Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,886 Year: 4,143/9,624 Month: 1,014/974 Week: 341/286 Day: 62/40 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 75 of 90 (50375)
08-13-2003 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by MisterOpus1
08-13-2003 11:05 AM


If you are talking about hox genes what you need is a molecular or developmental biologist, not a microbiologist.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about it being purely phenotype changes. Obviously in most cases every cell has the same genotype and the only difference is in the patterns of gene expression and the resulting protein complement (excluding environmental factors such as position and signals). The fact that the expression of the genes specific to a cell lineage can be drastically affected by changes in either regulatory proteins or regulatory DNA sequences does not mean that the specific protein does not have to evolve in the first place but there is no need for it to have evolved for that specific purpose.
Looking at muscles for example, the actin myosin arrangement in muscles is very specific and highly organised. Yet both actin and myosin proteins are found in non-muscle cells doing very different things, ie being intermediate filaments or acting as transporter proteins.
The main problem I saw in the quoted post was the idea of a loss of function. It may be true that the few aa substitutions described caused the loss of a specific function but that does not neccessarily mean that the protein is incapable of any function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-13-2003 11:05 AM MisterOpus1 has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 81 of 90 (51831)
08-22-2003 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by MisterOpus1
08-22-2003 11:23 AM


Well for a start phagocytosis is seen all the time, it is how amoebas ingest food. I assume your interlocutor means 'endosymbiosis' in which case he is still arguably wrong see
Yagita K, Matias RR, Yasuda T, Natividad FF, Enriquez GL, Endo T.
Acanthamoeba sp. from the Philippines: electron microscopy studies on naturally occurring bacterial symbionts.
Parasitol Res. 1995;81(2):98-102.
which clearly has a gram negative bacteria living in its cytoplasm and neither of which can be cultured successfully independently. If what he means is 'no one has observed an organism being phagocytosed and subsequently become an organelle' then he is probably right but that doesn't mean it hasn't ever happened, indeed there are numerous examples, such as this one in acanthamoeba, where it clearly has happened and the endosymbiont is still clearly distinguishable, in a way mitochondria arguably no longer are.
You should also ask him to start citing things properly 'a paper from MMBR in 1997' just doesn't cut it. I've tracked it down now it is
MICROBIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REVIEWS,
Dec. 1997, p. 456—502 Vol. 61, No. 4
Archaea and the Prokaryote-to-Eukaryote Transition
JAMES R. BROWN1 AND W. FORD DOOLITTLE
The sentence immediately preceding the one he quotes states that "bacteria living intracellularly
in a different bacterial species have been reported".
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-22-2003 11:23 AM MisterOpus1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-22-2003 5:01 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 84 of 90 (52280)
08-26-2003 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by MisterOpus1
08-25-2003 6:31 PM


The minimal genomes paper is
Mushegian AR, Koonin EV.
A minimal gene set for cellular life derived by comparison of complete bacterial genomes.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Sep 17;93(19):10268-73.
The recently sequenced genome of the parasitic bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium contains only 468 identified protein-coding genes that have been dubbed a minimal gene complement [Fraser, C.M., Gocayne, J.D., White, O., Adams, M.D., Clayton, R.A., et al. (1995) Science 270, 397-403]. Although the M. genitalium gene complement is indeed the smallest among known cellular life forms, there is no evidence that it is the minimal self-sufficient gene set. To derive such a set, we compared the 468 predicted M. genitalium protein sequences with the 1703 protein sequences encoded by the other completely sequenced small bacterial genome, that of Haemophilus influenzae. M. genitalium and H. influenzae belong to two ancient bacterial lineages, i.e., Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, respectively. Therefore, the genes that are conserved in these two bacteria are almost certainly essential for cellular function. It is this category of genes that is most likely to approximate the minimal gene set. We found that 240 M. genitalium genes have orthologs among the genes of H. influenzae. This collection of genes falls short of comprising the minimal set as some enzymes responsible for intermediate steps in essential pathways are missing. The apparent reason for this is the phenomenon that we call nonorthologous gene displacement when the same function is fulfilled by nonorthologous proteins in two organisms. We identified 22 nonorthologous displacements and supplemented the set of orthologs with the respective M. genitalium genes. After examining the resulting list of 262 genes for possible functional redundancy and for the presence of apparently parasite-specific genes, 6 genes were removed. We suggest that the remaining 256 genes are close to the minimal gene set that is necessary and sufficient to sustain the existence of a modern-type cell. Most of the proteins encoded by the genes from the minimal set have eukaryotic or archaeal homologs but seven key proteins of DNA replication do not. We speculate that the last common ancestor of the three primary kingdoms had an RNA genome. Possibilities are explored to further reduce the minimal set to model a primitive cell that might have existed at a very early stage of life evolution.
The important thing to note is that that minimal genome is for a modern cell. The authors actually discuss a number of areas where a more primitive cell might have, and indeed suggests that the last common ancestor(LCA) of the prokaryote, eukaryotes and archaea may have had an RNA based genome.
On a technical point the minimal size the authors arrive at is 318Kb below even your opponents lower figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MisterOpus1, posted 08-25-2003 6:31 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 89 of 90 (153024)
10-26-2004 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Bob
10-26-2004 9:56 AM


Re: DNA
Hi Bob,
Since this thread is over a year old, or rather since the last post was more than a year ago, you probably won't get much mileage out of posting to it. Maybe you should try a 'proposed new topic' about your particular beliefs.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Bob, posted 10-26-2004 9:56 AM Bob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024