kitkat

The perfect time is now that is seen in the sea slug that eventually will have the entire chloroplast as part of its DNA make-up. Evolution occurring right in front of your very own eyes. I hope science is documenting every step in mutation changes in the sea slug. Perhaps the sea slug is the template for this new innovation and in the future maybe there will be more species able to use it. After all, isn't our sun suppose to get hotter in the future?

How could the nucleocytoplasm arise when archaea and bacteria do not possess one? The mitochondria do not have a nucleus. Plastids what are they?

So are plasmids the initiator for bacteria to acquire new methods of adapting to a changing environment? All of the literature regarding HGT and the language that is used to describe it is that this is how bacteria swap genes with each other. Shuffling them does not mean transfer. The literature also suggests that HGT is done deliberately for increasing their ability to survive with this new gene.

So then is HGT just a reaction that causes genes to be shuffled around. Moved genes allows different reactions that otherwise was not an option prior to HGT. Is HGT done deliberately by the microbe for a reason or because they were in close enough contact with each that HGT is unavoidable? If this is the case, wouldn't HGT interfere with the replicating ability of the microbe?

How is science ever going to build an accurate database on microbes if they are constantly changing due to HGT? Don't they obtain a new identity with new genes added to them or genes they give away? These critters are mind boggling and they are a continuous source of frustration because they are involved in everything from life to non life in chemical reactions. We cannot solve the mysteries surrounding our DNA until we understand their DNA that is a big part of our beings.

What are scientists exactly seeing when they study cells. Can they see every intricate detail of a cell or just an outline of it. Can an atom be seen in its intricate detail? I am curious since I have run across in research that microbes are viewed as just chemical reactions, life forms are just animated chemical reactions, atoms reacting is how organisms came into existence, etc. The impression I am getting is that science have many conclusions based on just seeing the reactions and have very little understanding of the initiation processes that gives it facts.

I have been previously taught that prokaryotes were strictly single celled organisms but now you are saying multicellularity arose several times including some prokaryotes. Is the nucleus now the only one that separates the eukaryotes from the prokaryotes? Do any single celled prokaryotes posses chloroplasts or mitochondria? What would make eukaryotes large enough to be able to ingest mitochondria in the first place? or is the digestion of mitochondria is why they are larger?

i am glad that it is not being ignored. The big difference between cars and prokaryotes is that they did not need us to survive for most of early earth's history. The connection seems to lie in the point when the sun's energy intensified or not (do we know) that affected their ability to expand to other ecological niches. The output of oxygen by photosynthesis by prokaryotes did not appear to be the cause for the rise of oxygen that arose to become a crisis, it wasn't until chloroplasts in eukaryotes arose is believed to be the cause while simultaneously the cambrian explosion occurred at the same time. This of course killed many of prokaryotes competitors thus giving many of the new eukaryotes a much higher odds of survival. Sexual reproduction is an arms race against evolving pathogens while at the same time offers protection for the microbial communities that live in us and in our environment.

What I meant to say is HGT between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The car analogy is twisted since we are dependent on our cars to get us from point A to point B and this is evident in that we do not want to give them up in light of what we know as one of the causes of global pollution.

Perhaps it is the plant life (fruits, flowering plants) that have a direct influence of how new species emerge in adaptations, diet that is specific to different species of plant life that ensures their survival.

Please correct me if I have this wrong is that mutations occur mostly through copying errors, transporons that move genes to different locations, environmental damage, viruses that change protein functions that through time eventually changes the appearance of life forms. I realize that HGT from microbial life is rare but I can't help thinking that it occurs more often that what is believed right now. Basically it is the microbial life that enable this planet to remain a living one. It is also believed that our cells originated from two different species of microbes. The chloroplast and the mitochondria was once an independent microbial life form. We are dependent on them for everything from the oxygen we breathe to the food we consume. Isn't it logical to believe that we serve them?

Arising by chance through an undirected process of random mutations, descent with modification is exactly what evolutionists claim. Of course I don't believe the first part since the verdict is still out and I am still not sure about it being totally "undirected"

The mitochondria came before chloroplasts simply because animals were already here in the ocean. Chloroplasts are viewed currently as colonies of cyanobacteria that make up the chloroplast cell. The plankton, algae consists of cyanobacteria. Before expanding to land, an organism that can make its own food is necessary to support life on land. Cyanobacteria in the form of algae, plankton feeds the next level of life in the oceans. Some of the offspring of cyanobacteria (chloroplast) merged with a eukaryote to form plant life which eventually created the path of life to evolve on land. In other words, photosynthesis using light energy was first but the organism responsible for it did not form a merger with a mitochondria eukaryote (chloroplasts) until expanding to land.

Is the Microbial DNA and Microbial cells that live in our bodies unique to Humans? Do we share many of the same species with others groups of species?

My existence today confirmed by this forum that my ancestry of Human, primates, etc all the way back to its origin is 100% true. This makes complete sense to me since any new organism from scratch after life became firmly established would have very little chance of survival. This information is extremely important for the masses to grasp its significance since we are pushing so many other species to extinction. They become a dead end and this stops evolution for all of them. Millions of years of evolution down the drain for all of the species that are currently on the extinction list and no hope of comeback. They can't because there is no place for them to live and evolve into the future. Does this upset you as much as it does me?

It is apparently difficult for many of us to understand how evolution is actually defined. Please correct me if I am presenting the wrong assumption. Evolution is descent with modification (Life can only come from life) and nature never has to start from scratch again right? Is this the correct interpretation in a nutshell? I realize that there is several factors involved in this process. If true then the fact that I am here living right now, my ancestry goes back before I was classified as Human all the way back to the beginning of the first life on this planet. My line of descent would have many different names to describe who my ancestors were at any particular time frame in history. Humans evolved from many different lines of classification of humans, primates, and before that no one really knows due to lack of fossil evidence. In other words the only way for me being alive today is because every generation in history lived long enough to produce the next generation that goes back to its origin.

I am sorry but I didn't explain this correctly. Global warming in the past and in the present is caused from the biodiversity of life and its interactions with each other and the environment. It is natural in that no other species before us could be held responsible for its cause. Humans are aware of their interactions with the environment and are intelligent (hopefully) enough to take action before it is too late to fix it. The problem is by the time every nation can agree to take responsibility and many measures simultaneously need to be in place globally including reducing population expansion at least until we can solve these problems it might be too late.

I love your thread! I hope this becomes a reality. I believe that this planet belongs to the microbial world and that they built everything that we are and everything that we can observe in nature. No longer a religious person that believes in the interpretation of the bible of my childhood. The story of Genesis and how it is worded gives me the interpretation of how microbes explain their creation of life.

I think what he meant to say is without photosyntheses, the larger multi-cellular could not evolve.

The wolbachia bacteria that infects 75% of arthropods is in the process of moving its entire genome into these species. Is this comparable to when mitochondria moved into us?

The bacteria bloom and implications of the Human Microbiome Project Right "assuming" at least that is what I am suppose to believe according to science. I see now I think what you saying is Our DNA carries the entire history since its origin and since no new species have come after us that is why it would be very little difference with all other life forms DNA. Is this correct?

Please correct me if I am wrong here it is my understanding that during the dinosaur era that they dominate the entire planet and that the only mammals that existed were ground dwellers. This makes sense to me because given their size I cannot see any other species being able to exist at the same time as them except ones that were night creatures. Here is where it gets confusing to me. Dinosaurs evolved birds. Okay I can see the body of birds could resemble a small dinosaur lineage could produce a bird over time. Now since dinosaurs are considered a reptile and only reptiles can produce reptiles then no mammal species can originate from reptiles during this time frame. It does not mean they could not originate from reptiles but not after the dinosaurs dominated. What is left is the ground dwellers. I have trouble believing that they are entirely responsible for all of the biodiversity of mammals that are alive today. Especially considering that for speciation to occur they have to be isolated from each other. For the numbers to appear they would have to be isolated many times simultaneously all over the globe. Another problem is DNA shuffling and all of the mechanisms that are believed in the process has a limit on how far it can go in every species that we define. There just doesn't appear that this could happen in the time frame its stated and the land mass is not sufficient in space for them to be isolated from each other.

For mutations to occur evolution they have to be in the germ line for natural selection to take this process from here. Please help me with the math: My understanding is there are 50 and 500 billion mutations in humans in every generation. At 1/10 of 1% rate there is 2 to 20 million mutations per year. Out of these numbers how many actually occur in the germ line? The average female produces 2 million eggs at birth but by the time she can reproduce she only has 200 and 300 viable eggs in her lifetime. On average women produce 2 children in their lifetime. I don't see how natural selection works in evolution regarding mutations. If anything it works against it. Many other species can produce alot of offspring but the percentage that actually make it to reproduction is very low so again this works against mutation as being the primary driver for evolution to occur.

Global warming is a natural cycle of this planet. The real problem is how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans. We cannot solve any other problem without dealing with this one first.