Page 1 of 2
Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:31 pm
by Swimmy
Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
June 12, 2012
A gene previously thought to be present in all life on earth has been found missing in life near volcanoes.
The protein, thought to be one of the fundamental building blocks of life, is not present in certain volcanic single cell organisms.
The scientists studied archaea for the research, which are similar to bacteria but have a separate origin. The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, found the expected gene missing and another in its place.
This missing protein, named SSB, performs an essential role by binding DNA and protecting it from damage. “All cells, whether they are microbial or human, have some things in common. These are the fundamental components or building blocks which were present in the first cells and have been passed on over 3.5 billion years," says Prof. Malcolm White of the School of Biology at the Univ. of St Andrews.
"We have discovered that a gene normally thought to be absolutely essential and conserved throughout every form of life is, in fact, lost in one group of volcanic bugs and [is] replaced by a completely novel gene we have christened ThermoDBP," says White.
The discovery has ramifications for understanding about how life has evolved on earth.
The new gene could have applications in biotechnology and the new scientific discipline of synthetic biology.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news ... 61212.aspx
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:11 pm
by KBCid
Swimmy wrote:The discovery has ramifications for understanding about how life has evolved on earth.
It also has ramifications for understanding how life was designed.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:47 am
by Reactionary
understanding about how life has evolved on earth
Circular, circular...
Sorry, I'm spamming again.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:07 am
by Swimmy
I love when atheist tell me abiogensis and evolution are mutually exclusive. When they clearly are related. Since non living material as to evolve into living organisms for life to arise.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:11 am
by Byblos
Swimmy wrote:I love when atheist tell me abiogensis and evolution are mutually exclusive. When they clearly are related. Since non living material as to evolve into living organisms for life to arise.
To even speak of non-living things
evolving into living things is nonsensical. Evolution presumes living things.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:42 pm
by Reactionary
Naturalistic evolution obviously requires abiogenesis to occur in the first place. Yet, its proponents often try to bypass the topic of abiogenesis, probably because of a lack of evidence in its favour.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:47 pm
by KBCid
Byblos wrote:To even speak of non-living things evolving into living things is nonsensical.
only to us sir. and our opinion doesn't count cause we aren't evolutionary biologists that can 'imagine' how it works.
Byblos wrote:Evolution presumes living things.
I have had discussion with a fair amount of Evolution proponents and most of the time they say that evolution only involves that which self replicates so there are no considerations prior to that imaginary first event. Of course some of the same people had no problem discussing "chemical evolution"
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:38 pm
by sandy_mcd
Swimmy wrote:I love when atheist tell me abiogensis and evolution are mutually exclusive. When they clearly are related. Since non living material as to evolve into living organisms for life to arise.
Byblos wrote:To even speak of non-living things evolving into living things is nonsensical. Evolution presumes living things.
Reactionary wrote:Naturalistic evolution obviously requires abiogenesis to occur in the first place. Yet, its proponents often try to bypass the topic of abiogenesis, probably because of a lack of evidence in its favour.
KBCid wrote:I have had discussion with a fair amount of Evolution proponents and most of the time they say that evolution only involves that which self replicates so there are no considerations prior to that imaginary first event. Of course some of the same people had no problem discussing "chemical evolution"
It seems like you guys pretty much understand that abiogenesis and evolution refer to different processes. So why can't each one be discussed separately?
Swimmy, Of course they are related. But they are not the same thing.
Byblos, Yes evolution presumes living things. That is why there is a separate word for abiogenesis.
Reactionary, Yes there is little to no evidence remaining for abiogenesis. Why would anyone think otherwise? There is very little understood about how life could have arisen.
KBCid, Sometimes the same word can have different connotations - that is why "chemical evolution" is used to mean something different from "evolution".
All of you seem to understand that there is a difference, so why must abiogenesis be dragged into discussion of evolution?
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:10 pm
by KBCid
sandy_mcd wrote: All of you seem to understand that there is a difference, so why must abiogenesis be dragged into discussion of evolution?
If as you believe natural causes are sufficient to produce all the varieties of life then what cause other than them would you posit as sufficient to get it started? Let's see what do real scientists think;
Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Science: chemical evolution
The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth;
the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical evolution lasted less than a billion years.
http://www.answers.com/topic/chemical-evolution
Here is an interesting point made by a real scientist that studies chemical evolution;
A Conversation With Jeffrey L. Bada
A Marine Chemist Studies How Life Began
Q. DO WE KNOW HOW THEY BECAME LIFE?
A. We are closing in on that question. The Earth had to cool down enough for water to appear. Water allows molecules to dissolve and interact, which is why it is essential to life. We do know that we went from simple molecules to more complex molecules and eventually to RNA, which evolved into DNA. This took about a billion years.
The missing piece of the puzzle is that intermediate phase between the amino acids and the RNA phase. We know that RNA is too complex to have arisen out of the simple molecules of the primordial soup. We can surmise that this intermediate form was able to make copies of itself to pass onto the next generation. Over time, mutations occurred and those mutants with survival advantages thrived and on and on until you eventually got to the complex RNA world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/scien ... .html?_r=1
Of particular note here is that Bada... a real scientist... that studies chemical evolution... describes part of the process that leads to life as involving mutation of RNA which "was able to make copies of itself to pass onto the next generation". I'm fairly certain the RNA world hypothesis is pre-life.
Yup that is definitely different that just regular evolution cause regular evolution posits mutations being passed on to the next generation...
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 pm
by sandy_mcd
KBCid wrote:sandy_mcd wrote: All of you seem to understand that there is a difference, so why must abiogenesis be dragged into discussion of evolution?
If as you believe natural causes are sufficient to produce all the varieties of life then what cause other than them would you posit as sufficient to get it started? Let's see what do real scientists think;
I have absolutely no idea what the point of this post is supposed to be. Let's accept that what Bada says is what most scientists think. OK, so what's the point? This looks like quibbling about definitions? I have no idea.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:01 pm
by KBCid
sandy_mcd wrote:I have absolutely no idea what the point of this post is supposed to be. Let's accept that what Bada says is what most scientists think. OK, so what's the point? This looks like quibbling about definitions? I have no idea.
we were discussing this post by swimmy;
"We have discovered that a gene normally thought to be absolutely essential and conserved throughout every form of life is, in fact, lost in one group of volcanic bugs and [is] replaced by a completely novel gene we have christened ThermoDBP," says White.
The discovery has ramifications for understanding about how life has evolved on earth.
and how circular the arguement was (Reactionary) which led to;
Swimmy wrote:I love when atheist tell me abiogensis and evolution are mutually exclusive. When they clearly are related. Since non living material as to evolve into living organisms for life to arise.
and this has been the point of the conversation until you popped in and quoted a bunch of what we said and then you asserted;
sandy_mcd wrote:It seems like you guys pretty much understand that abiogenesis and evolution refer to different processes. So why can't each one be discussed separately?
To which I followed the point to the logical conclusion with references at which point you asserted that you have no idea what we are talking about.
I hope that sums it up, up this point anyway.
I think I would logically try to understand what the conversation is concerning before jumping in with an arguement and then stating I don't understand what the conversation is about but of course thats just me with an opinion.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:38 am
by jlay
IMO (which could be wrong) saying they are 'different' in this manner is akin to saying that the house, and the foundation are different things.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:00 pm
by sandy_mcd
jlay wrote:IMO (which could be wrong) saying they are 'different' in this manner is akin to saying that the house, and the foundation are different things.
Precisely. You can't build a (standard) house without a foundation. But pouring a foundation and framing a house are two different types of job. You would normally hire different people for each part. So what's the point of bugging a carpenter about concrete work? Why would someone tell the carpenter he can't frame until he provides a detailed treatise on the constituents, reactions, and properties of concrete and identify which concrete company did the job using what raw materials? As long as the foundation is there, the carpenter can do his job. So it is with scientists (aka carpenters, roofers, etc) who study evolution. They really don't need to know all the details of the foundation to do their job.
[edit] Actually, that's not the greatest analogy on my part. The scientists would not be the carpenters, but someone making a map of the house layout or somesuch. But jlay's point is still a good one - the foundation is a necessary first step for a house, but you can diagram the electric or plumbing without knowing who did the foundation.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:30 pm
by KBCid
sandy_mcd wrote:You can't build a (standard) house without a foundation.
Neither of the structures occurs without intelligent design
sandy_mcd wrote:But pouring a foundation and framing a house are two different types of job.
A foundation is an arrangement of matter. A house is an arrangement of matter. Both require the ability to spatially control matter to get a specific result.
sandy_mcd wrote:You would normally hire different people for each part. So what's the point of bugging a carpenter about concrete work? Why would someone tell the carpenter he can't frame until he provides a detailed treatise on the constituents, reactions, and properties of concrete and identify which concrete company did the job using what raw materials? As long as the foundation is there, the carpenter can do his job. So it is with scientists (aka carpenters, roofers, etc) who study evolution.
Chemical 'evolution' is how the foundation is asserted to occur and 'evolution' is how the house gets built. Do we see any similarity here? Chemical evolution (foundation building) as Bada pointed out requires that replication has to occur and that ...mutations are passed down to offspring...;
A Conversation With Jeffrey L. Bada
A Marine Chemist Studies How Life Began
We can surmise that this intermediate form was able to make copies of itself to pass onto the next generation. Over time,
mutations occurred and those mutants with survival advantages thrived and on and on until you eventually got to the complex RNA world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/scien ... .html?_r=2
Guess how the house building evolution works... mutations are passed down to offspring...
So yea these are absolutely different concepts that no one in their right mind could ever see any similarities between.
It's evolution all the way down to base chemicals.
Re: Necessary "Life" Protein Absent in Vocanic Bugs
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:11 pm
by sandy_mcd
KBCid wrote:Chemical 'evolution' is how the foundation is asserted to occur and 'evolution' is how the house gets built. Do we see any similarity here? Chemical evolution (foundation building) as Bada pointed out requires that replication has to occur and that ...mutations are passed down to offspring...;
...
So yea these are absolutely different concepts that no one in their right mind could ever see any similarities between.
It's evolution all the way down to base chemicals.
Fine, I'll stipulate again that there is a continuum between abiogenesis and evolution of species. But the processes are so different that they require different techniques and expertise to study. Just as humans artificially separate chemistry and biology as different disciplines, they separate abiogenesis and (biologic) evolution. Some biologist studying the breeding habits of the ruby-throated flea-flicker doesn't need to know the ins-and-outs of the chemical element 49 even though we are all made of atoms. So even though there is a continuum from chemistry to biology, we separate them for convenience. Even within the disciplines of chemistry and biology there are many subfields of specialisation.
But this is getting frustrating. So that i don't have to keep inferring whatever is being implied, what's the point? That no one can study biologic evolution until we know every single last detail of abiogenesis? If that were the case, science would not exist. How could a chemist study molecules without knowing everything about atoms? Etc.