that requires intelligence. Their stimuli/response cycles use pathways that compare the prior condition relative to the current condition, which can loosely be talked about in terms of "memory" and "decision", but these are metaphors rather than indicators of intelligent decision-making, and they seem perfectly capable of arising by evolutionary processes. To gain any traction at all against prevailing explanations ( http://www.nature.com/nrm........24.html ), you will have to demonstrate that you can train the bacteria to do something that is contrary to their normal biochemically controlled behavior. Note that you can't just assert that some behavior is intelligent without backing that up, and you also cannot just modify your bug to demonstrate this without verifying that your model actually matches reality (e.g., compare http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0020049 to what you do).
| Quote | | The exact chemistry of cellular temporal memory is not known |
Basically that's not true (although this depends a bit on how strictly you parse "exact"). From Wikipedia,
| Quote | Flagellum regulation
The proteins CheW and CheA bind to the receptor. The activation of the receptor by an external stimulus causes autophosphorylation in the histidine kinase, CheA, at a single highly conserved histidine residue. CheA in turn transfers phosphoryl groups to conserved aspartate residues in the response regulators CheB and CheY [ note: CheA is a histidine kinase and it does not actively transfer the phosphoryl group. The response regulator CheB takes the phosphoryl group from CheA]. This mechanism of signal transduction is called a two-component system and is a common form of signal transduction in bacteria. CheY induces tumbling by interacting with the flagellar switch protein FliM, inducing a change from counter-clockwise to clockwise rotation of the flagellum. Change in the rotation state of a single flagellum can disrupt the entire flagella bundle and cause a tumble.
Receptor regulation
CheB, when activated by CheA, acts as a methylesterase, removing methyl groups from glutamate residues on the cytosolic side of the receptor. It works antagonistically with CheR, a methyltransferase, which adds methyl residues to the same glutamate residues. If the level of an attractant remains high, the level of phosphorylation of CheA (and therefore CheY and CheB) will remain low, the cell will swim smoothly, and the level of methylation of the MCPs will increase (because CheB-P is not present to demethylate). However, the MCPs no longer respond to the attractant when they are fully methylated. Therefore, even though the level of attractant might remain high, the level of CheA-P (and CheB-P) increases and the cell begins to tumble. However, now the MCPs can be demethylated by CheB-P, and when this happens, the receptors can once again respond to attractants. The situation is the opposite with regard to repellents (fully methylated MCPs respond best to repellents, while least methylated MCPs respond worst to repellents). This regulation allows the bacterium to 'remember' chemical concentrations from the recent past, a few seconds, and compare them to those it is currently experiencing, thus 'know' whether it is traveling up or down a gradient. Although the methylation system accounts for the wide range of sensitivity [5] that bacteria have to chemical gradients, other mechanisms are involved in increasing the absolute value of the sensitivity on a given background. Well established examples are the ultra-sensitive response of the motor to the CheY-P signal, and the clustering of chemoreceptors.[6][7] |
| Quote | | literature shows cells can anticipate a shock of some sort and be in defensive mode in anticipation of another |
That's a different issue, with different explanations.
(Woodbine: nicely done!) |
All of you are behind the times. There is now known to be a circuit that may have many flagella wired together to molecularly programmable sensor arrays, while major sensory systems have crosstalk connections to each other resulting in complex behaviors. The days of making it seem that how a cell works is just simple diffusion based chemistry equation are over:
Dynamic map of protein interactions in the Escherichia coli chemotaxis pathway
Molecular architecture of chemoreceptor arrays revealed by cryoelectron tomography of Escherichia coli minicells
http://www.pnas.org/content....-ds=yes
http://opencldev.com/forum......#msg424 |
Gary Gobsmack the days of where a brain addled graphic artist vomits pseudo science as support for a dead Republican attack on science are NOT new.
The days you waste on googling on 'a how a cell works' and tying it to your inane ideas make tomorrows letter box flyers enticing reading.
Try reading cow pats google boy.
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
