Answering any questions on Evolution

[Zaius137]

Have you read Premo and Hublin's work, just as a starter?

Why don’t you present that little chestnut so I am clear on your point?

 

[Guy1]

Beauty is determined by the Golden Ratio.
That has been around even before there was life.
If you look at the spiral you see the Golden Ratio.

Congratulations. You've made an argument to support the existance of Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. (Points if anyone here gets the joke.)

 

[NailsII]

Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.

Sorry my friend if you resemble this saying so the saying you are.

Maybe I'd take you seriously if you found a research paper which shows that non-theists are indeed corrupt, or even more likely to be immoral people.
As we both know, non-theists are extremely under-represented as inmates of the American penal system (jusy for starters) - so I might suggest that your biblical quote is not just wrong, but horribly wrong.

 

[Davian]

Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.

Sorry my friend if you resemble this saying so the saying you are.

What that saying resembles is something the con man says to the mark.

 

[Criada]

wrong thread, sorry

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Hi,

I'm an atheist and a genetic/microbiological scientist and because this is a Christian forum I've opened this thread so anyone who wishes to know more about Evolution or my beliefs or why I hold them can ask me questions accordingly.

I would however like a respectful debate, but feel free to counteract anything I say if you disagree. I will try my hardest to remain respectful. Thanks

OK people, ask away.

​

Apart from mitochondria, what organs of eucaryote cells have their own DNA and reproduce independently of the primary DNA in the nucleus?

And, are there any studies, theories, or wild conjectures as to how mitochondria are related to prokaryotes. I.e. do we have any idea which lineage(s?) of bacteria or archaea became mitochondria, and what do the relatives of mitochondria look like?

 

[sfs]

Apart from mitochondria, what organs of eucaryote cells have their own DNA and reproduce independently of the primary DNA in the nucleus?

Chloroplasts, in algae and plants, and their descendents, the apicoplasts, in apicomplexans (e.g. malaria parasites).

And, are there any studies, theories, or wild conjectures as to how mitochondria are related to prokaryotes. I.e. do we have any idea which lineage(s?) of bacteria or archaea became mitochondria, and what do the relatives of mitochondria look like?

Yes, there have been a number of studies. Mitochondria appear to be related to alphaproteobacteria; this paper attempts to trace their relationship more precisely.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Chloroplasts, in algae and plants, and their descendents, the apicoplasts, in apicomplexans (e.g. malaria parasites).

Yes, there have been a number of studies. Mitochondria appear to be related to alphaproteobacteria; this paper attempts to trace their relationship more precisely.

Thank you.

 

[serge546]

And, are there any studies, theories, or wild conjectures as to how mitochondria are related to prokaryotes. I.e. do we have any idea which lineage(s?) of bacteria or archaea became mitochondria, and what do the relatives of mitochondria look like?

I can help out with this one. The theory you are looking for is called the "Endosymbiont Theory" and a quick goggle search will produce some good sites which lay out the foundation of it.

In summary, it is very well supported. If you look at the size of mitochondrial ribosomes they are composed of a 30S and 50S subunit, leading to a total size of 70S (these are units for sedimentation when you centrifuge something). Now, if you look at bacteria you have the exact same size of ribosomes, still 30S and 50S and a total of 70S.

If you look at eukaryotic ribosomes, however, their subunits size is 40S and 60S for a total of 80S. Eukaryotic ribosomes are larger. Thus, this evidence suggests that our mitochondria are actually bacteria which were engulfed by a eukaryotic cell long ago and are now endo(inside)symbionts.

Furthermore, antibiotics which inhibit bacterial protein synthesis, such as chloramphenicol, also inhibit mitochondrial protein synthesis BUT not eukaryotic protein synthesis.

As previously mentioned, mitochondria are closely related to Gram-negative Alpha-proteobacteria, colloquially called purple non-sulfur bacteria. Their closest relatives today appear to be Ricketssias, obligate, intracelluar parasitic bacteria which depend on their host cells for survival (much like mitochondria).

As for chloroplasts, they are also endosymbionts but their closest relatives are the cyanobacteria. Unfortunately I know much more about mitochondria than chloroplasts so I will leave that up to someone else.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Including the original paper recommended, and the google search, and some wikipedia , there's a lot of interesting information out there.

One thing I found particularly interesting is that there are living creatures that appear to show intermediate stages of gaining "endosymbiotic" cell organelles. E.g. Hatena arenicola, which is a single cell organism. Originally it's clear, and acts like a predator. But, if it ingests a cell of a certain type of algae, then the Hatena arenicola organism changes considerably, and becomes a plant with the consumed (but maintained) algae acting a bit like an organelle. The Hatena arenicola loses its feeding apparatus which changes to an eye-spot so that it can seek out light. When the photosynthetic Hatena arenicola divides, only one half gets the ingested algae, so the other half reverts to a carnivorous lifestyle until it ingests another algae cell.

Hatena arenicola were only discovered in the year 2000, and described in 2006 if I remember correctly. This shows how much new evidence for evolution is being found all the time.

Rickettsia themselves, being obligate intracellular parasites, also seem to be an intermediate form between a standalone bacteria and an organelle. That evidence suggests that they are closely related to mitochondria makes them even more interesting.

There are "intermediate" creatures now. E.g. flying squirrels which are part way between flying and non-flying, or mudskippers which are fish "leaving the water". I didn't know that there are organisms which are part way between complex eucaryote and procaryote.

 

[NailsII]

Including the original paper recommended, and the google search, and some wikipedia , there's a lot of interesting information out there.

One thing I found particularly interesting is that there are living creatures that appear to show intermediate stages of gaining "endosymbiotic" cell organelles. E.g. Hatena arenicola, which is a single cell organism. Originally it's clear, and acts like a predator. But, if it ingests a cell of a certain type of algae, then the Hatena arenicola organism changes considerably, and becomes a plant with the consumed (but maintained) algae acting a bit like an organelle. The Hatena arenicola loses its feeding apparatus which changes to an eye-spot so that it can seek out light. When the photosynthetic Hatena arenicola divides, only one half gets the ingested algae, so the other half reverts to a carnivorous lifestyle until it ingests another algae cell.

Hatena arenicola were only discovered in the year 2000, and described in 2006 if I remember correctly. This shows how much new evidence for evolution is being found all the time.

Rickettsia themselves, being obligate intracellular parasites, also seem to be an intermediate form between a standalone bacteria and an organelle. That evidence suggests that they are closely related to mitochondria makes them even more interesting.

There are "intermediate" creatures now. E.g. flying squirrels which are part way between flying and non-flying, or mudskippers which are fish "leaving the water". I didn't know that there are organisms which are part way between complex eucaryote and procaryote.

Does kind of beg the question:

As an organism becomes more dependant (in evolutionary time) on its host, to the point where it no longer even needs its own reproduction capabilities (it uses its host to reproduce) - how fine a line is it between symbiant and parasite?

 

[Naraoia]

Does kind of beg the question:

As an organism becomes more dependant (in evolutionary time) on its host, to the point where it no longer even needs its own reproduction capabilities (it uses its host to reproduce) - how fine a line is it between symbiant and parasite?

IIRC Wolbachia (another one of those Rickettsiales!) treads that fine line like a tightrope walker. On the one hand, it behaves like an overgrown selfish gene, going around killing anything that can't pass it on. On the other hand...

 

[SkyWriting]

Including the original paper recommended, and the google search, and some wikipedia , there's a lot of interesting information out there.One thing I found particularly interesting is that there are living creatures that appear to show intermediate stages of gaining "endosymbiotic" cell organelles. E.g. Hatena arenicola, which is a single cell organism. Originally it's clear, and acts like a predator. But, if it ingests a cell of a certain type of algae, then the Hatena arenicola organism changes considerably, and becomes a plant with the consumed (but maintained) algae acting a bit like an organelle. The Hatena arenicola loses its feeding apparatus which changes to an eye-spot so that it can seek out light. When the photosynthetic Hatena arenicola divides, only one half gets the ingested algae, so the other half reverts to a carnivorous lifestyle until it ingests another algae cell. Hatena arenicola were only discovered in the year 2000, and described in 2006 if I remember correctly. This shows how much new evidence for evolution is being found all the time. Rickettsia themselves, being obligate intracellular parasites, also seem to be an intermediate form between a standalone bacteria and an organelle. That evidence suggests that they are closely related to mitochondria makes them even more interesting.
There are "intermediate" creatures now. E.g. flying squirrels which are part way between flying and non-flying, or mudskippers which are fish "leaving the water". I didn't know that there are organisms which are part way between complex eucaryote and procaryote.

God has created Creatures that have the ability to adapt to terrible environmental and climate changes. Very quickly.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, they wouldn't (although people are born that are arguably that deformed facially, albeit in different ways). What you have there is a straw man, not reductio ad absurdum.

Your assertion would be true if genetics was a massive lottery, as each possible gene or chromosome comes up on the middle line and you end up with your winning number, with equal chance for any gene to come up any way.

It's just not, that's a colossal misunderstanding. I can say with certainty now, you do NOT understand this yet (but you're clearly intelligent so there is hope!).

The colossal majority of genetic information is passed from the parents, with the occasional variation. These variations aren't things like "this person will look like a deformed monster X" or "this person will be 27 feet tall", they are small individual variations, for example, eye color. If it was a completely unfixed and random lottery where X and Y didn't matter, yes, someone could have a child that looked like your monster thing above, but then the issue would be that it would NOT survive long because major genetic abnormalities often come with a greater susceptibility to disease.

Ironically your picture of the faces quite a good demonstration against your own point. The differences in these people show the kind of small, random mutations that occur in our species quite nicely, although because these people aren't closely related it's a limited demonstration that could be better done in other ways. There's no guidance by an unseen master going on here. If there was, he's playing a pretty sadistic joke by throwing genetic conditions like Downs Syndrome deliberately into the mix, no?

Perfectly stated. No. The guidance is programmed in as normal variation and Downs Syndrome is a mutation that works to destroy the process. Yes, Down Syndrome is a fault that we have to deal with. Its not part of the original plan.

 

[Guy1]

God has created Creatures that have the ability to adapt to terrible environmental and climate changes. Very quickly.

Isn't it wonderful that we have the theory of evolution to describe this process?

 

[SkyWriting]

Isn't it wonderful that we have the theory of evolution to describe this process?

Do you use rosary beads as you chant this topic over and over?

 

[SkyWriting]

There are "intermediate" creatures now. E.g. flying squirrels which are part way between flying and non-flying, or mudskippers which are fish "leaving the water".

Neither of those are considered intermediate creatures. They are simply animals that have characteristics that other creatures have.

Some people have webbed toes.

Some squirrels can fly a bit.

 

[NailsII]

Perfectly stated. No. The guidance is programmed in as normal variation and Downs Syndrome is a mutation that works to destroy the process. Yes, Down Syndrome is a fault that we have to deal with. Its not part of the original plan.

I hate to point out the obvious, but Down's syndrome is not a mutation.
Nor is it caused by one.

If you don't understand how biology works, then stop pretending to be an expert.

 

[Naraoia]

Neither of those are considered intermediate creatures. They are simply animals that have characteristics that other creatures have.

See, if you met a little toothed, clawed, gliding featherball at the point when little toothed-clawed gliders were the the latest and greatest in the evolution of dinosaur flight, you could make the exact same argument about it. Organisms are only intermediate in hindsight, when you know what sort of creatures they evolved into.

Who's to say mudskippers aren't the next Ichthyostega? Given that the earth is already full of fish much better adapted to dry land than them, it seems unlikely, but that doesn't change the fact that mudskippers themselves look like something that could evolve into a true land animal.

 

[Guy1]

Do you use rosary beads as you chant this topic over and over?

Nope. Do you lobotomize yourself when you ignore when others slap you with evidence?