Draft Chapter on nerve cells

Remember the function of DNA and proteins in a cell? Well, now imagine that the cell is a walled city. The blueprints for the entire city plan (buildings, roads, railways, factories, recycling plants, import/export facilities, etc.) are kept in the central government building. In this city analogy, the blueprints are written in a complex digital and multilayered code which is well beyond anything we could imagine writing. Each section appears to contain instructions for the making of one part of one machine, but actually contains a number of levels of encryption so that it codes for as many as 50 parts or more. Scientists are only just scratching the surface of how this is controlled.

Again, what does this have to do with nerves, besides that it makes many students (and scientists) pretty nervous? Well, nerves work by firing electrical signals mediated by the rapid movement of electrically charged particles out of, and into, the cell—technically speaking the membrane (outer wall of the city) of a nerve cell is polarized. When the cell “depolarizes,” a signal is sent. The whole process is based on a highly specific import/export system. In a resting cell, like a city at peace, there is a highly complex system in place for keeping stocks of ammunition in storage inside the city walls and other supplies outside, perhaps in farmyard silos. However, when the city is attacked, it may lob grenades out through the gates and carry the food supplies for the army from the outlying farms in through other gates. It would not be useful to get this backwards and throw the grenades into the cities and pelt the enemies with lettuces!

This is much the same in a nerve cell that is activated. Gates with windows are opened; some of these allow entry of certain “A” particles and others aid exit of other “B” particles. It would be counter-productive for the cell to allow “A” to leave and “B” to enter, so these gates are very specific. But, they are not only specific. They are amazingly complex. The gate that “A” moves through is made of four sections (each with a window) and each of these consists of six proteins (the window is between protein 5 and 6). “A” gate includes an off switch that makes the windows close. It also has a complicated on switch: protein 4 is a corkscrew type affair that screws into the cell if it senses a change in the voltage of the environment (excitement is near!) and exerts a domino-type effect on the windows, so that they all open. As if that were not enough, Gate A also includes highly selective waving arms that capture “A” and eject any stray “B” (the sensitivity of these arms can be dialed up or down according to cellular needs), and a larger lasso-type structure that is thought to sweep everything near the surface of the cell in the direction of the gate. “B” gate has the same basic structure, but since “B” particles need to leave instead of enter, there are also several differences, including a huge ball and chain type protein that swings, hits protein 4, and seems to literally knock the gate into action. The exact structure of the gates (only two of many types on the surface of nerve cells) varies according to the placement and necessary activity of the nerve in the body or brain and there is some evidence that the structure can modified as a result of nerve cell use. These gates are, of course, encoded by the DNA blueprint.

I would suggest that this nano-sized system easily rivals some of our man-made import/export systems in speed (7000 “A”s enter per millisecond and the gates can open and close up to 1000 times/second), specificity (being engineered for individual placements) and complexity (we are only scratching the surface with our current knowledge). And yet, consensus science would ask us to believe that this evolved through a gradual process of sequential typos in the informational blueprint (DNA mutations) and trial and error (natural selection).  To be fair, I must point out that this claim is partially based on the fact that the basic structure of the gates is similar. However, a bit of logical thought tells us that this no more indicates a common ancestor than it does a common designer. More seriously, those scientists and teachers who give scientific evidence to challenge the assumption of naturalistic evolution lose their funding, jobs, and chances for a future career. Why? Couldn’t studying such an apparently elegantly engineered system give us ideas on how to design more efficient import/export or even weapons delivery systems? Of course, I cannot guarantee such a result, but certainly believe that exploration of the possibility should not be prohibited.