Scientists discover single gene mutation which led to multi-cellular animal life

Some of the same researchers also published this paper attesting to the accuracy of the Ancestral Reconstruction technique, for anyone interested -

Robustness of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction to Phylogenetic Uncertainty

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Raggedyman

Science is never absolute. Every discovery or conclusion is always, always tentative and open to revision at a later date, should new data contradict it.

Uhmmm yeah, kinda what I was inferring in my post

I see scientific ignorance growing when I read OPs like yours

That ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance continues to diminish.. .

Lets take it for another assumption and also, the ever shrinking pocket is expanding as we discover more information that requires more scientific explanation. This new research will open another Pandora's box gauranteed

So you are stating we understand less now becuase questions arise out of discovery? The new research answers some questions and naturally raises others.

I guess you are half right, though I havnt seen the discovery as such

I am stating that we cant be sure its anything more than an assumption and to understand how valid that assumption is leaves us with many more questions

I havnt read one single scientific statement in all that mumbo jumbo that could be called real hard evidence, anybody like to show me the real hard evidence?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I havnt read one single scientific statement in all that mumbo jumbo that could be called real hard evidence, anybody like to show me the real hard evidence?

Anderson et al. have now used a technique called ancestral protein reconstruction to investigate how this molecular complex evolved its ability to position the spindle. First, the amino acid sequences of the scaffolding protein’s ancient progenitors, which existed before the origin of the most primitive animals on Earth, were determined. Anderson et al. did this by computationally retracing the evolution of large numbers of present-day scaffolding protein sequences down the tree of life, into the deep past. Living cells were then made to produce the ancient proteins, allowing their properties to be experimentally examined.

By experimentally dissecting successive ancestral versions of the scaffolding protein, Anderson et al. deduced how the molecular complex that it anchors came to control spindle orientation. This new ability evolved by a number of “molecular exploitation” events, which repurposed parts of the protein for new roles. The progenitor of the scaffolding protein was actually an enzyme, but the evolution of its spindle-orienting ability can be recapitulated by introducing a single amino acid change that happened many hundreds of millions of years ago.

- See more at: elifesciences.org...

There you go. You can read the full paper if you want more details, including the exact methodology used.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I havnt read one single scientific statement in all that mumbo jumbo that could be called real hard evidence, anybody like to show me the real hard evidence?

Anderson et al. have now used a technique called ancestral protein reconstruction to investigate how this molecular complex evolved its ability to position the spindle. First, the amino acid sequences of the scaffolding protein’s ancient progenitors, which existed before the origin of the most primitive animals on Earth, were determined. Anderson et al. did this by computationally retracing the evolution of large numbers of present-day scaffolding protein sequences down the tree of life, into the deep past. Living cells were then made to produce the ancient proteins, allowing their properties to be experimentally examined.

By experimentally dissecting successive ancestral versions of the scaffolding protein, Anderson et al. deduced how the molecular complex that it anchors came to control spindle orientation. This new ability evolved by a number of “molecular exploitation” events, which repurposed parts of the protein for new roles. The progenitor of the scaffolding protein was actually an enzyme, but the evolution of its spindle-orienting ability can be recapitulated by introducing a single amino acid change that happened many hundreds of millions of years ago.

- See more at: elifesciences.org...

There you go. You can read the full paper if you want more details, including the exact methodology used.

Nice copy and paste but

Did you read the link provided, seriously did you read it

Read the words, its not evidence, its assumption.

Read this link already provided above
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Its not long or difficult to read, or simply just try and understand the abstract/introduction

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

i think there is no way i can really verify the truth about it because i dont understand it really.
that said, im a believer of science and absolutely anything that gets people away from explaining life through god/religion works for me

You pretty much summed up a religion in this post

You cannot verify, but will put so much faith in it, that your belief in this theory becomes your fact.

Then defend your 'fact' and try to defeat other peoples' 'facts'

but 600 million years ago. gene mutation.
works for me

i will take that over the floating man any day

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Raggedyman

Science is never absolute. Every discovery or conclusion is always, always tentative and open to revision at a later date, should new data contradict it.

Uhmmm yeah, kinda what I was inferring in my post

I see scientific ignorance growing when I read OPs like yours

That ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance continues to diminish.. .

Lets take it for another assumption and also, the ever shrinking pocket is expanding as we discover more information that requires more scientific explanation. This new research will open another Pandora's box gauranteed

So you are stating we understand less now becuase questions arise out of discovery? The new research answers some questions and naturally raises others.

I guess you are half right, though I havnt seen the discovery as such

I am stating that we cant be sure its anything more than an assumption and to understand how valid that assumption is leaves us with many more questions

I havnt read one single scientific statement in all that mumbo jumbo that could be called real hard evidence, anybody like to show me the real hard evidence?

Well return did post the actual paper so you are welcome ro reanalyse their findings, examine the source material and prove where their findings are incorrect or postulate other implications of their find; however, calling it mumbo jumbo and dismissing it out of hand because you don't understand what is being stated is your own limitation and not the limitation of the study.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

i think there is no way i can really verify the truth about it because i dont understand it really.
that said, im a believer of science and absolutely anything that gets people away from explaining life through god/religion works for me


@&$&@@@&&@@@@@&@@"""



You pretty much summed up a religion in this post

You cannot verify, but will put so much faith in it, that your belief in this theory becomes your fact.

Then defend your 'fact' and try to defeat other peoples' 'facts'

edit on 12-1-2016 by thinline because: i somehow merged my post into the quote

a reply to: Raggedyman

My thoughts are the same as the researchers, poor assumptions based on what fits with their beliefs

Poor assumptions based on what fits with their beliefs is what religious apologetics do.

Scientist "infer" based on the evidence, not "assume" or contrive a fit based on belief in a faith. You can safely leave that dishonest tactic to the creationist.

YO YO YO

Can any of the posters who are dismissing this discovery out of hand actually make a scientific argument as to WHY the research is wrong?

And no, posting memes is not a scientific argument.

Cool. More evidence for evolution. It's amazing that people are still able to deny evolution and they aren't dismissed off hand like flat earth believers are dismissed.

Awesome discovery

Always great to see the creationists scramble lol

IMO this also represents another example of why the Junkyard Tornado argument (which we hear so often from creationists) is a misguided assumption. Heck, even the scientists involved here assumed more complexity than there ended up being; they thought there must be some combination of genes working in concert responsible for the move from single to multi-celled, but here it is in front of them and it's just a single gene mutation.

Another thing to consider - this discovery only explains the rise of multi-cellular life in animals - which implies the other kingdoms of life (e.g plants, fungi) achieved the same leap independently - which blows my mind. To my way of thinking, this would greatly improve the chances of multi-cellular life forms being somewhat ubiquitous throughout the cosmos, rather than rare.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

i think there is no way i can really verify the truth about it because i dont understand it really.
that said, im a believer of science and absolutely anything that gets people away from explaining life through god/religion works for me

but 600 million years ago. gene mutation.
works for me

i will take that over the floating man any day

Basically this research has discovered the mutation that transformed single-celled ancestors into multi-cellular animals. this in turn will give us tools into understanding why cancer cells have gone rogue with single-celled behavior.

Here is a short video from the biochemist, discussing his research.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Raggedyman

Science is never absolute. Every discovery or conclusion is always, always tentative and open to revision at a later date, should new data contradict it.

Uhmmm yeah, kinda what I was inferring in my post

I see scientific ignorance growing when I read OPs like yours

That ever-shrinking pocket of scientific ignorance continues to diminish.. .

Lets take it for another assumption and also, the ever shrinking pocket is expanding as we discover more information that requires more scientific explanation. This new research will open another Pandora's box gauranteed

So you are stating we understand less now becuase questions arise out of discovery? The new research answers some questions and naturally raises others.

I guess you are half right, though I havnt seen the discovery as such

I am stating that we cant be sure its anything more than an assumption and to understand how valid that assumption is leaves us with many more questions

I havnt read one single scientific statement in all that mumbo jumbo that could be called real hard evidence, anybody like to show me the real hard evidence?

Well return did post the actual paper so you are welcome ro reanalyse their findings, examine the source material and prove where their findings are incorrect or postulate other implications of their find; however, calling it mumbo jumbo and dismissing it out of hand because you don't understand what is being stated is your own limitation and not the limitation of the study.

Please Cypress and Flying Fish, I ask you to read the link ROTSON at the top of this page linked and I linked in after

Just read it

YO YO YO Get Hyped, read the link, its right there at the top of the page

I dont have to do any work, its all in ROTSONS link

Blind faith in science is no different from blind faith in religion.

Here is the abstarct

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) is widely used to formulate and test hypotheses about the sequences, functions, and structures of ancient genes. Ancestral sequences are usually inferred from an alignment of extant sequences using a maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic algorithm, which calculates the most likely ancestral sequence assuming a probabilistic model of sequence evolution and a specific phylogeny—typically the tree with the ML. The true phylogeny is seldom known with certainty, however. ML methods ignore this uncertainty, whereas Bayesian methods incorporate it by integrating the likelihood of each ancestral state over a distribution of possible trees. It is not known whether Bayesian approaches to phylogenetic uncertainty improve the accuracy of inferred ancestral sequences. Here, we use simulation-based experiments under both simplified and empirically derived conditions to compare the accuracy of ASR carried out using ML and Bayesian approaches. We show that incorporating phylogenetic uncertainty by integrating over topologies very rarely changes the inferred ancestral state and does not improve the accuracy of the reconstructed ancestral sequence. Ancestral state reconstructions are robust to uncertainty about the underlying tree because the conditions that produce phylogenetic uncertainty also make the ancestral state identical across plausible trees; conversely, the conditions under which different phylogenies yield different inferred ancestral states produce little or no ambiguity about the true phylogeny. Our results suggest that ML can produce accurate ASRs, even in the face of phylogenetic uncertainty. Using Bayesian integration to incorporate this uncertainty is neither necessary nor beneficial.


Keywords: inferred, maximum likelihood, assuming a probabilistic model, ignore this uncertainty, integrating the likelihood

Here is what Wikipedia states about Baysian probability
Bayesian probability is one interpretation of the concept of probability. In contrast to interpreting probability as frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, Bayesian probability is a quantity that we assign to represent a state of knowledge, or a state of belief.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Reconstruction to computationally reconstruct the amino acid sequences of ancient proteins.

Problem, no ancient protein used here. But conjecture and human bias into the computation.

Regards

a reply to: Raggedyman

I can appreciate what they did but it's as you have written

It stuns me when people peddle this kind of science as absolute truth and that others are mocked for not accepting.



Regards

a reply to: drevill

Nobody is treating this as absolute, the fact that you think they are shows you don't know much (if anything) about the basics of scientific inquiry.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Researchers think

My thoughts are the same as the researchers, poor assumptions based on what fits with their beliefs

In a couple of months there will be many problems associated with this new thought, no doubt
Its not science when "thinks" are trumpeted as truths

I've been told it's an educated guess...and that makes a world of difference apparently

Dear Prezbo


many are treating it as an absolute, I can't understand why you would say they are not when many here in this thread have stated as much

I have been roundly slammed for even questioning the theory and even shown the evidence by clearly much "learned" members, evidence based on assumption

You are not a jedi, you have no mind trick, your words hold no substance given the posts written in this thread that show the opposite fact

Back in the 1926 The Copenhagen Interpretation concluded that matter is nothing without consciousness, and consciousness is the foundation of reality. Yet, experiments spearheaded with a material reductionist ideology still waste grant money and lead the blind astray.

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla

If you want to know evolution's achilles heel, research C-14 being found in "billion year old" diamonds, "100 million year old" coal, and "100 million year old" dinosaur soft tissue. Spoiler: it's all less than 50,000 years old.

newgeology.us...