Evolution on the molecular level

[rogcha22]

I am a self-proclaimed Darwinist, and usually scoff at any notion of Intelligent Design, but after studying in detail some of the processes that occur at synapses, and in particular at the NMJ (and the subsequent molecular events leading to muscle contraction), I have begun to wonder exactly how evolution can explain these events. If you understand the details of muscle contraction, the action potential causing a release of Calcium from the SR, followed by the "turning off" of tropomyosin by troponin to expose the active sites on the myosin heads so that they can bind to the actin and initiate contraction, then you know what an incredible and complicated process this is. I can understand how evolution occurs on the grander scale of things very easily, but take a moment and look at a diagram showing this whole process at the molecular level. How could a series of totally random events lead to this process that occurs at such frequency and at such efficiency in all complex organisms?

Granted this is just one example of many, it just so happens to be the one I am studying at the moment.

Any input on this phenomenon, and others, from someone well-versed in molecular genetics and evolution?

[mith]

Whenever I get faced with "irreducible complexity" issues, I usually try to find the precursors of whatever structure it is. For example, I'd take a look at muscles of different organisms and compare.

[ragav.payne]

Similar arguments have been raised by other scientists. People begin to wonder if Darwin's evolution holds after going through what happens at the micro level at tremendous detail. They feel intimidated. How could all of this complexity arise and coordinate with the rest of its micro counterparts to bring out a "whole" experience that we are so used to?

I would suggest you explore books such as - Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe (or) Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton. Both Michael J. Behe and Michael Denton are scientists.

I haven't read these books and I don't know how good these books are or how far they are scientific in their argument. But, I just came across them. They might be useful to you if you're interested in scientific arguments against evolution.

Anyway, if you're looking for complexity, just look up Bacteria flagellum.

[canalon]

I don't know Denton, but Behe is a ID proponent, and the main proponent of irreducible complexity. Many of his arguments have already been debunked. So, scientist, sure, but without much credibility left either.

[MrMistery]

Oh, come on! Not the bacterial flagellum! Not Dentum! Especially not Behe!
Michael Dentum and Michael Behe are both Biochemists proposing the following stupid way of thinking: if i can't understand how something might have formed, then it is impossible to have formed by natural evolution. And that's stupid! Newsflash guys, there might be a few things that formed by evolution and you still don't understand them. The bacterial flagellum is a good example. ID proponents say that this structure arrised by they-don't-know-what-process but not by evolution, because the parts are two interdependent to work on their own. However, take away 40 of the 50 proteins the flagellum is made of and you are still left with a working and obviously homologous structure, named the type III secretory apparatus.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/6/3027

Intelligent Design is not science, it is creationism mascarading as science. The United States Court of Appeals concluded that in a trial in Ohio that was aimed at some School Counsel that was using a textbook based on intelligent design.

[ragav.payne]

if i can't understand how something might have formed, then it is impossible to have formed by natural evolution.

That's true...

If you ask me, the main proof against ID is the existence of their proponents...lol