Question: does the paper you presented describe the leap of faith required to achieve the polarity brought up by @stcordova. Just the polarity. Do not describe any other function and do not move beyond that phenomenon. Just the polarity. How does your paper deal with the arrival of that feature and how that feature arose? JUST THE POLARITY. Nothing more.
I have perused the paper and do not find the polarity adequately dealt with. That means while your paper may be scientific in substance, it does not deal with the problem that @stcordova brought up. To you and to the paper and to your comrades here, the polarity is simply something that exists and you do not feel you have to deal with why it exists or how it began to exist. This is precisely your problem and this is precisely what @stcordova is trying to get you to admit.
YOU STILL NEED A MIRACLE.
So you didn’t read it. Why are you afraid of reading it? And what undeserved sense of spoiled entitlement is driving you to have it’s contents spoonfed to you? Read it first, then criticize.
Your deflection completely fails. I think you just lost this argument.
DEFINE THE MIRACLE. DEFINE EITHER WHY IT IS NOT A MIRACLE OR ADMIT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW.
Polarity is an intrinsic attribute of molecules. Even of single atoms. There is no mystery here. The real mystery would be a molecule with a perfectly uniform distribution of charge.
You can’t answer because you don’t have an answer. That means you have not addressed the OP in this thread. All you have done is what you always do. Deflect and make noise and nuance the argument until you think we have lost track of the original. NOT THIS TIME. I think you lost this one.
I think you should calm down buddy.
Not a chance. I think you should answer @stcordova
AN HONEST ANSWER. HOW ABOUT THIS TIME?
I just gave you an answer. And it isn’t wrong. All molecules have some intrinsic level of polarity. Even single water molecules have unequal distributions of electromagnetic charge. Generally speaking the oxygen atom has higher electronegativity than other elements normally found in organic molecules, meaning valence bond electrons will generally spend more time around the oxygen nucleus, than around less electronegative atoms it is bonded to, such as hydrogen in the case of water, or carbon or nitrogen in organic molecules.
Also, for a protein molecule it is a priori unlikely that you get a polymer of residues with a perfectly balanced distribution of amino acid polarity. One end of any protein polymer will generally contain more or less charged residues than another, it would be unlikely for the number and degree of charges to be exactly equal across it’s length.
What about it @stcordova? At first glance, it seems to be couched in scientific jargon, but when rereading, it sounds a little bit like wishful thinking or maybe “Gee, I sure hope this works because if it doesn’t, I really don’t have a better answer right now.”
What is your comment to his answer?
@swamidass, I suddenly have an idea for a new thread (unless it can be shot down at this pre-emptory stage).
Idea; What if a miracle, a true miracle, involves only a time when known physics is suspended, or circumvented, or altered? What if when God created the Universe and Life, he did not work a miracle? Sounds interesting, right? Here is the reasoning. God is God and what God does, he does only naturally, to use our stunted kind of thinking. So when he created Life, it was not a miracle. When he created the polarity described in the OP of this thread, it was not a miracle. He was “just doin what he [always] does”. If true, this kind of reasoning could actually be significant when it comes to arguments such as these. God’s miracles would be reserved for only those times when what is already physical is somehow suspended, circumvented, or altered.
Here are just a few papers on the nature and evolution of tubulin.
1 Like
Oh, you don’t find it “adequately” dealt with huh? Who gives a flying fork? You can always just say that. No matter how thoroughly it’s “dealt with”, you can always just brainlessly declare it wasn’t “adequate”.
The subject of the distribution of charged residues is in fact “dealt with” extensively.
No, the fact that you personally don’t find the question “adequately” dealt with does not mean the paper does not deal with the polarity of the molecule. That’s both flat out wrong, and logically fallacious.
It’s obvious how it begins to exist: It begins to exist because there are more atoms that pull more on electrons at one end, than at the other end. That’s how molecules consisting of multiple atoms become polarized in every and all cases.
In the case of proteins, the amino acid side-chains determine the distribution of charge along the polymer’s length. Charged residues such as Arginine, Histidine, and Lysine have positive charges under physiological conditions, and Aspartic acid and Glutamic acid have negative charges.
If only you could write it in letters four times larger maybe that’d make it true and you could finally manage to convince even yourself of it?
1 Like
Thank you for pointing this paper/review on “Origin and Evolution of Tubulin” as I’m writing on examples where the gene duplication hypothesis is suspect and I wanted a contrary veiw.
The supposed “solution” was had circular reasoning and non-sequiturs, not actually mechanics explanations. In fact the solution offered was simultaneous gene fusions (for no good reason) in the paralogs. Reductio ad absurbdum. I’m sure, if people look, people will find other paralogous pairs that are important and had to exist at the start.
Microtubules are pretty important to mitosis in many creatures. It’s not something to tinker with.