Header 1

Our future, our universe, and other weighty topics


Friday, June 12, 2026

Science News BS Heat Map, June 12, 2026

         

Science News Article

BS Rating

Comment

Mitochondria directly interact with the nuclear pore complex

---

"Dark triad personality traits carry distinct physical signatures in the brain"

This low-quality study follows a defective plan followed by many brain scan studies: (1) you identify about 24 people with some particular mental characteristics; (2) you then brain scan them and brain scan about 24 control subjects; (3) you then look for brain differences (being free to look anywhere in the brain), and claim these differences as "brain signatures" of the mental characteristic.  The fallacy is that any two randomly selected groups of people will always have some differences in their brains, no matter how identically they think and behave. A convincing study of this type would require a pre-registered hypothesis, with a comparison made of only some specific area or type of brain difference that previous research had suggested, along with a much larger study group size; and no claim of discovering anything would be justified until there were repeated replications of the reported brain differences, replications in pre-registered studies.**

"The first complex cells had genes from a complex mix of species"

The article refers to eukaryotic cells far more complex than much simpler prokaryotic cells, believed to have existed first. But even the simplest self-reproducing prokaryotic cells are enormously complex units, requiring hundreds of specialized proteins. Article titles like this mislead us by describing eukaryotic cells as "the first complex cells." All cells are enormously complex. 

"An Early Step on the Long Strange Road to Photosynthesis"

Quote: "However, the set of chemical reactions we call photosynthesis has bewitched and befuddled scientists for generations. It requires the coordination of dozens of proteins and hundreds of pigments that harvest photons, all embedded in a cellular structure less than one-thousandth the width of a human hair. Electrons pinball across membranes and between compounds to drive molecular turbines that rebuild air and water into sugars to provide the energy and raw materials that cells need to grow." The article  tries to suggest the beginnings of an evolutionary account for this mechanism with a very high functional threshold, but fails to tell any credible tale of how it could have arisen through any gradual process. But at least there's a good explanation of the vast complexity of photosynthesis. 

Bumblebees can solve complex puzzles like chimpanzees and elephants, study finds

When wonders of cognition like this occur in insects with almost no brain cells, it is more evidence against the "brains make minds" dogma that neuroscientists keep senselessly parroting. 

"A study by IRB Barcelona and the BSC rethinks the origin of our cells as a story of microbial alliances"

"The study challenges the idea that cellular complexity emerged from a single evolutionary encounter, pointing instead to a gradual process of interactions among different microorganisms that lasted for millions of years." The ridiculous "standard story" tall tale of eukaryogenesis is rightly challenged, but the suggested replacement is equally unbelievable. 

"How the brain regulates learning on a cellular level: 3D maps reveal synapses reorganizing in real time "

The press release is promoting a study that  electrically zapped dead brain tissue from rats, something that does nothing to explain how learning occurs in living humans who are not electrically zapped. For more on the press release and its study, read here

"Ancient genome duplications laid the foundations of complex brains"



We have an attempt to explain a huge number of new genes required for the appearance of the first brains, an attempt that very implausibly appeals to "genome duplications." Innovative new types of genes cannot credibly be explained by appealing to duplications. We read, "The data analyses were mind-bogglingly complicated." That should cause us to suspect shaky, dubious analysis. 

A unicellular relative links aggregative multicellularity to animal origins


We have the confession, "How animals evolved complex multicellularity from their unicellular ancestors remains unanswered." But if you don't understand that, what confidence can you have that any descent or ancestry from unicellular life ever occurred? The suggested solution is the same old "clumping" aggregation explanation that utterly fails to explain how we got the very complex anatomical innovations used by visible life forms. *


*"Big picture, we want to understand how initially dumb clumps of cells, cells that are one or two mutations away from being single-celled, don’t really know that they’re organisms — they don’t have any adaptations to being multicellular, they’re just a dumb clump — how those dumb clumps of cells can evolve into increasingly complex multicellular organisms, with new morphologies, with cell-level integration, division of labor, and differentiation amongst the cells. Just like, we want to watch that process of how do these simple groups become complex. And this is, like, one of the biggest knowledge gaps in evolutionary biology. I mean, in my opinion.....We don’t really know the process through which simple groups evolve into increasingly complex organisms."-- Biologist Will Ratcliff (link). 
** The paper authors basically confess the low value of what they have produced, by saying, "Our exploratory whole brain analysis revealed significant results in hypothesized regions, that did not survive correction for multiple comparison and therefore did not reach significance in the regions-of-interest analysis." Those very familiar with neuroscience and statistics will recognize this as basically a confession of having produced nothing convincing.

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

The Troubling Findings of a Survey of Science Journalists

The Kavli Foundation awards million dollar prizes for science research.  The foundation has done a survey of science journalists. One of the questions asked was "In your opinion, can science journalists be neutral about the subjects they cover?" We will never know what the response was, because the slick document presenting the research results gives us two conflicting answers. 

On page 23 the report says, "Asked whether science journalists can be neutral about the subjects they cover, 57% of survey participants answered no, and 35% answered yes (Figure 19). Nine percent said they don’t know." But the bar graph presenting the response (which is actually Figure 11 on page 24, not Figure 19) says that 57% answered "yes," and 35% answered "no." 

Regardless of which answer is correct, the result is a troubling one. Apparently at least one third of science journalists do not believe in the principle of journalistic neutrality. The result is very unsurprising. It has been all too apparent that very many science journalists act as uncritical cheerleaders for the researchers they are covering. 

fawning science journalists

A bit later in the report we have this example of stupidity and carelessness:

The carelessness comes in the misspelling of "certainties," similar to the misspelling of "publication" that occurs in the caption of Figure 13, and the misspelling of "sources" that occurs in the caption of Figure 18.  The stupidity comes from the 16% of the science journalists who answered that scientific findings should be reported as certainties. In today's world of science research, very many or most of the reported research findings will fail to be replicated or fail to stand up to further scrutiny. So it is inane to have a policy of "reporting scientific findings as certainties." 

Another rather troubling result comes when we see Figure 15 on page 27. Asked about coverage of retracted papers, only 65% of the science journalists said that you should mention that the paper was retracted. 21% thought that you only need to mention that the paper was retracted if there was some "major reason" such as fraud. 

Another rather troubling result comes when we see Figure 16 on page 29. Asked about correction of errors in coverage, 17% of the science journalists said that "you only correct the errors if you consider them major errors." So apparently a large number of science journalists are failing to correct errors they have heard about in science stories they have written, while using the excuse that they were not "major errors."

Another troubling result comes when we see Figure 18 on page 31. Asked about "selection of sources," 73% of the science journalists agreed that "you look for the most important scientists in the field." This is an indication of some kind of authority-kneeling that is contrary to the true spirit of science. A good answer to the question might be something like "you look for the scientific paper with the largest study group size" or "you look for the claims that are best supported by many strong observations." Who is or is not one of "the most important scientists in a field" is a subjective opinion subject to the whims of popularity trends. 

Another troubling result comes when we see Figure 23 on page 36. Asked about whether it is acceptable for science journalists and their scientist sources to become friends,  66% of the science journalists said that is okay. But why should we expect that a science journalist will report objectively when reporting on work done by one of his friends?

credulity of science journalists
It helps if the science journalist is a scientist's pal

Another troubling result comes when we see Figure 24 on page 37. Asked about whether it is acceptable for science journalists to receive gifts and paid trips to cover conferences, 36% said that it was acceptable "if they can maintain independence in their coverage," with only 27% saying it is not acceptable for a science journalist to receive such gifts or paid trips.  We get here a clue as to the kind of backdoor bribery that must be frequently occurring. Science journalists are getting freebies to cover science conferences, things such as paid trips to exciting locations (with also possibly free meals and free lodging).  Such benefits make it more likely that the science journalists will report favorably on the research results reported at such conferences. 

We get a similar dismaying result when examining Figure 25, which reveals that a large fraction of science journalist think it is okay to cover institutions that have paid the science journalist. 

We get a troubling result displayed in Figure 28 on page 40. The science journalists are asked about ethical problems in their field. 52% of science journalists list political or corporate spin as a problem. It is an enormous problem. For example, corporations often fund scientific studies designed to promote pills or medical devices they manufacture, with such corporations pressuring science journalists to provide favorable press coverage of the resulting study (often a low-quality affair providing no robust evidence).  56% of science journalists list "Fake News" as an ethical problem. They are referring to fake news produced in articles and press releases written by science journalists themselves (or the PR departments of corporations or universities writing research-related press releases). 58% of science journalists list "pressure to provide news that attracts audience" as a problem. This is the problem of clickbait that I have discussed many times. Nowadays science news is all entangled with economically motivated clickbait which leads internet users to click on enticing but misleading headlines leading to news articles filled with ads that make money for the party running the website. 

science news problems

Also troubling is this quotation from the report

"To those who answered yes to this question, we asked if their country’s journalism association has a code of ethics for science journalism (Figure 31). In this case, 45% of journalists said they did not know. Another 33% answered yes, and 23% said no."

This gives us the impression that a large fraction of science journalists have no great interest in ethics, and were too uninterested to check whether their country has a code of science journalism ethics they should be following. 

All in all, this survey provides us many reasons for distrusting the stories appearing on sites that are supposedly science news sites. Science journalists are part of the profit complex described below, where many may act wrongly for personal profit or personal benefit. 

academia cyberspace profit complex

There is actually a Society of Professional Journalists in the United States. It has a code of ethics you can read on the page here. One of its stated principles is "Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility." But in the result quoted above, a large fraction of science journalists seemed to be oblivious to this principle. The same code of ethics states, "Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear." This principle is not well-followed by science journalists, who are always parroting  dubious boasts from the same old overconfident academia authorities, while rarely asking for quotes from reasonable and highly studious critics of such boasts. A large fraction of all science journalists write only the most one-sided articles telling us only the materialist account, while parroting old dubious speech customs, giving us coverage of science research and science issues about as "fair and balanced" as the press coverage of North Korean journalists. 

The same code of ethics states, "Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story." Very many science journalists these days flagrantly violate this principle, by producing sensational-sounding articles that misrepresent low-quality scientific studies, making them sound like breakthroughs or important insights that they are not. 

The production of misleading "science news" stories has a very strong economic incentive. Web sites are regularly publishing misleading science-mentioning headlines. When people click on such headlines, they go to pages filled with ads, and such pages make money for whoever publishes the web site. This is the problem of clickbait, which these days is the gravest problem for the integrity of science articles. Nowadays clickbait is an out-of-control epidemic on the Internet. A recent example of misleading clickbait is discussed here, a case in which a study electrically zapping dead tissue extracted from rats was misleadingly described to create the impression it had provided insights into how memory works in living humans who do not get such electrical zaps. 

clickbait in science news
A Google Gemini infographic

Saturday, June 6, 2026

An Error-Filled TV Episode on the James Webb Telescope

 When I go to the series The Whole Story With Anderson Cooper on HBO Max, and look up some episodes on science topics, I get science journalism bungling right off the bat. In an episode entitled "The James Webb Telescope: Are We Alone?" (Season 2, Episode 15), Cooper says this early on: "The data and images from the Webb are helping some of our smartest scientific minds answer some of the most intriguing questions of our time: like where did we come from? Is time travel possible? And are we alone?" No, actually, the James Webb Telescope is not helping scientists answer any of those questions. The telescope is doing nothing to tell whether time travel is possible. The telescope has done nothing to detect life in space, so it is not answering the question of whether we are alone in the universe. And the telescope is doing nothing to clarify human origins. 

At the 2:17 mark we hear some scientist saying this about the James Webb Telescope: "Hopefully we'll be able to see a reflection of ourselves and to learn more about where we came from." That sounds pretty silly. You don't see anything whatsoever like "a reflection of ourselves" by peering into deep space. And there is no disagreement about where we came from, which is this planet.  The disagreement is about how we got here. 

At the 4:58 mark astronomer Dan Millisavljevic is asked why is it important to study the origin of stars, and he answers "We all want to know where we came from and how we got here on Earth." For real insight on that question, we should not be studying astronomy, but the topic of morphogenesis and human development. Where you came from is a speck-sized zygote existing inside your mother after your mother's egg cell was impregnated by a sperm from your father. How you got here was the nine-month process of morphogenesis and human development. That was a miracle of  organization light-years beyond any credible explanation of scientists, partially because every adult body is a wonder of engineering vastly more organized than any space telescope humans have ever built.  To help cover up the "big as the distance between the Sun and Alpha Centauri" shortfall in understanding such a matter, scientists told us the phony myth that there is a blueprint for making  a human being in each of our cells. That is not true, as many scientists have confessed. 

Scientists don't want you to focus on the question of morphogenesis, because it will help clarify how physical science utterly fails to explain the origin of any adult human body. So scientists like to convert the "how did you get here" question into some story involving supernova explosions. That is not actually any story of "how did you get here?" It is instead a shaky narrative trying to answer a much different question, the question of how did Earth's elements get here? I call this a shaky narrative because the extreme rarity of supernova explosions and the enormous distance between stars makes the narrative highly  questionable. As I explain in my post here, a rough calculation leads to the conclusion that less than two ten-thousandths of the galaxy should have been seeded with heavy elements from supernova explosions. 

At the 5;23 mark in the TV show scientist Ori Fox repeats one of the most misleading mantras of astronomers, Carl Sagan's enormously false claim that "we are all stardust." No, a human body is not dust. A human body is an information-rich state of vast hierarchical organization packed with systems very rich in mutually interdependent fine-tuned components, each requiring a special arrangement of very many parts. That is quite the opposite of the state of disorganization that is dust, which has no organization.  Astronomers mislead us very badly when they say "we are all stardust."  

Giving us an almost equally misleading statement, Millisavljevic says around the 5:47 mark, "It is because of these stellar explosions that we are here today."  A sensible thing for him to have said might have been, "Supernova explosions are one of very many prerequisites in nature for the existence of human beings." Astronomers believe that supernova explosions helped to create some of the heavier elements such as iron, and that such elements eventually winded up in clouds of gas and dust that formed into planet Earth. 

But as the infographic below illustrates, scientists think that elements as heavy as iron (with a symbol of Fe)  can arise from regular stellar nucleosynthesis, which does not require supernova explosions. And elements heavier than iron are probably not needed for the existence of organisms like human beings, although they are convenient for civilizations such as ours. Human bodies use copper, zinc, selenium, and iodine, all elements heavier than iron. But organisms like humans probably could have existed without such elements. So it is dubious  for Millisavljevic to have said, "It is because of these stellar explosions that we are here today."  We do not even know that the existence of organisms like humans required supernova explosions. And given the great rarity of supernova explosions, and the gigantic distances between stars, supernova explosions are a questionable explanation for the origin of Earth's heavy elements. 

origin of elements


At the 7:26 mark we hear an astronomer refer to the earliest stages of the universe's history and say "Webb will be able to access those earliest stages." This is not exactly true, because the James Webb Telescope is unable to access the first 380,000 years of the universe's history, the time before the Epoch of Recombination when the universe was 380,000 years old and the first atoms formed. And it will forever be impossible to create any telescope capable of accessing those first 380,000 years, because the density of matter and energy was so great that any rays or waves of light or any type of energy must have been hopelessly scattered so badly that observation of them will be forever impossible. 

epoch of recombination

The misstatement is one that has been constantly occurring with the James Webb telescope. Again and again astronomers said something like the telescope would be able to "look back to the beginning of Time," even though they knew that this was not the case, and that the telescope would not be able to see the first 380,000 years of the universe's history. 

At the 9:07 mark of the TV episode the journalist (Kristin Fisher) interviewing these scientists promises falsely that we will "meet a team of scientists close to finding life a billion years away." The promise is a false one. No one is close to finding life elsewhere else in our solar system. At the 9:37 mark some authority says that the wonderful thing about the Webb telescope is that it is "open to anyone all over the world." That is not true. There's merely some kind of program allowing scientists to request use of the James Webb telescope. 

Around the 14:41 mark we learn about how the photos released as images from the James Webb Telescope have been jazzed-up with various color "enhancements" to make them look more striking. We hear of black-and-white images which people like Judy Schmidt made into stunningly colorful images, by using Photoshop. Schmidt brags around the 15:31 mark that she can take images and "rotate them and then give it some color." Rather than anyone confessing about color fakery going on, we hear this  from an astronomer at the 15:48 mark:

"These images are representations of these energies that are coming in the infrared. So we assign each energy filter a color and we put them together to produce these beautiful images."

Gee, that sure sounds like color-faking to me. But I'm rather surprised that Kristin Fisher around the 16:02 mark does not talk like a typical fawning pushover science journalist, and asks this tough question:

 "What would you say to people who see these images and say these aren't real? These are fake. These are photoshopped." 

We get someone who answers most incorrectly, "Well, I mean, they have to be photoshopped, or you wouldn't see them." That's not true at all. People can see black and white images. 

Around the 18:38 mark we see an example of the astronomer Carl Sagan shoveling the BS he was so guilty of shoveling for decades. Sagan says this: 

 "People know that out there is a million other civilizations. They all look fabulously ugly and they're all a lot smarter than us."

No, people never knew any such thing. In this essay, Sagan referred to astronomers, and said, “When we do the arithmetic, the number that my colleagues and I come up with is around a million technical civilizations in our Galaxy alone.” The statement is nonsensical. First, it implies a consensus on the topic, when no such consensus ever existed, with estimates of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy ranging from 0 to a billion. Second, there was never a sound basis for drawing such a conclusion. Suppose we calculate the odds based on the difficulties of a chance appearance of the most simple type of life (requiring cells, DNA, a genetic code, and very many types of proteins, which are each exceedingly unlikely to appear by chance), without assuming some special cosmic teleology that might improve the odds. Then the answer you get is that we should expect no other life form to have arisen anywhere else in the galaxy. That's not even considering the difficulties of intelligence appearing after life has appeared.

Around the 19:00 mark, NASA administrator Bill Nelson says he believes there is life in outer space. He is asked whether the Webb telescope will prove that there is life in space, and he says at the 19:32 mark, "At least it will get us closer to the answer." The James Webb telescope has been running now for about 4.5 years, and it has not got us any closer to answering whether there is life in space. It has not produced any evidence yet for the existence of life on other planets. 

At the 24;22 mark we have some person claiming the element phosphorus is "what makes life possible," which is a very misleading thing to say, given that the requirements for even the simplest one-celled life are very many, and mostly things gigantically more organized than mere phosphorus, such as many types of fine-tuned protein molecules that do not have any phosphorus. 

Around the 24:40 mark we hear of two scientists who are excited about getting a little observation time on the James Webb telescope, which will allow them to look at Saturn's moon Enceladus. The show tries to make it sound like some "they might find life" deal, but it's no such thing. There is no chance that life on Enceladus could be discovered with the James Webb telescope. 

At the 25:27 mark the show's narration gives us this bit of nonsense:

"So where is the finish line for finding life on Enceladus or anywhere else in the universe? It may be right here on Earth at the bottom of the ocean."

That sounds like someone saying you can prove there's life on Pluto by checking out the soil in Mexico. 

Around the 28:17 mark we have an astronomer describing images of supernova remnants from the James Webb telescope, saying, "We just were really surprised with these ring-like or bubble-like structure." How can that possibly be, given that for well over 50 years photos of such objects from regular Earth telescopes have shown exactly such "ring-like or bubble-like structure"? It sounds like someone saying, "I was really surprised that my photo of the clouds showed things white and fluffy-looking."

Next we see an astronomer getting all excited about a James Webb Telescope photo showing the supernova remnant called Cas A. We may wonder: why is he so excited? The image looks just like old images of that object, from decades ago. Around the 31:00 mark and the 32:00 mark an astronomer tries to make it sound like something has been learned from the Webb image of Cas A, but he fails. Everything he mentions was something already known before the Webb telescope was launched. The image shown at the 32:51 mark has a phony look to it, as it has lots of green, not actually corresponding to what you would see by looking at such an object from a spaceship near it. 

Asked at the 33:47 mark what he has learned about Cas A that he did not know before, we get a "sounds like nothing" answer from the astronomer, referring to "a new understanding of how this explosion produces and destroys dust." We already knew long ago that stellar explosions produce remnants that end up as interstellar dust. And we already knew before of how such dust production works. 

At the 39:36 mark we strangely have Ori Fox saying that the James Webb telescope gives him a sense of hope and optimism, because so many people worked together on the James Webb Telescope "to increase our knowledge and to make the planet a better place." That does not make sense. The James Webb telescope is not making the planet a better place. 

At around the 40:39 mark planetary scientist Geronimo Villanueva says he had "this philosophical moment" in which he was "in this telescope in the middle of the desert" in Chile. He says "you feel so insignificant because you understand that you are a speck of dust in this humongous universe." Once again, the nonsense of scientists deceiving us by comparing us to dust. Far from being a speck of dust, a human being physically is a work of enormously organized engineering vastly more impressive than any telescope humans have ever built. Humans know how to make big telescopes and big skyscrapers, but there is not a nation or corporation in the world that could build a living human body from its chemical raw materials. 

The James Webb telescope was designed partially to help find extraterrestrial life. But so far it has failed to do that. Scientists look all around for billions of light-years, and fail to see any sign of life. So why would such search failures cause any reasonable person to "feel so insignificant" or "understand that you are a speck of dust"?  To the contrary, search failures of this type should make us all the more prone to appreciate our own significance, and how our bodies are marvels of fine-tuned hierarchical organization vastly more impressive than anything we see with our telescopes. 

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

In Your Body Every Day There's a Million Miracles of Warp-Speed Purposeful Assembly

The infographic below gives you the "big picture" on the stupendous  hierarchical organization of the human body. 

hierarchical organization of human body

 A recent article in MIT News is entitled "Biologist Joey Davis explores how cells build complex structures." We read of a biologist studying how ribosomes get assembled in a cell. At this point the average reader may remember seeing a cell diagram, and the reader may say to himself something like, "Oh, yeah, ribosomes, I remember that there are a few of those little balls in a cell." But the truth is that a typical human cell has millions of ribosomes, and ribosomes are fantastically complex components, like little machines. Ribosomes have the enormously complex function of assembling a huge variety of protein molecules, which are very complex components built from hundreds or thousands of amino acids. 

How did the average person get such a wrong idea about ribosomes, the idea that there were only a few of them in the cell, and that they are simple little balls? It is because our biology authorities have done such a poor job of educating us about the vast complexity of cells. Again and again, our biology authorities published misleading diagrams of cells, making it look like cells have only a few parts. 

The Google Gemini diagram below discusses some of the great complexities of the work done in the cell by ribosomes. 

ribosomes


The diagram has two shortfalls: (1) at the bottom it depicts a cell as enormously less complex than a cell is; (2) at the top it makes ribosomes look vastly less complex than they are.  The diagram below helps to show how complex is the structure of ribosomes, which require the special arrangement of very many types of protein molecules:

ribosome

We see in the diagram above how vastly organized ribosomes are. For  a ribosome to be constructed, very many types of proteins must be assembled in just the right way, to produce the "protein factory" that is a ribosome. How does such an assembly occur? Scientists lack any explanation for this miracle of organization. The structure of ribosomes is not specified in DNA or any of its genes. DNA and its genes only contain low-level chemical information, such as which amino acids make up a particular protein. 

As enormously complex as ribosomes are, their complexity is dwarfed by the complexity of the structures that surround them, the structures called endoplasmic reticulum.  A document makes a bungling attempt to explain how the very complex structure of the endoplasmic reticulum arises. It is the vacuous non-explanation of "self organization." The emptiness of the concept is clear from a quote on page 13, where we read, "Self-organization is an interesting concept, but how organelles self-organize is unclear." The last resort of a scientist lacking an explanation for some very high state of organization is to make a vacuous appeal to "self-organization."

Every day that you live, fantastically complex components are magically being assembled in your body, components with a structure that is not specified by DNA or its genes. How this can happen is a mystery a hundred miles over the heads of scientists.  They know of no chemistry or physics factors that can explain such assembly. 

The wonders seem all the more staggering when we consider the speed at which these miracles of assembly occur. In the MIT News article  we get a mention of that. Below is a quote:

"During ribosome assembly, RNA molecules fold themselves into the correct shapes, creating docking sites for proteins to attach. Then, more RNA molecules come in and fold themselves into the structure.

'It’s a beautifully coupled process by which the cell folds hundreds of RNA helices and binds on the order of 50 proteins, and it does it in two minutes from start to finish. E. coli does this 100,000 times per hour, and it’s amazing how rapid and efficient the process is,'  Davis says."

How do ribosomes (such fantastically complex components) ever get built? The MIT article offers us no clue, except for two misleading sound bites. 

The first misleading sound bite comes in the subtitle of the article, which says this about Joey Davis:  "His studies have shed light on the assembly instructions that govern ribosomes, the critical protein-building machines of the cell." That makes it sound as if Davis had studied some assembly instructions for building ribosomes. But no such assembly instructions have ever been discovered, and no such assembly instructions are discussed in the MIT article. DNA and its genes have no assembly instructions for building ribosomes or any other type of organelle.

The second misleading sound bite comes when Davis makes a mention of evolution, without giving any specifics.  He says, "It appears that evolution has selected pathways that aren’t strictly ordered in the way we would think about an assembly line, where you always put in one component, then the next, and then the next. "  All uses of the phrase "evolution has selected" are misleading, as Darwinian evolution is a mindless process, and only conscious entities can select things. And claims about Darwinian evolution long ago do nothing to explain how ribosomes could get assembled right now in your body. If DNA contained some instructions for how to build ribosomes, then you might be able to make some farfetched appeal to lucky DNA mutations long ago that somehow gave us instructions in DNA for how to build ribosomes.  But DNA and its genes do not contain instructions for how to build ribosomes or any other type of organelle in a cell. 

Darwinism and claims about evolution are useless in explaining the wonders of biochemistry. That is why Darwin and evolution get virtually no mention in biochemistry textbooks. I documented this reality in my post "The Negligible Presence of Evolutionary Explanations in Six Biochemistry Textbooks," which documents the almost complete lack of mention of evolution, natural selection and Darwin in several long biochemistry textbooks. 

Somehow all these marvelously fine-tuned components bigger than protein molecules get assembled in our body,  in a way that scientists cannot credibly explain. No assembly instructions for such components and systems have ever been discovered in the body. These miracles of assembly are sometimes very fast and sometimes slow. The progression from a speck-sized zygote to a full human body over the nine months of pregnancy is a miracle of organization, but one that is relatively slow. Conversely, in your body there is constantly occurring very fast miracles of assembly, such as the "two minutes" marvel of assembly mentioned in the quote above. 

Some of these miracles of assembly are the construction of protein complexes.  Protein complexes are teams of different types of proteins. Proteins somehow assemble into very complex components called protein complexes, which are sometimes so complex they are commonly called "molecular machines" by scientists.  Below are some quotes in which scientists confess their lack of understanding of how protein complexes form:

  • "The majority of cellular proteins function as subunits in larger protein complexes. However, very little is known about how protein complexes form in vivo." Duncan and Mata, "Widespread Cotranslational Formation of Protein Complexes," 2011.
  • "While the occurrence of multiprotein assemblies is ubiquitous, the understanding of pathways that dictate the formation of quaternary structure remains enigmatic." -- Two scientists (link). 
  • "A general theoretical framework to understand protein complex formation and usage is still lacking." -- Two scientists, 2019 (link). 
  • "Most proteins associate into multimeric complexes with specific architectures, which often have functional properties like cooperative ligand binding or allosteric regulation. No detailed knowledge is available about how any multimer and its functions arose during historical evolution." -- Ten scientists, 2020 (link). 
  • "Protein assemblies are at the basis of numerous biological machines by performing actions that none of the individual proteins would be able to do. There are thousands, perhaps millions of different types and states of proteins in a living organism, and the number of possible interactions between them is enormous...The strong synergy within the protein complex makes it irreducible to an incremental process. They are rather to be acknowledged as fine-tuned initial conditions of the constituting protein sequences. These structures are biological examples of nano-engineering that surpass anything human engineers have created. Such systems pose a serious challenge to a Darwinian account of evolution, since irreducibly complex systems have no direct series of selectable intermediates, and in addition, as we saw in Section 4.1, each module (protein) is of low probability by itself." -- Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjerm, "Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems,"  Journal of Theoretical Biology.

Some such as Hume trying to discredit the idea of miracles have defined a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature. That is not a good definition of "miracle." Here is a good definition of "miracle": a miracle is something (not explained by known laws of physics or chemistry or common human agency) that occurs without visible or known agency, and which would be so improbable to occur by unguided chance that its probability of accidentally occurring is for all practical purposes zero. For example, if you were to take a pack of 52 playing cards, and throw such cards into the air, and all 52 cards became part of a triangular house of cards, that formation so perfect would be something so unlikely to occur that the probability of it occurring is for all practical purposes zero. 

Under this reasonable definition of "miracle," the assembly of every ribosome is a miracle, and the assembly of every other very complex and enormously organized organelle is a miracle, as is the assembly of every type of protein complex involving the "just right" arrangement of many types of proteins that assemble into "molecular machines" fine-tuned for some biochemical task.  There are no known laws of physics or chemistry that explain such wonders of organization.  The assembly of such components by a chance combinations of protein molecules has a probability that is negligible. Under the same definition of "miracle," the assembly of protein complexes as complex as the proteasome (described in this post's appendix) must also be called miracles. 

Every day within your body there are a million such miracles, very many of which involve a kind of warp-speed assembly in which parts magically assemble very, very quickly into functional components, in a way that is not predicted by anything we know about the laws of chemistry or physics, and that is not predicted by anything we know about what is in DNA and its genes.  The continual occurrence of such miracles is required for the continuation of your life.  The physical origin of your body (involving the nine-month progression from a speck-sized zygote to the vast organization of a full human body) was one miracle, but a slow, gradual miracle. The continuation of your body over the span of decades requires endless millions of other miracles,  in which purposeful cell components magically assemble in a way that is utterly beyond any explanation of physics, chemistry or genetics. 

I asked Google Gemini to produce an infographic visual explaining an example of a protein complex that assembles very quickly. It gave me the visual below. The nuclear pore complex (NPC) discussed is a very well-organized protein complex consisting of more than 30 types of proteins, arranged in just the right way to achieve a particular hard-to-achieve functional effect. Apparently this nuclear pore complex gets assembled within five minutes.   The bottom of the diagram has a few lines trying to explain the speed of assembly, but it is little more than the thinnest hand-waving. 

extremely fast protein complex assembly

How there occurs such miracles of purposeful assembly at such stunning speeds is a mystery a thousand miles over the heads of scientists. When materialists claim that all of the processes of life "can be explained in terms of physics and chemistry," they are telling a lie as big as the sky. The continuation of your life requires the daily occurrence of these miracles of purposeful assembly. The progression from a speck-sized zygote to a vastly more organized full human body over nine months is a miracle of organization very far beyond the explanation of biologists. But it is not merely the origin of every human body that is beyond the explanation of materialists: it is also the continued living existence of an adult body that is a miracle beyond their explanation, because of the million microscopic miracles of warp-speed purposeful assembly that must occur every day for a human body to keep living.   

Postscript: Today while searching for some more quotes to add to my "Candid Confessions of the Scientists" post (the largest collection  anywhere of scientists confessing what they don't know), I found these two quotes. In one, scientists confess they don't understand how mammary glands arise in a developing body; and in the other scientists confess they don't understand how eyes arise in a developing body. 

  • "A quarter of the way through the twenty-first century, we still lack basic knowledge regarding the formation and function of the organ that gives its name to all mammals, and which provides important health benefits for children and their breastfeeding parent through the creation and delivery of breast milk." -- 3 scientists (link). 
  • "Despite increasing knowledge of pathways controlling the differentiation of many cell types in the eye, we still lack a basic understanding of the mechanisms controlling its morphogenesis." - 3 scientists (link).  
Also I read today a paper making it clear that contrary to boasts in the press, the AlphaFold2 software does not actually solve the protein folding problem, the problem of how protein molecules almost instantly acquire very complicated 3D shapes needed for their function. The year 2026 paper states, "The explanatory scientific understanding of the protein folding problem is thus
not directly advanced by AF2 [AlphaFold2]." Later the same paper says, "The protein folding problem remains unsolved." Instead, the AlphaFold2 software makes progress on a different problem, properly described as the protein structure prediction problem, which is the problem of predicting the 3D shape of a protein molecule from its amino acid sequence. Whenever one of the more complex types of protein molecules almost instantly takes the very complex 3D shape needed for its function, that is another example of a miracle of warp-speed purposeful assembly.  

Appendix A: The Proteasome Molecular Machine

Below is one example of the many types of protein complexes that seem to require miracles of assembly beyond the explanation of scientists. The wikipedia.org article on proteasomes tells us this:

"Proteasomes are protein complexes which degrade unneeded or damaged proteins by proteolysis, a chemical reaction that breaks peptide bonds...In structure, the proteasome is a cylindrical complex containing a 'core' of four stacked rings forming a central pore. Each ring is composed of seven individual proteins."

paper on this topic is entitled "Gates, channels, and switches: elements of the proteasome machine." We read this:

"The proteasome has emerged as an intricate machine that has dynamic mechanisms to regulate the timing of its activity, its selection of substrates, and its processivity. The 19-subunit regulatory particle (RP) recognizes ubiquitinated proteins, removes ubiquitin, and injects the target protein into the proteolytic chamber of the core particle (CP) via a narrow channel."

Another paper is entitled "The 26S Proteasome: A Molecular Machine Designed for Controlled Proteolysis." A page on the site of the Theoretical and Computational Group tells us this:

"Recycling of unneeded protein molecules in cells is performed by a molecular machine called 26S proteasome (Figure 1), which cuts these proteins into smaller pieces for reuse as building blocks for new proteins. Proteins that need to be recycled are labeled by tags made of poly-ubiquitin protein chains. The 26S proteasome machine recognizes and binds to these tags, pulls the tagged protein close, then unwinds it, and finally cuts it into pieces. As the cell's recycling machinery, the 26S proteasome is vital for a variety of essential cellular processes, including protein quality control, cell cycle regulation, adaptive immune response, and apoptosis....The 26S proteasome recruits, unfolds, and degrades poly-ubiquitin tagged proteins through a complex interaction clockwork of over 60 known protein subunits that is driven through ATP hydrolysis."

A scientific paper tells us this:

"The 26S proteasome is a multisubunit complex that catalyzes the degradation of ubiquitinated proteins. The proteasome comprises 33 distinct subunits, all of which are essential for its function and structure.

Below is a depiction of the human 26S proteasome structure, one that labels some of its protein parts. We see three different views of the same protein complex, with different protein parts labeled (the Greek letters used stand for alpha and beta parts mentioned in the table below):

26s proteasome

Image credit: Xing Guo et. al, link.

Below are the number of amino acids involved in these parts, which I looked up using the UniProt online database (you can use the links to check the numbers I have given):

Protein

Number of amino acids

Comment

Proteasome subunit beta type-1

241

On Chromosome 6

Proteasome subunit beta type-2

201

On Chromosome 1

Proteasome subunit beta type-3

205

On Chromosome 17

Proteasome subunit beta type-4

264On Chromosome 1

Proteasome subunit beta type-5

263On Chromosome 14

Proteasome subunit beta type-6

239On Chromosome 17

Proteasome subunit beta type-7

248On Chromosome 20

Proteasome subunit alpha type-1

263On Chromosome 11

Proteasome subunit alpha type-2

234On Chromosome 7

Proteasome subunit alpha type-3

255On Chromosome 14

Proteasome subunit alpha type-4

261On Chromosome 15

Proteasome subunit alpha type-5

241On Chromosome 1

Proteasome subunit alpha type-6

243On Chromosome 14

Proteasome subunit alpha type-7

248On Chromosome 20


The structure shown above clearly requires several thousands of amino acids that have to be arranged in just the right way. The structure shown above is not specified in DNA, which merely specifies which amino acids make up each of the protein parts. The amino acid information needed to make the structure above (insufficient to specify the total structure) is not at all contiguous in DNA. To assemble the structure above, among other wonders of construction a human body must magically gather genetic information scattered across many different chromosomes in the nucleus, like someone quickly finding just the right 60 loose pages hidden in random books of 46 tall, long bookcases in a library. The table above shows that at least eight of the 23 human chromosome pairs would need to be accessed: Chromosome 1, Chromosome 6, Chromosome 7, Chromosome 11, Chromosome 14, Chromosome 15, Chromosome 17, and Chromosome 20.

Appendix B: The Nuclear Pore Complex 

The nuclear pore complex or NPC is a large protein complex found in the "nuclear envelope" that is the outer boundary of the nucleus inside human cells.  A science research press release tells us this: 

"For structural biologists, the human NPC is a challenging yet exciting 3D puzzle, with around 30 different proteins each present in multiple copies. This amounts to around 1000 puzzle pieces, which form a round core with surrounding flexible parts."

The wikipedia.org article on this complex states that it consists of "456 individual protein molecules, and 34 distinct nucleoporin proteins." So the complex apparently requires 34 types of protein molecules. The article tells us that the "principal function of nuclear pore complexes is to facilitate selective membrane transportation of various molecules across the nuclear envelope." This mean that nuclear pore complexes have the extremely complex job of acting like gatekeepers, letting the right kind of molecules get into the nucleus of the cell, and keeping out the wrong type of molecules.  The article tells us that there are typically about 1000 of the nuclear pore complexes in every cell. We read of some impressive functionality of these nuclear pore complexes:

"Notably, the nuclear pore complex (NPC) can actively mediate up to 1000 translocations per complex per second. While smaller molecules can passively diffuse through the pores, larger molecules are often identified by specific signal sequences and are facilitated by nucleoporins to traverse the nuclear envelope."

The article (and also the Google Gemini infographic above) tell us that a nuclear pore complex has a molecular weight of about 110 megadaltons. A dalton is the mass equal to a twelfth of the mass of a carbon atom. A protein complex of 110 megadaltons would have the mass of about 9 million carbon atoms. Apparently the proteins that make up this complex are particularly complex proteins. Below are the exact numbers (we may assume that there are multiple instances of such proteins in a nuclear pore complex). 


Protein

Number of amino acids

Comment

NUP98_HUMAN

1817

On Chromosome 11

NU153_HUMAN

1475

On Chromosome 6

NUP93_HUMAN

819

On Chromosome 16

NU107_HUMAN

925

On Chromosome 12

NU205_HUMAN

2012

On Chromosome 7

NU160_HUMAN

1436

On Chromosome 11

NU214_HUMAN

2090

On Chromosome 9

NUP85_HUMAN

656

On Chromosome 17

NUP50_HUMAN

468

On Chromosome 22

NUP88_HUMAN

741

On Chromosome 17

NU133_HUMAN

1156

On Chromosome 1

NU155_HUMAN

1391

On Chromosome 5


The molecular machinery shown above clearly requires more than 12,000 amino acids that have to be arranged in just the right way, which amounts to a special arrangement of more than 100,000  atoms. The structure of the molecular machinery described above is not specified in DNA, which merely specifies which amino acids make up each of the protein parts. The amino acid information needed to make the structure above  is not at all contiguous in DNA. To assemble the structure above, among other wonders of construction a human body must magically gather genetic information scattered across many different chromosomes in the nucleus, like someone quickly finding just the right 34 loose pages hidden in random books of 46 tall, long bookcases in a library. The table above shows that at least nine of the 23 human chromosome pairs would need to be accessed: Chromosome 1, Chromosome 5, Chromosome 6, Chromosome 7, Chromosome 11, Chromosome 12, Chromosome 16, Chromosome 17 and Chromosome 22.

nuclear pore complex

The nuclear pore complex (credit: Protein Data Bank, link)