How does natural selection determine which mutations remain and which do not?

[pshun2404]

When microbial conversations get physical...Gemma Reguera

When microbial conversations get physical

In the Abstract Reguera says “This is based on experimental evidence on the microbial emission and response to three physical signals: sound waves, electromagnetic radiation, and electric currents. These signals propagate rapidly and, even at very low intensities, they provide useful mechanisms when a rapid response is required. I also make some suggestions for promising future research avenues that could bring novel and unsuspected insights into the physical nature of microbial signaling networks.”

Also "Production of sound waves by bacterial cells and the response of bacterial cells to sound." Matsuhashi M, Pankrushina AN, Takeuchi S, Ohshima H, Miyoi H, Endoh K, Murayama K, Watanabe H, Endo S, Tobi M, Mano Y, Hyodo M, Kobayashi T, Kaneko T, Otani S, Yoshimura S, Harata A, Sawada T J

Gen Appl Microbiol. 1998 Feb; 44(1):49-55.

IEEE Xplore Full-Text PDF:

Do Cells Make Noise?

Vibrating Cells Disclose Their Ailments

This one was really cool....

Fels D. Cellular communication through light. PLOS One. 2009;4:1–8

Cellular Communication through Light

Clearly our understanding is expanding beyond a mere mechanistic materialist venue. In fact new studies at Stanford by Marcus Covert and Stephan Quake are revealing that even the same types of cell respond differently to the same stimulus....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Researcher Dr. Bruce Lipton, (Ph.D. Biologist) tells us...

“Membrane IMPs can be functionally subdivided into two classes: receptors and effectors. Receptors are input devices that respond to environmental signals. Effectors are output devices that activate cellular processes. A family of processor proteins, located in the cytoplasm beneath the membrane, serve to link signal-receiving receptors with action-producing effectors.

Receptors are molecular “antennas” that recognize environmental signals. Some receptor antennas extend inward from the membrane’s cytoplasmic face. These receptors “read” the internal milieu and provide awareness of cytoplasmic conditions. Other receptors extending from the cell’s outer surface provide awareness of external environmental signals.

Conventional biomedical sciences hold that environmental “information” can only be carried by the substance of molecules (Science 1999, 284:79-109). According to this notion, receptors only recognize “signals” that physically complement their surface features. This materialistic belief is maintained even though it has been amply demonstrated that protein receptors respond to vibrational frequencies. Through a process known as electro-conformational coupling (Tsong, Trends in Biochem. Sci. 1989, 14:89-92), resonant vibrational energy fields can alter the balance of charges in a protein. In a harmonic energy field, receptors will change their conformation. Consequently, membrane receptors respond to both physical and energetic environmental information.”

-_- yes, cells respond to physical vibrations... but they don't give them off in patterns to communicate with each other. I never said cells respond to chemicals alone, only that they have communication with each other that way. Obviously, cells have to respond to touch and puncture of their cell walls to not die from minor injury or crush each other from haphazard replication that pays no heed to the available space.

 

[xianghua]

Not suggesting 3 neutral parts in a row or something. More like just 1. Most of the structures to do with senses have some tie in with basic cell senses, so there is a basic function with them the whole time. Smell, for example, is an extension of cells being able to react to chemicals that touch their surfaces.

again: what is the meaning of an olfactory receptor by itself?

 

[Speedwell]

again: what is the meaning of an olfactory receptor by itself?

An olfactory receptor is is any cell which can detect the presence of airborn chemicals.

 

[pshun2404]

-_- yes, cells respond to physical vibrations... but they don't give them off in patterns to communicate with each other. I never said cells respond to chemicals alone, only that they have communication with each other that way. Obviously, cells have to respond to touch and puncture of their cell walls to not die from minor injury or crush each other from haphazard replication that pays no heed to the available space.

Actually they do...each cell vibrates and sends out vibrations into the surrounding environment. We do not know as of yet whether or not they respond to these from others (which they may) but we do know that they respond to frequencies (which is what I had said)...

 

[Motherofkittens]

I'm not insisting on anything. So you are saying that if whether a "mutation is passed on to subsequent generations is determined by that mutation’s effect on the organism’s ability to reproduce."

So if it is helpful (in this way) it is passed on? And if it is not "it usually ends with that organism as it fails to pass on its genes." Right?

That is pretty basic and simplistic though (although correct enough for a quick and easy understanding for a lay person). I'd suggest you read some biology books and studies to get a thorough and detailed explanation. There is a lot out there. Which you should know, if it is true what other posters are saying about your 30 years experience.

I am not quite sure I am understanding your questions. But even if I did, it seems like you want more information than a christian subforum is likely to give you. If you are able to help me understand what you are asking, I will try to direct you to the answers you are seeking.

 

[pshun2404]

That is pretty basic and simplistic though (although correct enough for a quick and easy understanding for a lay person). I'd suggest you read some biology books and studies to get a thorough and detailed explanation. There is a lot out there. Which you should know, if it is true what other posters are saying about your 30 years experience.

I am not quite sure I am understanding your questions. But even if I did, it seems like you want more information than a christian subforum is likely to give you. If you are able to help me understand what you are asking, I will try to direct you to the answers you are seeking.

I know...some people cannot mentally process it...it is easy. It was suggested to me elsewhere that mutations stay because of natural selection and most here disagree (I am fine with that) and secondly I asked if anyone knew if there were enzymes, and other cellular mechanisms or processes, involved in determining which ones succeed and which ones fail (and a whole host cannot grasp or process this simple and quite logical question...it is like a cog gets stuck) and apparently no one knows of any. Do you?

Secondly I have read many and they do not address this issue. Instead they speak of

a) how mutations occur
b) the different kinds
c) how inheritance works, and
d) how these do or do not effect the cell or what it eventually produces (which is largely theoretical)

Many here however have given some great answers (very knowledgeable) defending their position that natural selection is not the determining factor (I am fine with that since I also did not agree). It seems the rest just mimic variations of a-d...and just cannot think outside the box they have been trained in and ask new questions, or come up with additional possible information (thinking a-d answers the second question). Do you? Or will you insist (as I have done over and over tirelessly) I repeat it again? Just in case here it goes one last time...

Are there any other enzymes, or cellular processes or mechanisms involved in determining which ones stick and which ones are discarded or re-written?

 

[xianghua]

An olfactory receptor is is any cell which can detect the presence of airborn chemicals.

and how it will help the creature without the other parts?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so are you saying that the olfactory system evolved without any advantage every step?

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I think I was clear enough in my examples. If you don't get what my points are going by what I said, I don't think there's any point in trying to make it even simpler.

It's clear that it's an exercise in futility. You have shown in the past more then enough times that you simply aren't interested in learning anything.

You have your beliefs and you'll clinge to them no matter what.

 

[DogmaHunter]

true. but in this case the chance to get about 3 parts via neutral evolution will be almost the same like the chance to evolve it in a single step. extremely low.

The chance of evolving anything particular random trait is always low.
Which doesn't matter, because there is no purpose or goal for evolution.

A sense of smell wasn't "planned" or "intended". The probability of such a trait is only meaningfull when it IS planned or intended.

Having said that.... probability is also only meaningfull when placed in context of amount of trials.

If you have 1 chance in a trillion, then it's a ridiculously low chance.
But if you get 100 trillion trials, not only will it be inevitable... it will, on average, happen 100 times.

Low probility events become inevitable, given enough trials.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dogma said “When wings started evolving, they weren't used for flight. That only came much later”

But I see this as an interpretation only.

It's not. It's, in fact, a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
We KNOW and OBSERVE creatures today, birds, that have wings which are incapable of flying.
These wings are used for other purposes.

Since a wing capable of flight, is a highly specialised wing, the only reasonable conclusion is that when wings first evolved, they weren't used for flight. Flight-capable wings are a specific sub-set of wings. Not the other way round.

We see earliest Avians had wings

No kidding.
Could it perhaps be that flight-capable wings are kind of a pre-requisite for flight?

and most of the fossil remains are of those that could not fly, but because they could not fly this increased the likelihood of their becoming fossilized.

That seriously warped logic, right there.

Those that could fly, not being caught in the covering over of the mud slide, cooling magma, earthquake subduction, or watery sediment that caused fossilization, are not represented and therefore the evidence is tainted and not reliable.

Newsflash: when flying creatures die, they don't remain in the air, but fall to the ground... and then their bodies go through the exact same process as dead land-walking animals.

In other words, by this evidence alone we cannot make a sound judgment because fossils only represent a tiny amount of the examples that existed.[/Lquote]

We don't need any fossils to conclude that flight is an evolved trait that is preceeded by the evolution of flight-less wings

Thus “they weren't used for flight. That only came much later” is an assumption based conclusion (not a fact).

It is not. It's logic 101.

Finally we do not see “When wings started evolving” as the earliest avians already have wings (for whatever purpose be it for balance, swimming, flying, whatever...)

Avians have wings by definition.
They wouldn't be flying, if they didn't already have wings capable of flying.
When avians evolved, wings already existed.

So sorry Dogma...this statement is simply the narrative that has been attached to explain things through that lens....

No.

 

[tas8831]

I wrote the following on Oct. 4 in this thread:


"Given your history, I suspect that at some point you are going to spring upon us some fringe 'reputable scientist' who claims otherwise and side with him or her regardless of their actual evidence. "

Observe:

Researcher Dr. Bruce Lipton, (Ph.D. Biologist) tells us...

Ah, a PhD biologist - must be a reputable scientist.

He tells us this:

“Membrane IMPs can be functionally subdivided into two classes: receptors and effectors. Receptors are input devices that respond to environmental signals. Effectors are output devices that activate cellular processes. A family of processor proteins, located in the cytoplasm beneath the membrane, serve to link signal-receiving receptors with action-producing effectors.

Receptors are molecular “antennas” that recognize environmental signals. Some receptor antennas extend inward from the membrane’s cytoplasmic face. These receptors “read” the internal milieu and provide awareness of cytoplasmic conditions. Other receptors extending from the cell’s outer surface provide awareness of external environmental signals.

Conventional biomedical sciences hold that environmental “information” can only be carried by the substance of molecules (Science 1999, 284:79-109). According to this notion, receptors only recognize “signals” that physically complement their surface features. This materialistic belief is maintained even though it has been amply demonstrated that protein receptors respond to vibrational frequencies. Through a process known as electro-conformational coupling (Tsong, Trends in Biochem. Sci. 1989, 14:89-92), resonant vibrational energy fields can alter the balance of charges in a protein. In a harmonic energy field, receptors will change their conformation. Consequently, membrane receptors respond to both physical and energetic environmental information.”

And I say... So what?

Vibrating a receptor might activate it despite it not binding a ligand and therefore.... what?

By vibrating a plate with particles on it, I can make a cool design. Therefore, the particles have souls? I really don't get why you bring this up.

And isn't it funny how pshun chastises others for not staying on topic....

 

[tas8831]

Dogma said “When wings started evolving, they weren't used for flight. That only came much later”

But I see this as an interpretation only.

I don't.

The earliest evidence (fossil) we have for feathers is on obviously flightless dinosaurs. They had claws still.

We see earliest Avians had wings ...

LOL!


We also see that the earliest primates had pentadactyl limbs, paired mammae, and external testes.

We also see that the earliest Ford automobiles have 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine.

What point did you think you made?

 

[tas8831]

No kidding.
Could it perhaps be that flight-capable wings are kind of a pre-requisite for flight?

And also for being considered to be a member of class Aves?

 

[tas8831]

... I asked if anyone knew if there were enzymes, and other cellular mechanisms or processes, involved in determining which ones succeed and which ones fail (and a whole host cannot grasp or process this simple and quite logical question...it is like a cog gets stuck) and apparently no one knows of any.

And the whole host explained to you the naivete of that question, and wondered why someone claiming 30 years of science study and experience would even ask so uninformed a question.

Why would an 'enzyme' be involved in choosing mutations?

Just because you could not understand/did not like the replies you got is no reason to make such offensive and ridiculous implications, premised ENTIRELY on your ignorance of how genetic mechanisms and selection works.

 

[tas8831]

Natural selection doesn't "decide" anything. It's a process, not a sentient being that makes decisions.

Those that live and reproduce, spread their (potentially mutated) genes.
Those that die and/or don't reproduce, don't spread their (potentially mutated) genes.

It really is that simple.

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.

In another thread he is claiming that none of us could handle his 'questions.'

Amazing...

 

[tas8831]

and how it will help the creature without the other parts?

How did Jesus design and create the olfactory receptor?

Lay out the means of production , please.

No analogies.

 

[tas8831]

Clearly our understanding is expanding beyond a mere mechanistic materialist venue.

How, exactly, are " sound waves, electromagnetic radiation, and electric currents" not within the "materialistic, mechanistic venue"?

 

[tas8831]

impossible. since a minimal sense of smell need at least olfactory receptor, a wiring to a speciel part in the brain, and a process mechanism in the brain that can interpret the signal from the olfactory receptor. so a part of this system will not work.

Tell me about this 'special part of the brain.'

What needs to be special about it?

How does the part of the brain that receives input from an olfactory receptor differ from the part that receives input from the photoreceptors (other than the fact that the olfactory cortex is phylogenetically very old)?

 

[pshun2404]

It's not. It's, in fact, a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
We KNOW and OBSERVE creatures today, birds, that have wings which are incapable of flying.
These wings are used for other purposes.

Since a wing capable of flight, is a highly specialised wing, the only reasonable conclusion is that when wings first evolved, they weren't used for flight. Flight-capable wings are a specific sub-set of wings. Not the other way round.

No kidding.
Could it perhaps be that flight-capable wings are kind of a pre-requisite for flight?

That seriously warped logic, right there.

Newsflash: when flying creatures die, they don't remain in the air, but fall to the ground... and then their bodies go through the exact same process as dead land-walking animals.

Yes wings specialized for flight are a subset of wings but we should not assume they evolved later (the few fossil remains are a minute representative sample mostly from those that could not fly and avoid landslides, floods, and earthquake subduction, etc.).

And yes most animals do die and remain on the surface till they rot, and some others are covered over enhancing the likelihood of fossilization. No warped logic whatsoever.