Last, but not least, this is how it looks in real life.
Posts by Vidqun
-
71Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
Sheperdless, simple answer that covers all of the above. I view the complexity in nature is a result of intelligent design, whereas you and your fellow evolutionists believe that it has developed by itself over a long period of time. I believe that is impossible. Something that I would have liked to discuss, but never got round to it, is the inner workings of the bacterial flagellum. This is probably the best demonstration of my argument:
The bacterial flagellar motor is a complex biological rotary molecular motor, which is situated in the cell envelopes of bacteria. Whereas most biological motors use adenosine triphosphate as their energy source, the rotation of the flagellar motor is driven by a flow of charged ions across the bacterial plasma membrane. The motor powers the rotation of helical flagellar filaments at speeds of up to several hundred hertz. These rotating filaments act like propellers, pushing the cells through their environment. The motors are regulated by one of the best characterised biological signalling pathways, the chemotaxis pathway. This pathway changes the swimming pattern of the bacteria in response to changes in the concentration of external chemicals so that they move into environments, which are optimal for their growth. Other pathways can regulate the flagellar motor and the motor itself can respond to changing conditions by adapting parts of its structure.
Many bacteria swim using a small biological rotary motor which is powered by the movement of ions (H+ or Na+) across the plasma membrane.
The bacterial flagellar motor consists of a rotor which rotates against stator units that are anchored to the peptidoglycan cell wall.
Torque is generated by the interaction of the stator units, MotA and MotB (or PomA and PomB for Na+driven motors), with FliG in the rotor.
Despite the fact that the driving ions always flow in one direction through the stator units, many flagellar motors can switch between clockwise and counterclockwise rotation.
The structure of the flagellar motor is highly dynamic, some of its components undergo rapid turnover while the motor is functioning in response to changing conditions.
A complex signalling pathway regulates the motor output in response to environmental signals ensuring that bacteria swim towards nutrient rich environments. 1
1. Bacterial Flagella: Flagellar Motor
Nicolas J Delalez, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Published online: August 2014. Full article on Wiley Online Library.
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
Cofty, yes I agree, we are making progress, albeit slowly. First of all, you gave me a list of articles. Click here and take a look for yourself...
Why? Is it in order to prove your Googling skills? I look up the articles and comment on them (not good). I did not bother giving references in order to save time and because you gave me the impression that you were familiar with them and their contents (not good). I can’t put the scientist findings in my own words, I rather let them speak for themselves, thus I am forced to copy & paste (not good). Please make up your mind.
I am honored that you do spend your precious time on my bullshit. And yes, I do look forward to this one: “On the Origin of the Eukaryotic Chromosome.” There’s some interesting words and phrases I want to highlight.
Sheperdless, I thank you for your input and I’m glad you found the quotes interesting. Not sure about your color-car illustration though. Perhaps we should get back to the OP.
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
So, no. 1 is directly related to the OP. Are you with me thus far? Now read part of the quote again: “There are still quite a few gray areas in the figure where either the higher plant sequences have not been determined or they are known but the gene phylogeny is insufficiently clear (in our view) to make a statement on the origin of the plant nuclear genes. Chloroplastic and cytosolic pyruvate kinases are a good example of sequenced genes with an evolutionary history that is so intriguingly complex (Hattori et al., 1995) that one cannot yet tell where the plant nuclear genes come from.”
Now the OP claims: Evolution is a Fact. After reading the above, would you say this is the truth or a lie? To add to that, scientists and researchers can’t work out above processes as yet. That means they cannot replicate them either. However, evolutionists claim all these (very complicated) processes originated randomly and spontaneously in a natural environment. Here I beg to differ. In nature, one sees gradual decay, deterioration and disintegration, and not constant improvement as the evolutionist contend. This is contrary to nature and will not change even in a billion years.
No. 2 is supported by the scientists. They are studying endosymbiosis in the Amoeba in order “to study interactions between hosts and infective agents such as Mycobacterium, Legionella, Toxoplasma, Salmonella, and others,” because similar processes are at work in mammals and humans. Coming back to complexity, evolutionists argue that our immune system (highly complex) originated from these processes (very basic and simplified). I find such claims difficult to digest.
No. 3 makes the point that even if the genome of the cells are changed, these remain human cancer cells. Similarly, the nuclear material of Amoeba proteus was changed by endosymbiosis. This is now a variant of Amoeba, resistant to X-bacteria. The process cannot be used to demonstrate a species change, as evolutionists insist (Def.: The term symbiogenesis refers to the genesis of a new species or kind of life through the merger of two or more existing species. Endosymbiogenesis refers to the origin of a new lineage—a sequence of species that forms a line of descent).
No. 4 points to the fact that the process of natural selection do not favor xD amoebae, that underwent endosymbiosis, to survive in a natural environment.
No. 5 reads in part, “This relentless influx of organelle DNA has abolished organelle autonomy and increased nuclear complexity.” If one compares a one-celled organism to a human, I would venture to say that the human qualifies as a super organism, wouldn't you? In other words, the route from a one-celled organism (simplified life form) to a highly complex life form, is a tortuous one with many and huge chasms to overcome.
6. "Members of the recA/RAD51 family have functions that have differentiated during evolution." In the same breath the writer says: "However, the evolutionary history and relationships of these members remains unclear." I have a problem with such statements. Nevertheless, this is typical evolutionary (Cofty) speak because all of them view evolution as a fact. I view it differently.
7. Yup, that happens when guesswork is involved. You get nowhere fast. But remember now, according to evolutionists, in the “primordial soup” all these archaea and bacteria would flourish. How they got there no one can say. These ingest each other randomly, right? From there one would expect all kinds of intermediate forms to exist and develop. By the way, some snails do have chloroplasts, it seems. Or is the composition of a chloroplast so unique and specialized that it is incompatible with a mammalian cell. So a fork in evolution would take place at some juncture that would send archaea, bacteria, fungi and plants in one direction and animals into a different direction with no intermediate forms. This would happen randomly and spontaneously. In my mind that’s a long shot and why evolution should be viewed as a theory and not a fact.
8. At least the researchers are big enough and honest enough to admit this. So if you oppose this point, are you really being honest?
9. Evolutionists insist that in the murky past it was a open process of archaea and bacteria merging to form new organisms, e.g., eukaryotes. Somewhere along the line the open processes became closed, which in our day can only be unlocked and changed by scientists and genetic engineers in specialized labs. It's an interesting concept nevertheless, but highly unlikely.
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
After going through some of the recommended articles, here’s a few observations (my comments in are in bold letters):
Article: There are still quite a few gray areas in the figure where either the higher plant sequences have not been determined or they are known but the gene phylogeny is insufficiently clear (in our view) to make a statement on the origin of the plant nuclear genes. Chloroplastic and cytosolic pyruvate kinases are a good example of sequenced genes with an evolutionary history that is so intriguingly complex (Hattori et al., 1995) that one cannot yet tell where the plant nuclear genes come from. Furthermore, cases are also known in which the compartmentation of individual gene products can change in different lineages over evolutionary time, such that Figure 2, if prepared for Chlamydomonas or Euglena rather than spinach, would reveal different patterns of origins and compartmentation for the enzymes of the same pathways in those organisms (for an overview, see Martin and Schnarrenberger, 1997).
1) Complexity: The scientists are unable to work out some of the aspects of gene phylogeny in their labs. How could these develop randomly, spontaneously and unaided?
Article: Further work is in progress to determine the mechanism and consequences of the sams gene switching in amoeba/X-bacteria symbiosis. The switch in gene expression in amoebae is not only an example of genetic alterations caused by host-symbiont interactions but also may serve as a good model to study interactions between hosts and infective agents such as Mycobacterium, Legionella, Toxoplasma, Salmonella, and others.
2) Amoebal Immunity: This is a simple immunity mechanism integral to Amoebae, similar to our more complicated immune response. This is not a random process and cannot develop spontaneously. It has been designed that way. In addition, there’s a huge chasm between Amoebal immunity and mammalian immunity, as I remarked earlier.
Article: Various strains of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) have recently been found to play an important role in the development of cervical cancer. The HPV oncogenes E6 and E7 that these viruses possess have been shown to immortalise some human cells and thus promote cancer development. Although these strains of HPV have not been found in all cervical cancers, they have been found to be the cause in roughly 70% of cases. The study of these viruses and their role in the development of various cancers is still continuing, however a vaccine has been developed that can prevent infection of certain HPV strains, and thus prevent those HPV strains from causing cervical cancer, and possibly other cancers as well.
3) Human cancer cells remain human even though their nuclear material had been altered (not a new species)
Article: As shown by our study on the growth rates of amoebae, xD amoebae are more sensitive to exogenous AdoMet than are D amoebae. It is not known why xD amoebae are more sensitive to AdoMet, but it seems to be related to the fragility of the plasmalemma of xD amoebae. It is known that xD amoebae are more sensitive to overfeeding, starvation, microsurgical operations and elevated culture temperature (Jeon, 1995).
4) Natural selection: Interestingly, the xD amoebae have not been improved. Their chances of survival have been considerably reduced. No super or improved organism with the proses of endosymbiosis, I’m afraid.
Article: 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. This relentless influx of organelle DNA has abolished organelle autonomy and increased nuclear complexity.
5) Theoretically then, super or improved organisms should result from the following processes, even in the lab. We see, this is not the case.
Article: The bacterial recA gene and its eukaryotic homolog RAD51 are important for DNA repair, homologous recombination, and genome stability. Members of the recA/RAD51 family have functions that have differentiated during evolution. However, the evolutionary history and relationships of these members remains unclear. Homolog searches in prokaryotes and eukaryotes indicated that most eubacteria contain only one recA. However, many archaeal species have two recA/RAD51 homologs (RADA and RADB), and eukaryotes possess multiple members (RAD51, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, DMC1, XRCC2, XRCC3, andrecA). Phylogenetic analyses indicated that the recA/RAD51 family can be divided into three subfamilies: (i)RADα, with highly conserved functions; (ii) RADβ, with relatively divergent functions; and (iii) recA, functioning in eubacteria and eukaryotic organelles. The RADα and RADβ subfamilies each contain archaeal and eukaryotic members, suggesting that a gene duplication occurred before the archaea/eukaryote split. In the RADα subfamily, eukaryotic RAD51 and DMC1 genes formed two separate monophyletic groups when archaeal RADA genes were used as an outgroup. This result suggests that another duplication event occurred in the early stage of eukaryotic evolution, producing the DMC1 clade with meiosis-specific genes. The RADβ subfamily has a basal archaeal clade and five eukaryotic clades, suggesting that four eukaryotic duplication events occurred before animals and plants diverged. The eukaryotic recA genes were detected in plants and protists and showed strikingly high levels of sequence similarity to recA genes from proteobacteria or cyanobacteria. These results suggest that endosymbiotic transfer of recA genes occurred from mitochondria and chloroplasts to nuclear genomes of ancestral eukaryotes.
6) The sentence reads: "Members of the recA/RAD51 family have functions that have differentiated during evolution." The next sentence reads: "However, the evolutionary history and relationships of these members remains unclear." Isn't that accepting things at face value without evidence?
Article: Chloroplasts arose >1.2 billion years ago (1) when a free-living cyanobacterium became an endosymbiont in a eukaryotic host. Since that time, chloroplast genomes have undergone severe reduction, because chloroplast genomes encode between 50 and 200 proteins, whereas cyanobacterial genomes encode several thousand. Accordingly, endosymbiotic theories have always assumed that the cyanobacterial ancestor of plastids relinquished much of its genetic autonomy: “it is not surprising that chloroplasts lost their ability to live independently long ago,” as Mereschkowsky put it in 1905 (2). In today's terms, that means that during the course of evolution, genes must have been transferred from the ancestral chloroplast to the nucleus, where they acquired the proper expression and targeting signals to allow the encoded proteins to be synthesized on cytosolic ribosomes and reimported into the organelle with the help of a transit peptide. This process, a special kind of lateral gene transfer called endosymbiotic gene transfer (3), appears to be very widespread in nature: ≈18% of the nuclear genes in Arabidopsis seem to come from cyanobacteria (4), and obvious remnants of the chloroplast DNA have been found in higher plant nuclear chromosomes (5). Evolutionary biologists have long been able to infer endosymbiotic gene transfer from evolutionary sequence comparisons but have not been able to watch it happen in the lab until now. In this issue of PNAS, Stegemann et al. (6) report gene transfer from the tobacco chloroplast genome to nuclear chromosomes under laboratory conditions. Their findings, together with other recent developments, open up new chapters in our understanding of organelle–nuclear DNA dynamics and have far-reaching evolutionary implications.
7) Mitochondria and Chloroplasts: If things took place randomly and spontaneously, Why did chloroplasts not find their way into the animal and human genome?
Article: Photosynthetic eukaryotes, particularly unicellular forms, possess a fossil record that is either wrought with gaps or difficult to interpret, or both. Attempts to reconstruct their evolution have focused on plastid phylogeny, but were limited by the amount and type of phylogenetic information contained within single genes1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Among the 210 different protein-coding genes contained in the completely sequenced chloroplast genomes from a glaucocystophyte, a rhodophyte, a diatom, a euglenophyte and five land plants, we have now identified the set of 45 common to each and to a cyanobacterial outgroup genome. Phylogenetic inference with an alignment of 11,039 amino-acid positions per genome indicates that this information is sufficient — but just barely so — to identify the rooted nine-taxon topology. We mapped the process of gene loss from chloroplast genomes across the inferred tree and found that, surprisingly, independent parallel gene losses in multiple lineages outnumber phylogenetically unique losses by more than 4:1. We identified homologues of 44 different plastid-encoded proteins as functional nuclear genes of chloroplast origin, providing evidence for endosymbiotic gene transfer to the nucleus in plants.
8) Again, the fossil record is full of gaps and do not support symbiogenesis as the principal mechanism of developing life forms.
Article: The experimental design used by Stegemann et al. (6) was simple and effective. Using a technology called chloroplast transformation (7), they introduced a cassette containing two foreign genes into tobacco chloroplast DNA. The first one encoded spectinomycin resistance (aad) under the control of a chloroplast-specific promoter; the second one encoded kanamycin resistance (npt) under the control of a nuclear-specific promoter. They took advantage of the fact that whole tobacco plants can be regenerated from single cells. By subjecting transformed tobacco tissues to several rounds of selection on medium containing spectinomycin, they were able to obtain tobacco plants that were homoplastomic for aad and npt; that is, all copies of the chloroplast DNA in all plastids in those plants contained the new cassette. By placing small sections of leaves from those aad/npt homoplastomic lines on kanamycin-containing medium, they initiated selection for strong expression of the npt gene under the control of the nuclear-specific promoter. That was the key step, because on kanamycin medium, only such tobacco cells will survive whose nuclear DNA has incorporated a segment of the genetically modified chloroplast DNA containing the new npt gene.
9) Unnatural Gene Manipulation by Researchers: If it was an open, random, spontaneous process to begin with, why is it now a closed process that can only be manipulated with the help of the genetic engineers?
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
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.
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
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.
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
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.
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
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.
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
I wrote it. I gave you my sources.
-
71
Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
by cofty inin 1966 microbiologist kwang jeon was studying a population of amoebae in the lab when they began to die off unexpectedly.
he noticed thousands of tiny dots in the cytoplasm of each individual which turned out to be a bacterial infection.
most of them weakened and died but surprisingly a small percentage recovered and seemed to be back to normal.
-
-
Vidqun
The Bold words are my words:
Perhaps now is a good time to clarify some of the terminology: Symbiogenesis cannot be replicated in a lab (and not endosymbiosis as previously stated). There is a difference. I cannot dispute the process of endosymbiosis which can be demonstrated. However the complete process of symbiogenesis (the evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic cells by symbiosis) cannot as yet be demonstrated.
What should also be kept in mind, is the process of adaptation at work, which is confirmed by Dr. K. W. Jeon.
It is suggested that the presence of a potent P2 in the X-bacterial gene is an adaptation for the endosymbiotic bacteria to survive within a potentially hostile intracellular environment. 1
The following discusses the organisms or possible organisms involved in Dr. Jeon’s experiment. Important to note that these organisms remain individual and identifiable as specific species.
The X-bacteria which initiated organismic association with the D strain of Amoeba proteus in 1966 as parasites have changed to obligate endosymbionts on which the host depends for survival. Owing to the difficulty in cultivating the bacteria in vitro, the identity of X-bacteria has not been determined. The life cycle of X-bacteria is similar to that of Legionella spp. in soil amoebae. 2
Not sure why this oversight has occurred, but what is described here is the typical (or atypical) immune response of the Amoeba organism, which is not unusual at all. Our immune system has similar response mechanisms to counter invading bacteria and viruses.
This indicates that phylogenetically and ecologically diverse bacteria which thrive inside amoebae exploit common mechanisms for interaction with their hosts, and it provides further evidence for the role of amoebae as training grounds for bacterial pathogens of humans. 3
Again, one should not accept as fact that these organisms are a new species. The warning is sounded by two renowned biologists:
On the basis of the structural and physiological changes brought about by the endosymbionts of xD amoebae as described above, one could consider the the symbiont-bearing xD strain a new species of Amoeba. However, until evidence for genetic differences between D and xD amoebae is obtained, it would be more prudent to treat xD amoebae as belonging to a variant strain. 4
There are huge barriers to overcome in the proposed process of symbiogenesis. I believe the barriers are insurmountable:
