I wrote it. I gave you my sources.
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
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:
-
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
Perhaps now is a good time to clarify some of the terminology: Symbiogenesis [[Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotes – Wiki-article]] cannot be replicated in a lab (and not endosymbiosis as previously stated [[previous post on Wiki-article in previous thread]]). There is a difference. I cannot dispute the process of endosymbiosis which can be demonstrated [[as proved by the Wiki-article on Endosymbiotic theory]]. However the complete process of symbiogenesis (the evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic cells by symbiosis [[Dr. Lynn Margulis]] cannot as yet be replicated [my very own words].
The rest I quoted from the authors of the articles, whether from the Abstracts or in book form as the list indicates. Feel free to look them up.
-
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
See the number. See the quote. Unfortunately, the fonts of the quotes (which I made smaller) reverted back to a single size. That which was quoted comes from the following sources. The abstracts are available on the web. For the full article you must pay:
1. Abstract: “A novel strong promoter of the groEx operon of symbiotic bacteria in Amoeba proteus.” Abstract: Dr K.W. Jeon, Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0810, USA.
2. Abstract: “Phylogenetic characterization of Legionella-like endosymbiotic X-bacteria in Amoeba proteus: a proposal for ‘Candidatus Legionella jeonii’ sp. nov.”
3. Abstract: “The Genome of the Amoeba Symbiont “Candidatus Amoebophilus asiaticus” Reveals Common Mechanisms for Host Cell Interaction among Amoeba-Associated Bacteria.”
4. Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis, by Lynn Margulis and René Fester, p. 125.
5. Molecular Phylogeny of Microorganisms, by Aharon Oren and R. Thane Papke, p. 198.
6. “Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis,” by C. L. Tan and J. P. Tomkins.
7. Linear mitochondrial genomes: 30 years down the line. Josef Nosek, L’Ubomir Tomaska, Hiroshi Fukuhara, and Ladislav Kovac.
-
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, whatever you see or say, the above are the reasons for what I believe, similar to your initial post. That's what you believe, isn't it? You are allowed to say your say, but I am not? Like it or lump it.
-
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
And I quote: "The Wiki article reveals a few flaws with the theory symbiogenesis." Go and look it up. I could not access your article, so I used Wiki instead.
I used the Wiki-article to point out the flaws, and I wrote it out and commented on the article. No copy and paste. Makes me think: Farting against thunder, flogging a dead horse, yeah, both of you. Cantleave, is that the best you can do?
-
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
You've said it and I repeat: "OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY AND ARTICLE ARE ALL MINE." I used the article and OBJECTED to some of the contents. I used the article as backbone and commented and/or objected to it. What is so difficult about that?
-
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, what is wrong with you? Please follow the numbers.
-
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
Here’s a few calculations by scientists and researchers. I am not good with Maths so I cannot verify them. I have to take their word for it:
“The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book “Edge of Evolution”)
Evolution vs. Functional Proteins (“Mount Improbable”) – Doug Axe and Stephen Meyer – Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8
Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....35561.html
On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic StoryJonathan M. – January 10, 2012
Excerpt: While we find examples of similarity between eukaryotic mitochondria and bacterial cells, other cases also reveal stark differences. In addition, the sheer lack of a mechanistic basis for mitochondrial endosymbiotic assimilation ought to — at the very least — give us reason for caution and the expectation of some fairly spectacular evidence for the claim being made. At present, however, such evidence does not exist — and justifiably gives one cause for skepticism.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....54891.html
Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors – July 2010
Excerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified…. There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote.http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20100712b
Bacterial Protein Acetylation: The Dawning of a New Age – July 2012
Excerpt: Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes. Obviously, this misperception must be modified. From the presence of a cytoskeleton to the packaging of DNA to the existence of multiple post-translational modifications, bacteria clearly implement highly sophisticated mechanisms to regulate diverse cellular processes precisely.http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....wning.html
-
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
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:
Barriers to endosymbiogenesis
The transformation of an independent endosmbiont into an organelle faces tremendous barriers. The hurdles include the transfer of much of the endosymbiont’s genetic material to the host’s nucleus, the acquisition of the proper regulatory and targeting sequences to ensure that the transferred gene not only is expressed but possesses the correct targeting information to redirect it into the plastid. This, of course, leads us to the significant challenge of acquiring the appropriate protein import apparatus to ensure that the targeted proteins are properly imported and sorted within the organelle. There is also the issue of integrating and regulating metabolic pathways. 5
We will see that the archaeal translation machinery is neither bacterial, nor eukaryotic, but customized to the archaea. Indeed some parts of the archaeal translation machinery and those of bacteria or eukarya have similar sequence and/or structures since all life forms share the same task of decoding information carried by mRNA and translating the message into the amino acid sequences of proteins. However, the archaeal translation machinery can’t be exchanged with those of bacteria or eukarya, including ribosomes, tRNAs, and translation factors. Thus, there exists an evolutionarily unbridgeable gap between archaea and eukarya and bacteria in translation, just as in DNA replication and transcription.
The above comparisons of a few molecules involved in the information processing in the three domains of life reveals several interesting phenomena: 1) Molecular machines are employed as modules, that is, a process is either bacterial-like or eukaryote-like. 2) Each machine is a molecular mosaic of modules that is fine-tuned to meet the unique need of an organism. 3) The machines for DNA replication, transcription, and translation in bacteria, archaea, and eukarya are unique and specific for each domain of life, and thus, can’t be exchanged. 4) Functional annotations of genes based on sequence homology comparisons can be misleading because they only take into account isolated parts of proteins, not the entire gene. 5) Organism-specific protein extensions, such as the CTD of eukaryotic Rpb1, can be the determinant factor of life vs. death for the specific organism.
We will see that the archaeal translation machinery is neither bacterial, nor eukaryotic, but customized to the archaea. Indeed some parts of the archaeal translation machinery and those of bacteria or eukarya have similar sequence and/or structures since all life forms share the same task of decoding information carried by mRNA and translating the message into the amino acid sequences of proteins. However, the archaeal translation machinery can’t be exchanged with those of bacteria or eukarya, including ribosomes, tRNAs, and translation factors. Thus, there exists an evolutionarily unbridgeable gap between archaea and eukarya and bacteria in translation, just as in DNA replication and transcription.
The above comparisons of a few molecules involved in the information processing in the three domains of life reveals several interesting phenomena: 1) Molecular machines are employed as modules, that is, a process is either bacterial-like or eukaryote-like. 2) Each machine is a molecular mosaic of modules that is fine-tuned to meet the unique need of an organism. 3) The machines for DNA replication, transcription, and translation in bacteria, archaea, and eukarya are unique and specific for each domain of life, and thus, can’t be exchanged. 4) Functional annotations of genes based on sequence homology comparisons can be misleading because they only take into account isolated parts of proteins, not the entire gene. 5) Organism-specific protein extensions, such as the CTD of eukaryotic Rpb1, can be the determinant factor of life vs. death for the specific organism. 6
At variance with the earlier belief that mitochondrial genomes are represented by circular DNA molecules, a large number of organisms have been found to carry linear mitochondrial DNA. Studies of linear mitochondrial genomes might provide a novel view on the evolutionary history of organelle genomes and contribute to delineating mechanisms of maintenance and functioning of telomeres. Because linear mitochondrial DNA is present in a number of human pathogens, its replication mechanisms might become a target for drugs that would not interfere with replication of human circular mitochondrial DNA. 7
1. Abstract: “A novel strong promoter of the groEx operon of symbiotic bacteria in Amoeba proteus.” Abstract: Dr K.W. Jeon, Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0810, USA.
2. Abstract: “Phylogenetic characterization of Legionella-like endosymbiotic X-bacteria in Amoeba proteus: a proposal for ‘Candidatus Legionella jeonii’ sp. nov.”
3. Abstract: “The Genome of the Amoeba Symbiont “Candidatus Amoebophilus asiaticus” Reveals Common Mechanisms for Host Cell Interaction among Amoeba-Associated Bacteria.”
4. Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis, by Lynn Margulis and René Fester, p. 125.
5. Molecular Phylogeny of Microorganisms, by Aharon Oren and R. Thane Papke, p. 198.
6. “Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis,” by C. L. Tan and J. P. Tomkins.
7. Linear mitochondrial genomes: 30 years down the line. Josef Nosek, L’Ubomir Tomaska, Hiroshi Fukuhara, and Ladislav Kovac.