Origins of Eukaryotes- trouble for endosymbiosis
Can evolution make things less complicated?
OK if euks aren't a union of proks AND if euks were first on the scene (in any evolutionary senario), abiogenesis just got a bit more difficult to explain. And if life didn't arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those type of processes.
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
OK if euks aren't a union of proks AND if euks were first on the scene (in any evolutionary senario), abiogenesis just got a bit more difficult to explain. And if life didn't arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely via those type of processes.
posted by Joe G @ 11:43 AM
32 Comments:
At 12:07 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Can evolution make things less complicated?"
Of course, as was originally pointed out by Darwin. Quote from Chuck Kurland, who worked on the study.
“illustrate the Darwinian view of evolution as a reversible process in the sense that ‘eyes can be acquired and eyes can be lost.’ Genome evolution is a two-way street,”
joe g: "abiogenesis just got a bit more difficult to explain"
Certainly the early evolution of cellular life is still not well-understood.
At 6:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Noah, the link works for me.
joe g: "Can evolution make things less complicated?"
Zach:
Of course, as was originally pointed out by Darwin. Quote from Chuck Kurland, who worked on the study.
“illustrate the Darwinian view of evolution as a reversible process in the sense that ‘eyes can be acquired and eyes can be lost.’ Genome evolution is a two-way street,”
That eyes can be acquired is very debatable. That has never been demonstrated and no one knows if such a thing is even possible.
However the reductionism this (the article) leads to is a one-way street.
joe g: "abiogenesis just got a bit more difficult to explain"
Zach:
Certainly the early evolution of cellular life is still not well-understood.
Not understood at all is more like it. Now things are getting even darker for the anti-ID position.
At 12:12 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g, You cited a specific article, but the author, a scientist working in the field of interest, doesn't agree with you. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish.
At 7:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Zach:
joe g, You cited a specific article, but the author, a scientist working in the field of interest, doesn't agree with you.
I take it vague accusations are the MO of evolutionists. Typical.
At 10:31 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I take it vague accusations are the MO of evolutionists. Typical."
You cite a recognized and published scientist specializing in the field of interest, certainly a valid cite to authority. Your cited authority states, "Genome evolution is a two-way street."
I have no problem with your cite.
At 11:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Data, Zach. Where is the data?
IOW "genome evolution being a two-way street" requires data to confirm it.
Is there ANY data that demonstrates that eyes (complete vision system) can be acquired by a population that never had them? No.
Is there any data that demonstrates the population(s) who lost their vision can gain it back without intelligent intervention? No.
Did the scientists provide ANY data that demonstrates the process of forming proks from euks could be reversed? No.
Assertions are fine but sooner or layer they have to be substantiated.
At 1:13 PM,
Joe G said…
OK upon further inspection I may well be way off base as to what Kurland was saying- pertaining to reversing vision loss or proks reversing the process, becoming euks.
If he is saying, as I now believe, that "Genome evolution is a two-way street", is OK by me as long as it is not bi-directional. I would also say it is more like a rotary (rounabout) with many avenues leading from it.
At 1:56 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Is there ANY data that demonstrates that eyes (complete vision system) can be acquired by a population that never had them?"
Absolutely, such data is available. The evidence comes from multiple areas of research; biology, geology, paleontology, microbiology, systematics, cladistics, embryonics, genetics, etc. The simplest to understand is the succession of fossils, but the most conclusive is the genetic data.
The Theory of Evolution
That you refuse to acknowledge the evidence has no bearing on its existence.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
At 9:01 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Is there ANY data that demonstrates that eyes (complete vision system) can be acquired by a population that never had them?"
Zach:
Absolutely, such data is available.
Nice. Another bald assertion.
Is there any experiment that would demonstrate that a vision system can arise in a population that never had one? No.
Is there ANY way to objectively test the premise (that a vision system can arise in a pop that didn't have one)? No.
IOW Zach once again demonstrates that evolutionism is based on circumstantial evidence. Evidence that can't be objectively tested.
That Zach refuses to provide anything but circumstantial evidence, evidence that can be used to infer several different possibilities has every bearing on the fact evolutionism is nonsense.
At 9:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Raevmo:
A very interesting review indeed. However, how it is trouble for endosymbiosis, I do not see at all.
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
If euks appeared first then endosymbiosis for the origins of euks is dead.
"Genomics and the Irreducible Nature of Eukaryote Cells"
C. G. Kurland, L. J. Collins, and D. Penny Science 312, 19 May 2006: 1011-1014.
Abstract: Large-scale comparative genomics in harness with proteomics has substantiated fundamental features of eukaryote cellular evolution. The evolutionary trajectory of modern eukaryotes is distinct from that of prokaryotes. Data from many sources give no direct evidence that eukaryotes evolved by genome fusion between archaea and bacteria. Comparative genomics shows that, under certain ecological settings, sequence loss and cellular simplification are common modes of evolution. Subcellular architecture of eukaryote cells is in part a physical-chemical consequence of molecular crowding; subcellular compartmentation with specialized proteomes is required for the efficient functioning of proteins.
Comparative genomics and proteomics have strengthened the view that modern eukaryote and prokaryote cells have long followed separate evolutionary trajectories. Because their cells appear simpler, prokaryotes have traditionally been considered ancestors of eukaryotes (1*4). Nevertheless, comparative genomics has confirmed a lesson from paleontology: Evolution does not proceed monotonically from the simpler to the more complex (5*9). Here, we review recent data from proteomics and genome sequences suggesting that eukaryotes are a unique primordial lineage.
Mitochondria, mitosomes, and hydrogenosomes are a related family of organelles that distinguish eukaryotes from all prokaryotes (10). Recent analyses also suggest that early eukaryotes had many introns (11, 12), and RNAs and proteins found in modern spliceosomes (13). Indeed, it seems that life-history parameters affect intron numbers (14, 15). In addition, "molecular crowding" is now recognized as an important physical-chemical factor contributing to the compartmentation of even the earliest eukaryote cells (16, 17).
Nuclei, nucleoli, Golgi apparatus, centrioles, and endoplasmic reticulum are examples of cellular signature structures (CSSs) that distinguish eukaryote cells from archaea and bacteria. Comparative genomics, aided by proteomics of CSSs such as the mitochondria (18, 19), nucleoli (20, 21), and spliceosomes (13, 22), reveals hundreds of proteins with no orthologs evident in the genomes of prokaryotes; these are the eukaryotic signature proteins (ESPs) (23, 24). The many ESPs within the subcellular structures of eukaryote cells provide landmarks to track the trajectory of eukaryote genomes from their origins. In contrast, hypotheses that attribute eukaryote origins to genome fusion between archaea and bacteria (25*30) are surprisingly uninformative about the emergence of the cellular and genomic signatures of eukaryotes (CSSs and ESPs). The failure of genome fusion to directly explain any characteristic feature of the eukaryote cell is a critical starting point for studying eukaryote origins.
At 9:19 AM,
Joe G said…
Raevmo:
What the paper is argueing is that eukaryotes are not the fusion of bateria and archaea, but rather that these three groups share a common ancestor, a "phagotrophic unicellular raptor", some of which acquired organelles by endomsymbiosis and became modern eukaryotes.
But "Fred the Raptor" was a euk!
At 11:24 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Is there any experiment that would demonstrate that a vision system can arise in a population that never had one?"
Each confirmation of the nested hierarchy adds to our confidence in the Theory of Common Descent.
joe g: "Zach once again demonstrates that evolutionism is based on circumstantial evidence. Evidence that can't be objectively tested."
Which shows you don't understand how science reaches its conclusions. Nearly all significant scientific advances were done by inference, and were contrary to 'common sense'. Galileo asserted the Earth moved. He based this assertion on his observations of other planets. He couldn't see the Earth move. Eppur si muove.
joe g: "If euks appeared first then endosymbiosis for the origins of euks is dead."
You completely ignored Raevmo's point and the conclusions of the authors that you yourself cited.
--
In 1827, an English botanist Robert Brown noticed that pollen grains suspended in water jiggled about under the lens of the microscope, following a zigzag path. Even more remarkable was the fact that pollen grains that had been stored for a century moved in the same way.
If you want an excellent example of scientific inference, read Einstein's explanation of Brownian Motion [PDF] and how his paper demonstrates the physical existence of atoms and even provides an approximation of their mass. Here's a cool Java applet illustrating the effect.
At 9:32 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Is there any experiment that would demonstrate that a vision system can arise in a population that never had one?"
Zach:
Each confirmation of the nested hierarchy adds to our confidence in the Theory of Common Descent.
Typical blather. I will take that as a resounding NO!
joe g: "Zach once again demonstrates that evolutionism is based on circumstantial evidence. Evidence that can't be objectively tested."
Zach:
Which shows you don't understand how science reaches its conclusions.
I will take my knowledge of science over yours any and every day.
BTW it was Copernicus, not Galileo, that first said the Earth moved. And BOTH were Creationists!
joe g: "If euks appeared first then endosymbiosis for the origins of euks is dead."
Zach:
You completely ignored Raevmo's point and the conclusions of the authors that you yourself cited.
And you completely ignored my response to Raevmo.
At 5:08 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Typical blather. I will take that as a resounding NO!"
I have provide evidence. I have provided cites to scientific journals. I would be happy to discuss any aspect of the evidence in detail. You seem utterly uninterested in anything but handwaving.
joe g: "And you completely ignored my response to Raevmo."
--
Raevmo: "here's what the authors have to say about the origin of mitochondria: 'Although the genomes of mitochondria are
clearly descendants of a-proteobacteria ...'"
joe g: "If euks appeared first then endosymbiosis for the origins of euks is dead."
--
That can't possibly be considered a substantive response.
joe g, in all honesty, you just don't come across as having thought carefully about your positions, or are willing to consider that you might be wrong. This is essential to any rational scientific discussion.
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Typical blather. I will take that as a resounding NO!"
Zach:
I have provide evidence.
Lol! The ONLY "evidence that a vision system can arise in a population that never had one is that we see populations without one and we see populations with.
Zach:
I would be happy to discuss any aspect of the evidence in detail.
Detail? Evolutionism totally lacks detail! THAT is the main issue- there aren't any details, just a lot of smoke & mirrors.
From the paper- including what Raevmo excluded:
Although the genomes of mitochondria are clearly descendants of -proteobacteria (45, 46), proteomics and comparative genomics identify relatively few proteins in yeast and human mitochondria descended from the ancestral bacterium (17, 18, 36, 47).
It goes on to say:
Several hundred genes have been transferred from the ancestral bacterium to the nuclear genome, but most proteins from the original endosymbiont have been lost.
Is there any data that demonstrates genes can get transferred INTO a nucleus? No.
At 1:37 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The ONLY "evidence that a vision system can arise in a population that never had one is that we see populations without one and we see populations with."
And, of course, that is false. Photosensitivity comes in many varieties including the humble lightspot. Your persistent handwaving prevents you from perceiving the evidence.
At 2:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Is there any data that demonstrates genes can get transferred INTO a nucleus?"
(It's not that you don't know; it's your absolute certainty.)
Yes, genes can be transferred into a nucleus, e.g. that is how HIV infects cells. Most such retroviruses infect somatic cells, but they can also infect germline cells. These endogenous retroviruses are found in a variety of organisms. And guess what! They form a nested hierarchy of descent since they originally infected their hosts genomes.
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Is there any data that demonstrates genes can get transferred INTO a nucleus?"
Zach:
Yes, genes can be transferred into a nucleus, e.g. that is how HIV infects cells.
A virus is VERY different from genes. IF you knew ANYTHING about biology you would have known that.
Now if Zach thinks that genes can get transferred into the nucleus I ask him to present the peer-reviewed data to substantiate his claim.
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "The ONLY "evidence that a vision system can arise in a population that never had one is that we see populations without one and we see populations with."
Zach:
And, of course, that is false.
Then present the scientific data or shut up. However I know you cannot because I know it doesn't exist.
Zach:
Photosensitivity comes in many varieties including the humble lightspot.
And that does NOT explain the origin of photosensitivity or the "lightspot".
Zach:
Your persistent handwaving prevents you from perceiving the evidence.
Reality demonstrates it is Zach who is flailing away. Present the scientific data Zach- IF you can.
At 11:08 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "A virus is VERY different from genes. IF you knew ANYTHING about biology you would have known that."
Sigh. Journal Genetics for "virus" and "genes" returns the following articles:
Geneticists Find Similarities Between Ancient Viral Genes in Humans and the AIDS Virus...
In many viral genes, both recombination and positive selection may be operating ...
We infer the population genetics and epidemic history of HIV-1 group O from viral gene sequence data and evaluate the effect of variable evolutionary...
While positive selection has been found in the viral genes that code for proteins that interact with the host immune system ...
The viral integrase gene...
Google Scholar returns 16,800 articles for the exact match "viral genes"
joe g: "genes can get transferred into the nucleus I ask him to present the peer-reviewed data to substantiate his claim."
Human endogenous retroviruses: from infectious elements to human genes: "a genomewide screening for human retroviral genes with coding capacity has revealed 16 fully coding envelope genes"
There are hundreds of such studies. Nine percent of the human genome is retroviral in origin. Some are still fully active genes. There are entire medical institutes to studying the subject.
Institute of Molecular Virology: "Research focus... Activation of retroviral genes by environmental factors"
At 1:53 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Photosensitivity comes in many varieties including the humble lightspot.
joe g: "And that does NOT explain the origin of photosensitivity or the "lightspot".
It answers your specific binary assertion that the only evidence is populations with sight and without. This type oversimplification of the evidence has been the source of most of your confusion.
In fact, there are examples in nature of all sorts of light-sensitive systems, including a variety of intermediaries as would be predicted by an evolutionary process.
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "A virus is VERY different from genes. IF you knew ANYTHING about biology you would have known that."
Zach:
Sigh. Journal Genetics for "virus" and "genes" returns the following articles:
Geneticists Find Similarities Between Ancient Viral Genes in Humans and the AIDS Virus...
So what?
In many viral genes, both recombination and positive selection may be operating ...
We infer the population genetics and epidemic history of HIV-1 group O from viral gene sequence data and evaluate the effect of variable evolutionary...
While positive selection has been found in the viral genes that code for proteins that interact with the host immune system ...
Again that a virus can insert itself into a nucleus does NOT mean just any genetic material can.
Can Zach even follow along? The evidencve sez NO.
Now Zach, stay focused and provide the peer-reviewed data that would demonstrate genes from mitochondria can be transferred into the nucleus. There is a huge difference between a virus and the genes coming from mito.
At 8:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel: Photosensitivity comes in many varieties including the humble lightspot.
joe g: "And that does NOT explain the origin of photosensitivity or the "lightspot".
Zach:
It answers your specific binary assertion that the only evidence is populations with sight and without.
It doesn't answer anything. It actually does nothing at all except to show how desparate you are.
Zach:
This type oversimplification of the evidence has been the source of most of your confusion.
That is all YOU do Zach- oversimplify the evidence.
Zach:
In fact, there are examples in nature of all sorts of light-sensitive systems, including a variety of intermediaries as would be predicted by an evolutionary process.
Again that does NOTHING to demonstrate HOW the light-sensitive systems arose. And evolutionitwits have NO idea.
At 2:05 PM,
Zachriel said…
First,
joe g: "Now if Zach thinks that genes can get transferred into the nucleus I ask him to present the peer-reviewed data to substantiate his claim."
I provided such peer-reviewed cites. Then,
joe g: "Again that a virus can insert itself into a nucleus does NOT mean just any genetic material can."
That wasn't your original claim.
joe g: "Again that does NOTHING to demonstrate HOW the light-sensitive systems arose."
Please carefully watch exactly what you claim and exactly what my points are. You claimed the vision was either/or. But in fact, the Theory of Evolution posits light-sensitive organs evolved from simpler versions and points to extant intermediates with varying levels of visual acuity.
At 7:27 PM,
Joe G said…
For the record:
We are talking about endosymbiosis and mitochondria transferring some of its genes to the nucleus of its host. A virus infecting a cell's nucleus is NOT the same as mitochondria transferring some of its genes to the nucleus. Anyone who tries to conflate the two is a dishonest loser.
joe g: "Again that a virus can insert itself into a nucleus does NOT mean just any genetic material can."
Zach:
That wasn't your original claim.
IF you could follow a discussion you would see that it was. After all we are talking about endosymbiosis and endo proponents claim that the resulting mitos transferred some of their genetic material to the nucleus of its host.
joe g: "Again that does NOTHING to demonstrate HOW the light-sensitive systems arose."
Zach:
Please carefully watch exactly what you claim and exactly what my points are. You claimed the vision was either/or.
No one has demonstrated anything but.
Zach:
But in fact, the Theory of Evolution posits light-sensitive organs evolved from simpler versions and points to extant intermediates with varying levels of visual acuity.
I KNOW what it posits. I also know it can't substantiate the claim with actual data- except to say "we see varying levels of "vision" therefor evolution did it."
Sheer and utter nonsense.
At 8:01 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "After all we are talking about endosymbiosis and endo proponents claim that the resulting mitos transferred some of their genetic material to the nucleus of its host."
Mitochondria closely resemble bacterial genomes. They are extranuclear.
I'm not sure what you are trying to assert, or what you claim others say. Please provide a relevant cite.
joe g: "I KNOW what it posits. I also know it can't substantiate the claim with actual data- except to say 'we see varying levels of "vision" therefor evolution did it.'"
As anyone (other than yourself) can see, you made a binary claim that was unsubstantiated and creates a false view of the evidence. Vision is not either/or, but has a wide range of variation and complexity. As you are incapable of accepting even the simplest observations, it is impossible to advance the discussion of how these various systems may be related.
At 9:46 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "After all we are talking about endosymbiosis and endo proponents claim that the resulting mitos transferred some of their genetic material to the nucleus of its host."
Zach:
Mitochondria closely resemble bacterial genomes.
Not all do. But that is irrelevant.
Zach:
I'm not sure what you are trying to assert, or what you claim others say. Please provide a relevant cite.
The paper sez that mito transferred some of its genes to the nucleus. TRY to follow along:
Although the genomes of mitochondria are clearly descendants of -proteobacteria (45, 46), proteomics and comparative genomics identify relatively few proteins in yeast and human mitochondria descended from the ancestral bacterium (17, 18, 36, 47).
It goes on to say:
Several hundred genes have been transferred from the ancestral bacterium to the nuclear genome, but most proteins from the original endosymbiont have been lost.
There isn't any data that demonstrates mitos can transfer their genes to the nucleus. Never been observed.
joe g: "I KNOW what it posits. I also know it can't substantiate the claim with actual data- except to say 'we see varying levels of "vision" therefor evolution did it.'"
Zach:
As anyone (other than yourself) can see, you made a binary claim that was unsubstantiated and creates a false view of the evidence.
As EVERYONE can see YOU are trying to distract from the FACT that you canNOT provide any data that demonstrates ANY vision system can "evolve" from a population that never had one.
And you definitely can't demonstrate that even a "simple" vision system could "evolve" into a more complex vision system via random mutations culled by any selection process.
Zach:
Vision is not either/or, but has a wide range of variation and complexity.
Either an individual or population HAS a vision system or it does not. It does NOT matter to what degree it exists. Either it exists or it does not.
As it appears Zach is incapable of following a discussion and obviously will never substantiate any claim made by evolutionism, why even waste my bandwidth?
At 6:05 AM,
Lukas said…
Zach:
Mitochondria closely resemble bacterial genomes.
Joe G:
Not all do. But that is irrelevant.
Really? the fact that mtDNAs contain many unique bacterial features even operons such as one corresponding to the {alpha} operon in E coli - just a coincidence?.
I also want to make it clear that the odd and small mt genomes contain a subset of the genes found in large mtDNAs such as Reclinomonas americana. They are clearly derived from larger bacteria like mtDNAs.
Joe G:
There isn't any data that demonstrates mitos can transfer their genes to the nucleus. Never been observed.
There is actually vast amounts of evidence that mtDNA is routinely transferred to the nucleus - you can find whole recently transferred mitochondrial genomes and various fragments in the nuclear DNA of most eukaryotes. The mechanisms for this transfer is also well understood.
You can also find mitochondrial genes that have been transferred to the nucleus within lineages - Ribosomal Protein S10 in various plant species and subunit 2 of cytochrome c oxidase (COX2) in legumes. So some close relatives have a mitochondrially encoded and some a nuclear copy - if you accept the common descent of legumes then gene transfer from the mitochondria to the nucleus has occurred.
In the case of COX2 in legumes some species have functioning copies in both genomes - a clear intermediate step in this process.
At 10:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Zach:
Mitochondria closely resemble bacterial genomes.
Joe G:
Not all do. But that is irrelevant.
Lukas:
Really? the fact that mtDNAs contain many unique bacterial features even operons such as one corresponding to the {alpha} operon in E coli - just a coincidence?.
It very well could be. By this logic the fact that organisms have the appearance of design is enough to say that ID is correct.
Lukas:
I also want to make it clear that the odd and small mt genomes contain a subset of the genes found in large mtDNAs such as Reclinomonas americana. They are clearly derived from larger bacteria like mtDNAs.
Just more of "it looks like..." argument.
There still isn't any data that demonstrates proks can engulf proks and form an endosymbiotic relationship.
Joe G:
There isn't any data that demonstrates mitos can transfer their genes to the nucleus. Never been observed.
Lukas:
There is actually vast amounts of evidence that mtDNA is routinely transferred to the nucleus - you can find whole recently transferred mitochondrial genomes and various fragments in the nuclear DNA of most eukaryotes. The mechanisms for this transfer is also well understood.
Do you have a peer-reviewed citation for this? I would like to read it. Please do not present a citation that speculates that has happened, I am looking for a citation which demonstrates it.
Thanks and thanks for the info...
(I just downloaded and will read the McKenzie paper on plants)
At 11:46 AM,
Lukas said…
Joe G:
It very well could be. By this logic the fact that organisms have the appearance of design is enough to say that ID is correct.
It's not just appearing similar - that is indeed not enough to prove anything.
This is a case features of a hypothesised ancestors Sharing unique features with their hypopthesised descendants. This is specific data in support of a specific hypothesis. You can try and dismiss inconvenient facts but they wont go away.
Joe G:
There still isn't any data that demonstrates proks can engulf proks and form an endosymbiotic relationship.
Apart from those euks that engulf proks today and form endosymbiotic relationships. Relationships of this kind typically occur in sea creatures such as worms and snails around hydrothermal vents, methane hydrates and whale falls:
Chemosynthetic endosymbioses: adaptations to oxic–anoxic interfaces
Frank J. Stewart et. al.
Trends in Microbiology Volume 13, Issue 9 , September 2005, Pages 439-448
Link
Joe G:
Do you have a peer-reviewed citation for this? I would like to read it. Please do not present a citation that speculates that has happened, I am looking for a citation which demonstrates it.
OK:
Intracellular gene transfer in action: Dual transcription and multiple silencings of nuclear and mitochondrial cox2 genes in legumes
Keith L. Adams et. al.
PNAS Vol. 96, Issue 24, 13863-13868, November 23, 1999
Link
Adaptations Required for Mitochondrial Import following Mitochondrial to Nucleus Gene Transfer of Ribosomal Protein S10
Monika W. Murcha
Plant Physiology, August 2005, Vol. 138, pp. 2134–2144
Link
On the mechanism of gene transfer:
Origin, evolution and genetic effects of nuclear insertions of organelle DNA
Dario Leister
Trends in Genetics Volume 21, Issue 12 , December 2005, Pages 655-663
Link
At 8:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe G:
It very well could be. By this logic the fact that organisms have the appearance of design is enough to say that ID is correct.
Lukas:
It's not just appearing similar - that is indeed not enough to prove anything.
But that is about all endosymbiosis is.
Joe G:
There still isn't any data that demonstrates proks can engulf proks and form an endosymbiotic relationship.
Lukas:
Apart from those euks that engulf proks today and form endosymbiotic relationships.
LoL! Lukas euks engulfing proks is NOT the same as proks engulfing proks and forming a symbiotic relationship. The size difference is the key.
Thanks again for the links. From reading the McKenzie paper:
"Higher Plant Mitochondria"
Sally Mackenzie
a,1
and Lee McIntosh
and following up I have come to better understand the inference that mito genes can be transferred to the nucleus. And the data has only confirmed the design inference. Does anyone really think that this can occur via blind chance?
Thanks again for the links. I will read those as time permits. However I see that I am corrected in that mtDNA can be transferred to different parts of the cell, including the nucleus.
For example I now understand that the nucleus controls how many mitos the cell has. And I have a better understanding of the command and control center of cells. And I know that anyone proposing this came about via blind chance and some selection process should be branded as a scientific fraud.
This is great. The more I learn about biology the better ID fits what we observe.
At 10:59 AM,
Lukas said…
Lukas:
It's not just appearing similar - that is indeed not enough to prove anything.
Joe G:
But that is about all endosymbiosis is.
Lukas:
When presented with unique features shared between mitos and proks, all you can respond is with baseless assertions – address the evidence or admit you can’t.
Lukas:
Apart from those euks that engulf proks today and form endosymbiotic relationships.
Joe G:
LoL! Lukas euks engulfing proks is NOT the same as proks engulfing proks and forming a symbiotic relationship. The size difference is the key.
Lukas:
My mistake. Here is an example of a prok engulfing a prok – multiple times! Size is no problem:
Secondary (gamma-Proteobacteria) endosymbionts infect the primary (beta-Proteobacteria) endosymbionts of mealybugs multiple times and coevolve with their hosts.
Thao ML, Gullan PJ, Baumann P.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Jul;68(7):3190-7.
link
It is difficult to make assumptions about the size of proks. The largest (Thiomargarita namibiensis) is around 750 micrometers in diameter whereas a small bacteria is around 0.3 long (Rickettsia) and a typical bacteria is around 6 micrometers long with many being larger. Predatory bacteria like Bdellovibrio easy fit inside and divide inside their bacterial prey.
Joe G:
and following up I have come to better understand the inference that mito genes can be transferred to the nucleus. And the data has only confirmed the design inference.
Lukas:
So disproving your objections leads you to cling to what you believe rather than follow the evidence.
Joe G:
Does anyone really think that this can occur via blind chance?
Lukas:
Unless there has been an intelligence tinkering with the genome of the legumes very recently then that is the only reasonable possibility.
So in summary: not a single one of your objections has turned out to be correct and you have failed to counter any of the evidence for endosymbiosis.
Post a Comment
<< Home