An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

Shadow of Oz

To date, the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which houses all published DNA sequences (as well as RNA and protein sequences), currently acknowledges nineteen different coding languages for DNA…

Invertebrate Mitochondrial DNA

Vertebrate Mitochondrial DNA

The two sources following the quote show two of the variations mentioned above which is in the mitochondrial DNA of vertebrates and invertebrates.

Current evolutionary theory says that prokaryotic cells evolved first, and at a later date one of these cells engulfed another cell, this cell eventually became the mitochondria for the cell that engulfed it.

If the mitochondria in invertebrates uses a different genetic code from the mitochondria in vertebrates, and these codes are different from the common genetic code then the eukaryotic cells that eventually evolved into invertebrates must have formed when a prokayotic cell that used the common code engulfed a cell that used a different code. The eukaryotic cells that evolved into vertebrates must have formed when a prokaryotic cell that used the common code engulfed a cell that used yet another different code. As a result, invertebrates must have evolved from one line of eukaryotic cells, while vertebrates must have evolved from a completely separate line of eukaryotic cells. Since evolution depends on vertebrates evolving from invertebrates it seems we have a dilemma !!! What to do what to do.

blog.drwile.com...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Options:
1. Denounce the science behind the study.
2. Wait a few weeks and do a separate study that gets the results back to supporting Evolution.
3. Add more years to the evolutionary time table.

a reply to: Observationalist

1) It goes against the hypothesis I want so we should throw it out. That seems like lazy option.
2) The science is already in. So this seems like a bad option as well
3) Adding more years to the table doesn't solve the problem this completely changes the sequence in which things are said to have evolved. Vertebrates are said to have come from invertebrates. If they both evolved from two separate lines of eukaryotic cells this solution does nothing.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Maybe you're missing a step. Or maybe there is more to it than you've read so far.

Try contacting a specialist in that field who's working directly with that problem and try to get your answers from them.

Or possibly there is a part of that specific theory that needs adjustment.

Could be many different solutions possibly.

It still seems a lot closer to being valid than a magic sky man.

a reply to: mOjOm

As far as I know everything is as accurate as it could be, the implications for the old theory just aren't looking good. Of course you don't seem to be taking into account that this is only 2 of 19 variations . I haven't looked into them yet, but I am willing to bet some of the others have far reaching implications as well.

This is not a dilemma at all.

Since an organism is itself an emergent property - a structure that builds up under the force of atmospheric, geological and hydrological conditions - its quite plausible that different strains of Eukaryotic cells built up - one lines assembling into the normal evolutionary sequence assumed by biologists i.e. from eukaryote, to sponge like creature, to deuterostome, onward towards the evolution of fish etc.

On the other end, you have a repetition of this sequence, from eukaryote, to sponge like creature, but - because this evolutionary sequence was constrained to a different niche i.e. a different set of conditions, it did not evolve the vertebrate structure, but rather, extended itself "radially".

This is not a problem for evolution, because evolution is true. Mind you, evolution being true does not take away from the complete unity of the entire universe, and so, does not do away with a higher level interpretation of the data.

a reply to: Astrocyte

This is not a dilemma at all. Since an organism is itself an emergent property - a structure that builds up under the force of atmospheric, geological and hydrological conditions - and so its quite plausible that different strains of Eukaryotic cells built up - one lines assembling into the normal evolutionary sequence assumed by biologists i.e. from eukaryote, to sponge like creature, to deuterostome, onward towards the evolution of fish etc.

Oh so if we just make the strong assumption that some unknown invertebrates that we have no physical evidence of had mitochondria with vertebrate mitochondria DNA and those evolved our vertebrates instead of the ones we originally thought evolved into vertebrates. All invertebrate have different mitochondrial DNA from vertebrates. So these highly convenient invertebrates just don't seem to exist.

This is not a problem for evolution, because evolution is true.

Oh well if we use that logic, it is a problem for evolution because evolution is false. Come on man lets be serious. If this is how you approach it your level of personal bias is so high you'll create imaginary invertebrates to keep from saying this is a problem and it needs addressed .

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Observationalist

1) It goes against the hypothesis I want so we should throw it out. That seems like lazy option.
2) The science is already in. So this seems like a bad option as well
3) Adding more years to the table doesn't solve the problem this completely changes the sequence in which things are said to have evolved. Vertebrates are said to have come from invertebrates. If they both evolved from two separate lines of eukaryotic cells this solution does nothing.

Alright try this
5. Imaginary transitional invertabrets.
6. Quantum evolutionary Vacuum. ? Not sure what that could be but sounded cool maybe that will come up as a result.

Seriously though, Scientism relies so deeply on evolution being an absolute that this could get silly.

a reply to: Observationalist

Scientism could be defined as the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society.(From Wiki)

In which case scientism has a lot more than evolution to worry about. If that is how you define it, then it defeats itself with or without evolution

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Genetecist Craig Venter (of the Human Genome Project among other things) in a science forum at Arizona State University, in April 2011, with other scientists discussing evolution, made the comment that there was not likely to be a single tree of life, but rather - many bushes.

Other panelists - like the journalist and writer Richard Dawkins, suggested that Venter, the preeminent genetecist in the world, was wrong, primarily because they hold to the paradigm of a single "tree of life".

It shows how, even for top scientists, their belief systems (in evolution as traditionally defined) is not tied to the science.

It is rational to conclude that if life could find the right conditions to arise once, that it could arise multiple times from scratch and that these 'starts' would have differences from each other. Forces of natural selection would select for an optimal configuration so these different starts would likely converge over time, the unsuccessful starting points, dying off, leaving no trace.

Despite the simplicity of the logic of this, it makes a mockery of the presumed sequence of evolution.

11th commandment: thou can evolve from invertibrate to verterbratest. Case solved

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well, this certainly does not disprove evolution as a whole. In fact, it goes a long way towards backing up evolution. It does support the multiple lines theory but if it is only in the mitochondrial line, then i would imagine that this happened when the split between eukaryotic and prokaryiotic took place.

Are you trying to say that this proves evolution false? Or are you just saying that our understanding of evolution is incomplete? because we already knew that. That's why we continue to study at it

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

After millions of years of evolution, why would anyone expect mitochondrial DNA from vertebrates to be the same as mitochondrial DNA from invertebrates?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Come on man lets be serious.

Evolution is a sea of facts - or reasonable explanations - to which this apparent issue - for you at least - poses an irreconcilable problem.

Not for me, though. I'm a scientist - and as scientist, the evidence for the theory of evolution is a sea of correlations that perfectly explain the qualities of living beings in terms of a diachronic progression of a changing structure.

Were talking about eukaryote - little itty bitty barely visible cells. What are cells but self-regulating dissipative structures? Have you read Ilya Prigogine? Stuart Kaufmann? Harold Morowitz? Terrence Deacon? The convergence of the thermodynamic and physical sciences with the observed properties of living beings - microscopic and macroscopic - lends, for me, an ocean of information to which your problem poses a very minor problem.

Now, if mitochrondrial DNA differed between vertebrates - THAT would be a major problem, because vertebrates are very large macroscopic organisms built - it is assumed - over a very long evolutionary time-period. That all vertebrates share the same mitochrondrial DNA is perfect confirmation of the theory.

Your issue ultimately scales back to a period when an untold number of "eukaryotes" - or an archea eating up a bacteria (according to the common theory) - could have occurred in multiple of ways - and the ones which survived were "selected", while those which didn't - a great many - died.

I don't see why you would give greater priority to blip in an early evolutionary scenario - something easily resolvable to most people - over the mountain of evidence from cell biology and anatomy showing such incredible continuity of form and structure.

You claim my view is tendentious, but I think it is yours - your eager "jumping upon" a minor issue, and then accusing anyone who resolves it through sound reasoning of just "making up" stuff to keep their theory.

What about the reverse? Maybe you've spent a lot of time obsessed with disproving evolution because you think it is incompatible with a spirituality or a theistic God - and in its bothering you, you tendentiously interpret information with minor significance as being a death-blow to evolutionary theory.

Sorry - the theory isn't disproved. When I said it was a "fact", I should have said, "there is so much evidence in favor of this theory, that it might as well be considered a fact".

a reply to: Woodcarver

If it is only in the mitochondrial line, then i would imagine that this happened when the split between eukaryotic and prokaryiotic took place.

After, I should say. Or are these changes prerequisites of the distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates?

The OP links are not very helpful.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It is not an evolutionary dilema at all neighbour. It simply shows we have much to learn. Nothing in a single study invalidates the theory of evolution. That is not how science works. WE (scientists) don't rely on a single bit of evidence, or mythology, and remain unmoving, despite evidece. No we adapt to the new evidence, once it is verified. . That would be the role of religion.

a reply to: Astyanax

Well its because he has no idea what a mitochondria does, or how it got there

I mean hell if they did not evolve at all, we'd not be able to trace migration

One can argue that this is not a fully detailed process (as of yet.)
But, how does the formation of entire collections of parts coming out of nothing, ever sound more reasonable than new parts forming from existing species from mechanisms we may not fully understand yet?

There could have been multiple occurrences of many different "single cells" that were the initial strains of different branches of species of Eukaryota life. Prokaryotes and simple eukaryotes arrange themselves into structures to survive their environment in a process called symbiosis. The DNA within the ultimate structure ends up reflecting this new arrangement, but did not "suddenly appear from nothing".

This means the best we can say at the moment is all life came from the same prokaryotic biomass.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yea I watch the whole talk a while back. Its interesting.

It is rational to conclude that if life could find the right conditions to arise once, that it could arise multiple times from scratch and that these 'starts' would have differences from each other.

Its a rational hypothesis, IF abiogenesis can occur in the early earth conditions.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

And why again does abiogensis come into this discussion? Its not evolution after all