Molecular key-lock mechanisms behind Biblical kinds

Different Kinds are based on differences between molecular key-lock mechanisms

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are membrane-bound structures secreted by cells, playing a crucial role in intercellular communication by transferring proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids between cells. The specificity of EV interactions with target cells is largely determined by "key-lock" mechanisms involving surface molecules on both EVs and recipient cells. These mechanisms ensure that EVs deliver their cargo to appropriate cells, maintaining the integrity of species and preventing unintended cross-species interactions.​

1. Compatibility of EV Key-Lock Mechanisms Within a Species Group (a Kind = e.g., Canidae):

Within a species group, or "kind," EVs exhibit compatible key-lock mechanisms that facilitate effective intercellular communication and, in some cases, hybridization. This compatibility is primarily mediated by specific surface proteins and lipids that enable EVs to recognize and bind to target cells within the same group. Key molecules involved in this process include:​

• Tetraspanins: These are four-transmembrane proteins abundantly present on EV surfaces. Tetraspanins, such as CD9, CD63, CD81, and CD82, interact with integrins and adhesion receptors, facilitating EV docking and uptake by target cells. The presence of tetraspanin-enriched microdomains (TEMs) on EVs allows for selective binding interactions, contributing to target cell selection within the same species group. ​

• Integrins: These heterodimeric membrane proteins regulate various biological processes, including cell proliferation, differentiation, and migration. Integrins on EVs interact with corresponding receptors on target cells, mediating cell-EV interactions that are crucial for maintaining species-specific communication. ​

• Lectins: These are the real key-lock elements. These proteins recognize and bind specific glycan moieties, facilitating cell-to-cell communication. Lectins on EVs can interact with glycan structures on target cells, promoting selective uptake and ensuring compatibility within the species group. ​The compatibility of these surface molecules within a species group enable EVs to effectively communicate and transfer genetic material, supporting processes like hybridization and intraspecies variation.
  

  
  
  ​

2. Incompatibility of EV Key-Lock Mechanisms Between Different Species Groups:

Between different species groups, EV key-lock mechanisms are incompatible, preventing unintended interspecies communication and maintaining species boundaries. This incompatibility arises from variations in surface molecules that hinder the recognition and binding of EVs to target cells of different species. Factors contributing to this incompatibility include:​

• Species-Specific Tetraspanins and Integrins: Differences in the expression patterns and structures of tetraspanins and integrins between species can lead to ineffective EV docking and uptake by target cells of another species. This specificity ensures that EV-mediated communication occurs primarily within the same species group. ​

• Lectin-Glycan Specificity: Lectins exhibit binding specificity to particular glycan structures, which can vary significantly between species. Such specificity restricts EV interactions to target cells within the same species group, as the necessary glycan structures for lectin binding may not be present on cells of different species. ​

These molecular incompatibilities in EV surface molecules act as barriers to interspecies hybridization, preserving the genetic integrity of distinct species groups.​

Conclusion:

The specificity of EV key-lock mechanisms, dictated by surface molecules like tetraspanins, integrins, and lectins, plays a vital role in regulating intercellular communication. Within a species group, the compatibility of these mechanisms facilitates effective communication and hybridization, supporting intraspecies variation. Conversely, incompatibility between different species groups prevents unintended interspecies interactions, thereby maintaining species boundaries and genetic integrity.

In summary, the incompatibility of cellular key-lock mechanisms between different taxa is primarily due to species-specific variations in the molecular structures of tetraspanins, integrins, and lectins. These variations prevent the proper formation of protein complexes and signaling pathways necessary for cellular functions, thereby maintaining species barriers.

References:

• Hemler, Mark E. "Tetraspanin proteins promote multiple cancer stages." Nature Reviews Cancer 14, no. 1 (2014): 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3640.​

• Hynes, Richard O. "Integrins: Bidirectional, allosteric signaling machines." Cell 110, no. 6 (2002): 673-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00971-6.​

• Varki, Ajit. "Biological roles of glycans." Glycobiology 27, no. 1 (2017): 3-49. https://doi.org/10.1093/glycob/cww086.

• Cell Communication and Signaling. "Extracellular Vesicles and Their Role in Cell Signaling." Feb. 2023. https://biosignaling.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12964-023-01103-6

​

ATP synthase could not have evolved step by step

The Irreducible Complexity of the ATP Production System: Why It Could Not Have Evolved Gradually

The ATP production system is one of the most intricate and vital biochemical processes in all living organisms. It provides the necessary energy for virtually every cellular function, including protein synthesis, DNA replication, and cellular repair. Given its complexity and precision, two critical arguments challenge the idea that it could have evolved gradually through unguided evolutionary mechanisms.

1. The ATP Production System Is Irreducibly Complex

ATP synthesis primarily occurs through oxidative phosphorylation, a process involving the electron transport chain (ETC) and ATP synthase. This system comprises multiple protein complexes, each playing an essential role in creating the proton gradient and harnessing that energy to generate ATP.

For ATP synthesis to function, several interdependent components must be present and correctly arranged:

• Electron Transport Chain (ETC): A sequence of protein complexes that transfer electrons and pump protons to establish a proton gradient across the mitochondrial membrane.

• ATP Synthase: A molecular rotary motor that utilizes the proton gradient to produce ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate.

• Membrane Integrity: The inner mitochondrial membrane must be intact to maintain the proton gradient. Without it, the entire process collapses.

If any one of these components is missing or non-functional, the system cannot produce ATP. This means a partially developed ATP production system would provide no selective advantage. Evolution, which relies on small, incremental changes, cannot explain the origin of a system that only works when fully formed. Natural selection cannot preserve intermediate stages that offer no function or benefit.

2. The Energy Paradox: How Would an Evolving Cell Power Its Own Development?

Evolutionary explanations must also account for the origin of energy production before the ATP system was in place. Complex protein synthesis, including the assembly of ATP synthase itself, requires vast amounts of energy.
If ATP production was not yet functional, how could early cells generate sufficient energy to produce the very proteins needed for ATP synthesis?

• No ATP, No Protein Synthesis: Protein synthesis, including ribosomal function and tRNA activation, depends on ATP. If early cells lacked an efficient energy system, how could they produce the enzymes required to build the ATP synthesis machinery?

• Circular Dependence: ATP production depends on protein complexes, but those protein complexes cannot be synthesized without ATP. This presents a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma that evolutionary theory has not adequately addressed.

Conclusion: Design, Not Gradual Evolution

The ATP production system exhibits hallmarks of Creation and Intelligent design: precision engineering, interdependent components, and an inherent energy paradox that defies stepwise evolutionary development. The irreducible complexity of ATP synthesis suggests that it could not have emerged through a series of small, incremental mutations. Instead, it must have been fully operational from the beginning, pointing to a purposeful Creation and Intelligent origin.

Problems brought by James Webb telescope

Why Are James Webb’s Observations a Problem for the Big Bang Theory and Long Timeframes?

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has made significant discoveries that challenge prevailing cosmological models, particularly the Big Bang theory and the estimated age of the universe, which is currently believed to be around 13.8 billion years. Here are some reasons why these findings may be problematic for long-age models:

1. Galaxies That Are Too Developed Too Early

JWST has detected extremely massive and well-structured galaxies with redshifts (z) indicating that they existed only 200–300 million years after the Big Bang. This is problematic because, according to current astrophysical models, galaxy formation and development should take much longer.

• These galaxies already contain old stars and advanced structures (e.g., disk and elliptical galaxies), which contradicts the expectation that they should be small, irregular, and gaseous at such an early stage.
• The Big Bang model predicts that early galaxies should be primitive, yet JWST observations show many fully formed galaxies.

2. The Speed of Light Problem

Long-age cosmological models assume that the speed of light (c) is constant. If the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, then light from its most distant parts should have had only this much time to reach us.

• However, JWST’s observed galaxies are so distant that their light’s travel time appears to exceed what the Big Bang model allows.
• This relates to the “horizon problem,” where different regions of the universe appear to be thermodynamically uniform, even though they should not have had enough time to interact with each other at the speed of light.

3. Cosmological Redshift and Distance Problems

Redshift (z) is assumed to be caused by the expansion of space. However, if extremely distant galaxies (z ≈ 12–14) appear too developed, this suggests that either:

• Redshift is not solely due to expansion but may involve other effects (e.g., tired light or plasma interactions).
• The universe is younger than long-age models suggest, meaning that current distance calculations are based on flawed assumptions.

4. Dark Matter and Dark Energy Problems

The standard model (ΛCDM, Lambda Cold Dark Matter) heavily relies on dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe’s structure and development. JWST’s observations do not fully support these assumptions:

• 
  Early galaxies are too massive without invoking the effects of dark matter.
• The influence of dark energy was expected to be evident in the universe’s accelerated expansion, but JWST’s findings may challenge this.

5. Conclusion: The Instability of the Big Bang Theory

Since JWST’s observations show that the early universe is far more complex than the Big Bang model predicted, researchers must now either:

1. Modify the Big Bang theory by adding new mechanisms (making it increasingly complex and speculative).
2. Acknowledge that the Big Bang model may be incomplete or incorrect and consider alternative explanations.

As a result, those who believe in long timescales and the Big Bang must now find new ways to explain how such massive and developed galaxies could exist so early in cosmic history. This opens the door to alternative models, such as design-based explanations, where the universe is seen as purposefully and fully created rather than slowly evolving from chaos.