It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do creationists explain mitochondria?

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 

So your answer is "because Bible"?




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Yes, it's entirely rational as your statement is an indication of your lack of understanding in regards to how enough random chaos over enough time creates patterns, harmonics, and organized stable structure.

You might take note of how much easier it is for authorities to enact crowd control than it is to control a single person.

take note that no matter how chaotically you pour any liquid into any container, that liquid will still organize readily to the shape of the container.

Take note that no matter how seemingly random or chaotic the pattern of leaves between a maple tree and an oak tree, no matter the randomness or chaos in shaping the growth pattern of the trunks, you will still recognize that one tree is indeed an oak, and the other indeed a maple.

Further, as a criticism against faith, or gods, if there is indeed some god, and there is indeed some creation force or personality at work, then, if such is so, please tell me who or what created these gods, or whatever god is your preference, and what created that or those gods, and what created that or those before them, and before them, and before them?

We keep getting algebraically and geometrically expansive values of 'before', which in turn gets into the dimensionality and nature of time.
Regardless that, you still have this neverending spiral of precedent personalities that absolutely must present themselves as progenitors if you accept that there is even just one progenitor.

In smaller words; if you accept there is one god, or any number of gods, if you have the smallest bit of reason about you, you then must accept that if a personality is responsible for creation, then there has to then be a personality that created that personality, and a personality before that, just as you, and any other animal or known life had a mother/father/progentor/predecessor.

If all organization must come from organization then where did that organization come from?
In math, this is similar to the Golden Spiral: Golden Spiral, or the golden ratio describing an endless infinite spiral.
Such an argument for the validity of a god would then at least have some mathematical backing, but, as said, it'd have to accept an endless procession of pre-proto-ur--former-creators through an infinite line of creationism.


Firstly some definitions:
Randomness implies no order at all. True randomness is difficult to achieve in mathematical terms and in physics. Chaos implies a high order, but with such variability that we cannot discern a pattern. The mathematical space wherein chaos operates is bounded and often functional curves can be inferred which are predictive of final states. True randomness is not bounded nor can its results be mathematically calculated.

Your first example about crowd control has nothing to do with randomness. Crowd psychology is a particular expression of individual psychology, evidenced only when they are in groups. Both are highly ordered. Crowd control is directed at individuals, with the knock-on effect of compliance of the rest of the crowd.

Your second example, the liquid conforming to the shape of its container, moved from one level of order to another, the interim flow being turbulent (chaotic). This is not analogous to randomness creating order.

Your third example, the differences between two species of tree, is so far beside the point that I cannot understand why you believed it to be worth including? The growth of trees is in no way random.

Your insistence that God is bounded by time and therefore has a precedent is at odds with the descriptions of an atemporal deity that are recorded in the Bible and at the core of orthodox Christian Theology.

Despite your remarkably obtuse protestations, I believe that the point raised in my post that often scientists are irrational is borne out in your response. I was not attacking science but merely pointing out the failings and variability of all human philosophy.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by chr0naut
Sure:
All about Science - Big Bang Theory Overview
Discover Magazine - Before the Big Bang
superstringtheory.com - What Came Before the Big Bang?
and, for completeness, a dissenting view (which mentions the predominant accepted theory):
Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang


Big Bang theory explains the expansion, not what happened prior to it. That argument is like saying evolution explains the origin of life. There aren't any science experiments that suggest "nothing" ever existed. It is impossible to study anything prior to just after the singularity started to expand. Anything before the singularity is a pure guess or hypothesis. There is not any scientific evidence anywhere to suggest "nothing" existed at any point in time. Our human understanding of time is what we base that on, but the truth of the matter is that while there are a few good mathematical theories out there about what came prior or what lies beyond our known universe, there is nothing based on tangible evidence.
edit on 14-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


If all matter, energy and even space-time itself was generated in the big bang, then nothing that is existed before it. Not that hard to work out.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


No idea, never heard of it. See the problem with evolutionists they think everything just evolved out of thin air, when they don't realize things don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere, for something to exist it has to be created.


2 way problem...

What created Big Bang?!?? what was before BB?!?!?

Who created God, were is his/hers "parents"?!!?!?

If a creationist need to disprof Evolution it haz to look at its own belife.


The Christian God, as revealed in the Bible, exists outside of time. He is simultaneously operating inside our time-frame and outside of it.

Since He is not bounded by time (and is in fact the creator of time) there can be no precedent or antecedent for God.

Imagine if all through time, there has been a (directed) growth towards a particular goal (the emergence of a being who could manipulate time and create matter and space-time from what we would call nothingness). It would be of prime importance for that "final" state of being to reach forward in time and create the very conditions from which He would become emergent. It would be pointless to ask who His parents are as He is His own progenitor.

This is just one of many ways to answer your questions.



edit on 14/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


You have served me well, such that may even result in bruising. Well struck.


Regarding failings and variability of all human philosophy, including science and religion, I'll agree such does occur on the macro and personal level, not excluding myself, or anyone for that matter.

As for statements that equal 'because the bible', similar could be said for any textual basis of theological or philosophical ideology with any culture past or present.

Is Christianity right because it's contemporary and popular?
Is any mythology a more correct reflection of the universe than any other?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


I thought evolution had nothing to do with abiogenesis?




As many here no doubt know, phylogenetic trees depicting the relationship of animals, plants, fungi, etc. have been derived from nuclear genes (genes that are encoded by nuclear DNA)





The image below depicts a phylogeny that is derived not from nuclear DNA genes, but from mitochondrial DNA genes:


The Tree of Life which depicts vertical gene transfer?

What about Horizontal or Lateral Gene Transfer?


Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes."[29]


Link

If I understand this correctly, different species can share genetic material because of Lateral/Horizontal genetic transfer.




Other cases of HGT in multicellular organisms are coming in thick and fast. HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows. The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions

Link

Perhaps viruses could explain the relationship between species.



The thing is, trees derived from nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA depict the same relationships. Is this not undeniable proof, that the divide between micro and macro evolution only exists in the minds of creationists?




Rose goes even further. “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that,” he says. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.


Article


Box 2 | Controversial clocks for explosive radiations Molecular clocks have been applied to a wide range of evolutionary questions, but none has attracted the degree of controversy that has surrounded molecular date estimates for several evolutionary radiations — the ‘Cambrian explosion’ of animal phyla and the radiations of modern birds and mammals in the early Tertiary1. These explosive radiations are part of a series of mass extinctions followed by rapid evolutionary radiations inferred from the global fossil record — a pattern that is considered to have fundamentally shaped the history of life.But molecular dates for the origins of animal phyla27 and orders of mammals and birds68 are generally twice as old as the dates of origin indicated by the fossil record.DNA evidence has been used to argue that these explosive radiations are an artefact of a disjunct fossil record: the early history of the animal kingdom, and modern birds and mammals, could simply be hidden from view. Conversely,many palaeontologists suggest that the discrepancy between molecular and palaeontological dates shows that molecular clocks can be systematically inaccurate, because some process associated with explosive radiations could speed the molecular clock69,70 (although no supporting evidence has yet been found for this hypothesis49). Resolving this controversy is important not only for assessing the reliability of molecular dates, but also for understanding the mechanisms of MACRO EVOLUTION. Some researchers suggest that the pace and degree of change in explosive radiations is too great to be explained by Darwinian MICRO EVOLUTIONARY processes, and that special mechanisms must be invoked, such as rapid change by developmental macromutations involving the HOX GENE COMPLEX70,71.Research into the dynamics of molecular evolution, and the development of more sophisticated molecular dating methods,will contribute to this important debate.


Link

We live in a complex symbiotic biosphere and we share genetic material.

Ha chooooooo........













edit on 14-4-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
The Tree of Life which depicts vertical gene transfer?

What about Horizontal or Lateral Gene Transfer?


Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes."[29]


Link

If I understand this correctly, different species can share genetic material because of Lateral/Horizontal genetic transfer.

Yes.




Other cases of HGT in multicellular organisms are coming in thick and fast. HGT has been documented in insects, fish and plants, and a few years ago a piece of snake DNA was found in cows. The most likely agents of this genetic shuffling are viruses, which constantly cut and paste DNA from one genome into another, often across great taxonomic distances. In fact, by some reckonings, 40 to 50 per cent of the human genome consists of DNA imported horizontally by viruses, some of which has taken on vital biological functions


Perhaps viruses could explain the relationship between species.

No. The basic proteome, i.e. protein-coding genes, are almost exclusively vertically inherited. Stuff that moves, is homing endonucleases, transposons, retroviruses, etc., Most of that stuff is non-coding. It's mostly extra baggage. Sometimes also protein-coding genes are transferred, thus the warning to not build single gene phylogenetic trees. And of course no one does, such trees offer very poor resolution. Those mtDNA trees are based on ca. 25 concatenated protein-coding genes. Nuclear phylogenetic trees on the other hand can be based on thousands of genes.




Rose goes even further. “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that,” he says. “What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.


It's the bush of life. Especially towards the root there was unquestionably a lot of HGT.




Box 2 | Controversial clocks for explosive radiations Molecular clocks have been applied to a wide range of evolutionary questions, but none has attracted the degree of controversy that has surrounded molecular date estimates for several evolutionary radiations — the ‘Cambrian explosion’ of animal phyla and the radiations of modern birds and mammals in the early Tertiary1. These explosive radiations are part of a series of mass extinctions followed by rapid evolutionary radiations inferred from the global fossil record — a pattern that is considered to have fundamentally shaped the history of life.But molecular dates for the origins of animal phyla27 and orders of mammals and birds68 are generally twice as old as the dates of origin indicated by the fossil record.DNA evidence has been used to argue that these explosive radiations are an artefact of a disjunct fossil record: the early history of the animal kingdom, and modern birds and mammals, could simply be hidden from view. Conversely,many palaeontologists suggest that the discrepancy between molecular and palaeontological dates shows that molecular clocks can be systematically inaccurate, because some process associated with explosive radiations could speed the molecular clock69,70 (although no supporting evidence has yet been found for this hypothesis49). [Resolving this controversy is important not only for assessing the reliability of m...



We live in a complex symbiotic biosphere and we share genetic material.

Ha chooooooo........


I don't know so much about molecular clocks, but there are at least two fundamentally different types. One is a relative clock, it tells if a species diverged before or after some other species based on existence of some specific mutations. The one that tells absolute time, sometimes the models can be calibrated, but I don't know how exactly these work. Also, I don't think it's possible to take into account changes in mutation rates, which are influenced by multiple factors like population size, selective forces, etc. However, the first signs of multicellular life are about 1.45 billion years old (calibration point for overall mtDNA divergence). Thus, the acquisition of mitochondria must have happened before that

edit on 14-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by chr0naut
 


You have served me well, such that may even result in bruising. Well struck.


Regarding failings and variability of all human philosophy, including science and religion, I'll agree such does occur on the macro and personal level, not excluding myself, or anyone for that matter.

As for statements that equal 'because the bible', similar could be said for any textual basis of theological or philosophical ideology with any culture past or present.

Is Christianity right because it's contemporary and popular?
Is any mythology a more correct reflection of the universe than any other?


Sorry for the ecchymosis, I should know better as my wife also seems to suggest violent physical injury to be resultant from my winning a point logically.


In answer to your questions, I don't believe that popularity nor being "up to the moment" validates religion. In some circumstances, it is the "tried and true" timelessness and tenacity to an unmodified message that provides some proof of the theses at the core of religious faith. Ultimately,though, true faith is personal and revelatory. Despite the revelatory nature of scripture, I do not believe that it would have any tenacity if it were not for the way these scriptures are validated by the experience of the believer either as an epiphany, or as observation of the miraculous.

Ideally, though, in a collection of belief systems, one is not necessarily better than another when seen from a dispassionate and disconnected view. Indeed, one may have really good points but be saddled with some less than desirable traits. If, however, there is actually a single truth, then personal choice is both vitally important to the believer and simultaneously irrelevant to its truth. Acceptance of anything else but the truth is a lie.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
I couldnt give less care to what your saying..
Your logic serves you not me..

Your statement to the GOD´s parents issue
is just as much mumbo jumbo to me as
Big bang is to a religios person.

As a hands down, facts, and belive what i see
i cant buy in to the religous scriptures that
tells tales of angels, prophets, jesus beeing
a son of something...Theres NOTHING in
my world that makes that plausible.

Physics and Biology are, to me...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
If all matter, energy and even space-time itself was generated in the big bang, then nothing that is existed before it. Not that hard to work out.


You said that some scientific theories were based on true nothingness. I just showed you why that notion is false, and again, the logic you responded with is your personal opinion. We don't know anything about prior to singularity (if there ever was a prior). For all we know the singularity could have always existed, or could be in a loop of big bangs, or could have came from another universe. Your guess is as good as mine, but that claiming big bang theory is based on nothing, is absolutely false and bears no merit whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by chr0naut
If all matter, energy and even space-time itself was generated in the big bang, then nothing that is existed before it. Not that hard to work out.


You said that some scientific theories were based on true nothingness. I just showed you why that notion is false, and again, the logic you responded with is your personal opinion. We don't know anything about prior to singularity (if there ever was a prior). For all we know the singularity could have always existed, or could be in a loop of big bangs, or could have came from another universe. Your guess is as good as mine, but that claiming big bang theory is based on nothing, is absolutely false and bears no merit whatsoever.


What existed before time?

Similarly, explain how the post Big Bang expansion achieved superluminality? Or why red-shifts appear to be quantized and how this affects the assumptions from which the theory arises?

The Big Bang theory is based upon too many, fairly shaky and unverifiable assumptions.

... and it's the best we've got.


edit on 15/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Those mtDNA trees are based on ca. 25 concatenated protein-coding genes. Nuclear phylogenetic trees on the other hand can be based on thousands of genes.


Are these researchers biasing there findings because of a philosophy?


A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities based upon similarities and differences in their physical and/or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor.



A multiple sequence alignment (MSA) is a sequence alignment of three or more biological sequences, generally protein, DNA, or RNA. In many cases, the input set of query sequences are assumed to have an evolutionary relationship by which they share a lineage and are descended from a common ancestor.


The researchers assume evolution occurred and infer it using these "trees".


Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. They do not necessarily accurately represent the species evolutionary history. The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by horizontal gene transfer,[8] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences.
Link

I know I am beating a dead horse but had to add the above.





The most widely used approach to multiple sequence alignments uses a heuristic search known as progressive technique (also known as the hierarchical or tree method), that builds up a final MSA by combining pairwise alignments beginning with the most similar pair and progressing to the most distantly related. All progressive alignment methods require two stages: a first stage in which the relationships between the sequences are represented as a tree, called a guide tree, and a second step in which the MSA is built by adding the sequences sequentially to the growing MSA according to the guide tree
link

If I understand this correctly a "guide tree" is used as a framework for this research.

The only outcome using this framework will be a "tree"

If I draw a "guide" tree on a wall and hand children "leaves" of different colors (but made of different materials) and then ask them to group them using a color wheel, we will have a "tree" with leaves on it. But would that necessarily mean that the "leaves" are related?

I also found the phrase "heuristic search" interesting.


Where an exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, or common sense.

Apparently this is a method used by researchers in phylogenetics.



Estimating phylogenies is not a trivial problem. A huge number of possible phylogenetic trees exist for any reasonably sized set of taxa; for example, a mere ten species gives over two million possible unrooted trees. These possibilities must be searched to find a tree that best fits the data according to the optimality criterion.

Link

Sounds like a vast undertaking.

As a believer in a Creator, It sounds to me like they are shoehorning their findings.


However, the genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. This suggests that a single evolutionary history underlies the origin of the genetic code. Many hypotheses on the evolutionary origins of the universal genetic code have been proposed.

link

It is my belief that Jehovah God originated the genetic code, as it was necessary for a symbiotic earth. Science can explain many of the parts but the origins remain elusive.

The origins of Mitochondria are debated by the scientific community. All of them seem to be looking for a natural explanation.

I think that the origins of mitochondria become a chicken and egg thing if you don't believe in a Creator.

I find it fascinating that scientists use terms like invent and create when talking about evolution.

Nick Lane uses phrases like "you've put together" "you've done that" etc. when discussing "evolutionary" processes. It almost seemed to me like he was speaking as a chef talking to other chefs about mixing ingredients.

Or he spoke as chef trying to crack another Chefs recipe.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1
Are these researchers biasing there findings because of a philosophy?

No.



The researchers assume evolution occurred and infer it using these "trees".

Evolutionary relation is inferred from trees, which are usually based on concatenated protein sequences. Also small and large ribosomal subunit rDNA sequences are often used for tree-building. It's assumed, that the genes studied evolved only once, as the probability of them having evolved independently in all life again and again approaches negative infinity, so it's not really that bad of an assumption. Are you arguing that genes of mitochondria evolved independently to be similar to genes of alphaproteobacteria? Keep in mind, that as I already wrote before, it's not even only about the sequences of those genes, but also about their actual order in the genomes, e.g. alphaproteobacterial gene-linkage groups (or operons) are also found from mitohondrial genomes.

Sequence similarities are not the only genetic attributes that support common ancestry, e.g. if you have species A, B, C, D, and E. And you find that A and B share 10 rare mutations that are missing from the other species, it's rather obvious that these two species shared a more recent ancestor and diverged a longer time ago from the other species.



If I understand this correctly a "guide tree" is used as a framework for this research.

You don't understand what a "guide tree" is, and its usage depends completely on the methods deployed.



The only outcome using this framework will be a "tree"

No. You don't have to make "rooted trees". It can just as well be a network of lines and nodes too, if you wish.



If I draw a "guide" tree on a wall and hand children "leaves" of different colors (but made of different materials) and then ask them to group them using a color wheel, we will have a "tree" with leaves on it. But would that necessarily mean that the "leaves" are related?

As I predicted, you misunderstood what a "guide tree" actually is (e.g. it's not a subjective opinion but is instead based on empirically obtained data).




Where an exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, or common sense.

Apparently this is a method used by researchers in phylogenetics.

Not really.




Estimating phylogenies is not a trivial problem. A huge number of possible phylogenetic trees exist for any reasonably sized set of taxa; for example, a mere ten species gives over two million possible unrooted trees. These possibilities must be searched to find a tree that best fits the data according to the optimality criterion.

Link

Sounds like a vast undertaking.

Totally automated process. I did this a few days ago for ca. 20 species (ca. 3000 aa MSA) on my laptop. Took a few hours to calculate.



The origins of Mitochondria are debated by the scientific community. All of them seem to be looking for a natural explanation.

The origin of mitochondria is universally agreed upon in the scientific community. They used to be free-living alphaproteobacteria. What is debated, is the nature of the host cell, as well as the physiological capabilities of the proto-mitochondrion.



I think that the origins of mitochondria become a chicken and egg thing if you don't believe in a Creator.

How so?
edit on 16-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
What are mitochondria?

Mitochondria are found inside virtually all eukaryote (animals, plants, fungi, protists, etc.) cells in huge numbers, and their primary task is to produce energy for the cell. Like their hosts and bacteria, they are bound by a double lipid membrane, and indeed, they even carry their own DNA molecules, and reproduce independently of the host cell.

Although there's no scientific consensus about the exact way how mitochondria became a part of us, it's a fact that they were once, about 1.5 billion years ago, free-living alphaproteobacteria. The image below depicts the many models there are for the origin of eukaryotes (notice they all agree on the origin of mitochondria, i.e it was an alphaproteobacteria of some sort):



The problem for creationists

As many here no doubt know, phylogenetic trees depicting the relationship of animals, plants, fungi, etc. have been derived from nuclear genes (genes that are encoded by nuclear DNA). Creationists deem these relationships false, and often claim that there is a mechanism that at some point prevents change from happening (the artificial micro vs macro separation), i.e. they claim that common ancestry is impossible. The image below depicts a phylogeny that is derived not from nuclear DNA genes, but from mitochondrial DNA genes:


As you see, all mitochondria (names with colors) derive from one branch of the tree and this is supported by a bootstrap value of 100%, which makes their common ancestry a scientific fact. A level down, mitochondria and Rickettsia (alphaproteobacterial order) are grouped together, which points to their common ancestry exclusive to Bradyrhizobium (this particular node is not so well supported). A level further down still groups mitochondria, Rickettsia, and Bradyrhizobium (another alphaproteobacterial order) together with that 100% bootstrap value, making their common ancestry a scientific fact.

The thing is, trees derived from nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA depict the same relationships. Is this not undeniable proof, that the divide between micro and macro evolution only exists in the minds of creationists?

further reading
edit on 12-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



"it's a fact that they were once, about 1.5 billion years ago, free-living alphaproteobacteria. "


can you source this fact??? is it proven?? if you can't then your whole post is moot.
edit on 16-4-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by votan
can you source this fact??? is it proven?? if you can't then your whole post is moot.
edit on 16-4-2012 by votan because: (no reason given)

Of course, it was at the bottom of the very post you cited.

here it's again

Time:


The oldest undisputedly eukaryotic microfossils go back 1.45 billion years in the fossil record. Given the coincidence of mitochondria with the eukaryotic state, this can also be seen as a minimum age for mitochondria and a rough best-guess starting date for eukaryotic evolution.


For alphaproteobacterial origins, check e.g. this



Abstract
Complete sequences of numerous mitochondrial, many prokaryotic, and several nuclear genomes are now available. These data confirm that the mitochondrial genome originated from a eubacterial (specifically α-proteobacterial) ancestor but raise questions about the evolutionary antecedents of the mitochondrial proteome.

Much evidence supports the conclusion that the mitochondrial genome originated from within the (eu)bacterial [8,9,10], not the archaeal [11], domain of life. Specifically, among extant bacterial phyla, the α-proteobacteria are the closest identified relatives of mitochondria, as indicated, for example, by phylogenetic analyses of both protein-coding genes [8,9] and ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes [12] specified by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

Over the past two decades, many complete mitochondrial genome sequences have been determined, and several recent surveys have summarized various aspects of mitochondrial genome structure, gene content, organization and expression [13,14,15,16]. Two comprehensive mitochondrial genome-sequencing programs have particularly targeted mtDNA in protists [17] and fungi [18]. A number of specific and general insights into mitochondrial genome evolution follow from these data. The first is that ATP production, coupled to electron transport, and translation of mitochondrial proteins represent the essence of mitochondrial function: these functions are common to all mitochondrial genomes and can be traced unambiguously and directly to an α-proteobacterial ancestor. The mitochondrial genome encodes essential components for both of these processes [8,9].

The second insight is that the most ancestral (least derived), most bacterium-like and most gene-rich mitochondrial genome yet described is the 69,034 base pair (bp) mtDNA of the protist Reclinomonas americana, a jakobid flagellate [19] (jakobids are a group of putatively early diverging protozoa that share ultrastructural features with certain amitochondrial protists). By comparison, some other protist mtDNAs, most fungal, and all animal mtDNAs are highly derived, having diverged away from the ancestral pattern exemplified by R. americana mtDNA.

Sequencing has also shown that mitochondrial genomes have, to variable extents, undergone a streamlining process ("reductive evolution" [20]), leading to a marked loss of coding capacity compared to that of their closest eubacterial relatives. Mitochondrial gene content varies widely, from a high of 67 protein-coding genes in R. americana mtDNA to only three in the mitochondrial genome of apicomplexans [8,9], a group of strictly parasitic protists (specific relatives of dinoflagellates) including such organisms as Plasmodium falciparum, the causative agent of malaria. Differential gene content in mtDNAs is attributable primarily to mitochondrion-to-nucleus gene transfer [8,9,10,21,22] (which is demonstrably an on-going process in certain lineages, notably flowering plants [23]). Mitochondrial DNA may also lose genes whose functions are substituted for by unrelated genes encoded in the nucleus. A notable example is the replacement of an original multi-subunit bacteria-like RNA polymerase (inherited from the proto-mitochondrial ancestor and still encoded in certain jakobid - but no other - mitochondrial genomes) by a single-subunit bacteriophage T3/T7-like RNA polymerase, which directs mitochondrial transcription in virtually all eukaryotes [24]. Conversely, there may be complete loss of particular mitochondrial genes (and hence the corresponding functions) without functional complementation by nuclear genes. The complex I (nad) genes of the respiratory chain are one example of such loss. In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, neither the mitochondrial nor the nuclear genome contains classical complex I genes [25]; their disappearance from yeast mtDNA results in the absence of the first coupling site in the yeast electron-transport chain.

Furthermore, genome sequencing shows that the mitochondrial genome (and therefore mitochondria per se) arose only once in evolution. Several observations support this contention [8,9,10]. First, in any particular mitochondrial genome (with few exceptions [26]), genes that have an assigned function are a subset of those found in R. americana mtDNA. Second, in a number of cases, mitochondrial protein-coding clusters retain the gene order of their bacterial homologs, but these clusters exhibit mitochondrion-specific deletions that are most parsimoniously explained as having occurred in a common ancestor of mitochondrial genomes, subsequent to its divergence from the bacterial ancestor. Third, mitochondria form a monophyletic assemblage to the exclusion of bacterial species in phylogenetic reconstructions using concatenated protein sequences [8,9,25,27,28] as well in small-subunit rRNA trees [12].

A final insight from mitochondrial genome sequencing is the emergence of striking parallels in phylogenetic trees separately reconstructed from genes encoded by nuclear DNA [7] and mtDNA [8,9]. In both cases, certain clades (such as animals plus fungi or red plus green algae) have become robust, although connections among these clades and other eukaryotic species or groups cannot yet be precisely resolved. These emerging parallels support the view that mitochondrial and nuclear genomes have evolved in concert throughout much, if not most, of the evolutionary history of the domain Eukarya.

..etc

edit on 16-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
What existed before time?

Similarly, explain how the post Big Bang expansion achieved superluminality? Or why red-shifts appear to be quantized and how this affects the assumptions from which the theory arises?

The Big Bang theory is based upon too many, fairly shaky and unverifiable assumptions.

... and it's the best we've got.


Sure, we don't know everything yet, but we do know a good amount.

www.talkorigins.org...

It's not like the whole thing is just willy nilly made up based on nothing. I didn't see anything about quantized redshifts. Please explain.

No offense, I just hate when science is misrepresented.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I wouldn't mind, if the stuff that was not related to mitochondria in any way, e.g. the Big Bang, was discussed somewhere else. This thread is about mitochondria being derived alphaproteobacteria, and the implications of this scientific fact.
edit on 16-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
The Op's post is flawed.

It makes an assumption about all creationists that has not been proven to be true.

Creationism doesn't disallow the possibility that evolution is a tool set forth to do it's thing, Only that A creator created such a tool.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
The Op's post is flawed.

It makes an assumption about all creationists that has not been proven to be true.

Creationism doesn't disallow the possibility that evolution is a tool set forth to do it's thing, Only that A creator created such a tool.

Of course I'm aware there are all kinds of creationists (god a/b/c/etc., aliens, by means of natural laws but to purpose, etc.), but the first post was directed at the most absurd kind, i.e. those that refuse to accept reality and dispute common ancestry.
edit on 16-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by chr0naut
What existed before time?

Similarly, explain how the post Big Bang expansion achieved superluminality? Or why red-shifts appear to be quantized and how this affects the assumptions from which the theory arises?

The Big Bang theory is based upon too many, fairly shaky and unverifiable assumptions.

... and it's the best we've got.


Sure, we don't know everything yet, but we do know a good amount.

www.talkorigins.org...

It's not like the whole thing is just willy nilly made up based on nothing. I didn't see anything about quantized redshifts. Please explain.

No offense, I just hate when science is misrepresented.


As Rhino has pointed out, this thread (on the Big Bang) is going off topic.

I might post a thread on the quantization of redshift at some other time.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join