by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You said the bits you wrote are in bold. That isn't in bold.
All the papers you linked to are supportive of endosymbiosis as the mechanism of the origin of complex cells?
What is your point exactly and can you present it succinctly in simple language?
I asked a reasonable question. Clicking dislike isn't a reasonable reply.
These are from the horses' mouth:
1. The process of endosymbiosis is a process of adaptation of the organism.
2. Amoeba proteus stays Amoeba proteus.
3. Process of endosymbiosis in Amoeba proteus is a typical or atypical immune response, similar to ours. E.g., when our cells are invaded by viruses, cancer cells could result. If no intervention takes place, we die as Homo sapiens, not as a new species because our nuclear material has been changed or damaged.
4. You insist that the resulting Amoeba is a new species. That hasn't been proved as yet. View it as a variant strain of Amoeba proteus.
5. Huge barriers exist for symbiogenesis to take place. What are these barriers? Although there are similarities among archaea, eukaryotes and bacteria, each group is unique. E.g., the mechanisms for DNA replication and translation are specific for each domain, and thus cannot be exchanged. See 6. The circular and linear mitochondrial DNA make it even more complicated, because these are replicated differently. See 7.
It has taken 4 hours to get a microbiologist to explain his objections in his own words.
I am busy decorating but will get back to you later. At first glance numbers 1-4 are nothing more than semantics and petty debates about taxonomic classification.
5 is based on a misunderstanding of cell biology which is a strange error for a professional microbiologist to make.
Later
1 - The process of endosymbiosis is a process of adaptation of the organism. - Vidqun
Are you seriously making a distinction between evolution and "adaptation"?
A free-living cell gets invaded by another totally different free-living cell of a totally different species with very different properties. They swap important genes so that the host organism permanently and irrevocably loses the ability to manufacture vital enzymes. Both organisms are now merged in a way that can never be reversed and you want to quibble over the word "adaptation".
The paper you cited (actually the abstract of a paper you have never read) is discussing a specific promoter gene that is found in "x-Bacteria" and in no way relates to your comments. Bizarre!
2. Amoeba proteus stays Amoeba proteus. - Vidqun
See my answer to number 1 - the bit in bold.
Again the paper you cite in connection with this point is about something totally different. It is not about the identity of the amoebae it is proposing a possible candidate for the "x-Bacteria" that invaded the amoebae.
3. Process of endosymbiosis in Amoeba proteus is a typical or atypical immune response, similar to ours. E.g., when our cells are invaded by viruses, cancer cells could result. If no intervention takes place, we die as Homo sapiens, not as a new species because our nuclear material has been changed or damaged. - Vidqun
Specifically what are you referring to as a typical or atypical immune response?
The paper illuminates the details of the interaction between a host Protozoa and an intracellular symbiont prokaryote. It does not appear to be an example of endosymbiosis with gene transfer. What's your point?
4. You insist that the resulting Amoeba is a new species. That hasn't been proved as yet. View it as a variant strain of Amoeba proteus. - Vidqun
See my answer to number 1 - the bit in bold. Arguments about taxonomic classification are uninteresting and avoids the important evidence.
5. Huge barriers exist for symbiogenesis to take place. What are these barriers? Although there are similarities among archaea, eukaryotes and bacteria, each group is unique. E.g., the mechanisms for DNA replication and translation are specific for each domain, and thus cannot be exchanged. The circular and linear mitochondrial DNA make it even more complicated, because these are replicated differently. - Vidqun
Are you actually claiming that endosymbiotic gene transfer between prokaryotic symbionts and eukaryotic host cells does not and cannot happen? How many peer reviewed papers would you like me to refer you to?
Click here and take a look for yourself...
Here is a quote from the abstract of one example in Nature Magazine ...
Genome sequences reveal that a deluge of DNA from organelles has constantly been bombarding the nucleus since the origin of organelles. Recent experiments have shown that DNA is transferred from organelles to the nucleus at frequencies that were previously unimaginable. Endosymbiotic gene transfer is a ubiquitous, continuing and natural process that pervades nuclear DNA dynamics.
Here is another paper on endosymbiotic gene transfer from chloroplasts in plants...
And here is the paper by Kwang Jeon on gene transfer between x-Bacteria and the amoebae in his experiment...
You have totally missed the point of endosymbiosis. The mitochondria replicate like any other prokaryote. They are not involved in meiosis and mitosis. Over 99% of their genes have been transferred to the cell nucleus. They still have some active genes that are involved in local control of respiration. These facts are not in dispute.
Are you really sure you are a professional microbiologist?
Cofty, I will be concentrating on no. 5. Let's begin at the beginning:
So, in the grand evolutionary scheme, a mythical prokaryote to eukaryote cellular transition allegedly gave rise to the diversity of eukaryotic life (eukaryogenesis). A key problem with this idea is the fact that the prokaryotes is divided into two apparent domains (bacteria and archaea). Eukaryotes share similarities to both domains of prokaryotes while also exhibiting many major innovative features found in neither. Key molecular features surrounding DNA replication, transcription, and translation are fundamentally distinct in eukaryotes despite superficial similarities to prokaryotes, particularly archaea. These selected discontinuous molecular chasms highlight the impossibility for eukaryotes having evolved from archaea.
Eukaryotes are organisms with cells much larger than prokaryotes that possess nuclei and other membrane enclosed intracellular organelles. Thus, many of their processes are highly compartmentalized and more complicated than those of the most complex prokaryotes. In fact, a typical eukaryotic cell is about a thousand times larger in volume than a typical bacterial or archaeal cell and a fundamental eukaryote-prokaryote dichotomy clearly exists in regards to intracellular organization, complexity, and innovation. Besides, eukaryotes themselves are highly diverse life forms (plants, animals and fungi), comprising a diverse array of unicellular organisms with extremely complex genomic features. 1
In the grand evolutionary paradigm, the origin of the eukaryotic cell represents one of the great mysteries and key hypothetical transitions of life that is alleged to have occurred over one billion years ago—termed eukaryogenesis. Fossils offer little support to the eukaryogenesis model as one-celled eukaryotes from alleged strata of this age are already incredibly diversified—exhibiting complicated cellular innovations typical of extant species. 2
1. “Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis,” by C. L. Tan and J. P. Tomkins.
2. Knoll, A. H., E. J.
Javaux, D. Hewitt, and P. Cohen. 2006. Eukaryotic organisms in Proterozoic
oceans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B
Biological Sciences 361, no. 1470: pp. 1023–1038.
Vidqun - I just popped in home for a few minutes so I will get back to you later.
You seem to misunderstand the word "discussion". You ignore all of the evidence I provided and carry on posting stuff that has already been dealt with.
ETA - Just checked out your first link. You - a professional scientist - are actually resorting to copying pseudoscience from Answers in Genesis!
I can't put it better than that. Perhaps I can put it in third person passive voice. No then it will not come out right. Why don't you look at the argument instead? Different mechanisms for DNA replication, transcription and translation for prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria) and eucharyotes (plants, animals and fungi): Now, how on earth would these develop? How did they branch off? Where are the intermediate stages of all these processes? Is Mother Nature not brilliant to bring all these processes together? Sorry, I don't believe in magic. By the way, as reported, fossil evidence also offers little support for your theory of eukaryogenesis.
Next installment from the pseudo-scientists, or is it a case of the truth hurting?
Archaea were recognized as a unique domain of life based on the sequence comparisons of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) of various organisms by Woese and colleagues. 1
Archaea differ from the other two domains of
life—bacteria and eukarya —not only in their archaea-specific signatures in
certain regions of rRNAs, but also in their cell membranes, which are composed
of lipids made of ether, unlike bacteria or eukarya whose membrane lipids are made
of ester. 2
In fact, as stated by Woese and colleagues, “for every well characterized molecular system there exists a characteristic eubacterial, archaebacterial, and eukaryotic version”. 3
Archaea are similar to bacteria in many aspects. Like bacteria, archaea do not have nuclei, and are thus prokaryotes. Archaea also lack other membrane-bound organelles, including mitochondria and chloroplasts. Archaeal genomes are small and circular like those of bacteria. No spliceosomal introns have been found in archaea. Like bacteria, archaea also lack the machinery to synthesize eukaryotic telomeres and to splice spliceosomal introns, two processes essential for the survival of eukaryotes. This shortage of higher level eukaryotic complexity does not hurt archaea in any way because they have no need of these systems. However, the lack of these systems, including any transitional forms for them, creates an unbridgeable chasm between prokaryotes and eukaryotes in the grand evolutionary paradigm. 4
1. Woese, C. R., and G. E. Fox. 1977. Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: The primary kingdoms. Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences USA 74, no. 11:5088–5090.
2. Gutell, R. R., B. Weiser, C. R. Woese, and H. F. Noller. 1985. Comparative anatomy of 16-S-like ribosomal RNA. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 32:155–216.
3. Woese, C. R., O. Kandler, and M. L. Wheelis. 1990. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences USA 87, no. 12:4576–4579.
4. “Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis,” by C. L. Tan and J. P. Tomkins.
Ha more Answers in Genesis bullshit!
I am just in from work. Will answer your so-called challenge later. Not that you have ever bothered to actually read any of the evidence I have posted so far or attempted to respond to it.
If you read my OP you will see that I already described almost everything you have said in your last 3 posts.
Get back to you in detail soon. Need to eat first.
