Gene therapy and its connection to evolution

[cyber_indian]

Gene therapy and its connection to evolution

By Ivan M. Nanev

 

What do we do when one day our world comes to an end? How do we preserve our existence? We need to secure our future at least to one more planet. It can be done by terraforming planets from desert to habitable and transfer our ecosystem there. If not done, this should be at least considered as a plan of last resource.

 

Unfortunately not all planets can be friendly and even we might have to reach other solar systems to reach one. Needed factors for "Live" planet formation:

-Acceptable distance from the sun (even extremophilies have their temperature range).

-Thick nitrogen atmosphere.

-Hydrocarbon abundance

-Oxygen in the crust.

-Volcanic activity.

-Planet counter weight - One or two moons to slow down the planet rotation to acceptable day duration (a long day will cool down the global temperature and a short one will keep on warming up) and correct axis angle (which will lead to poles for ice build up, this ensures that environment can withstand sudden extreme conditions).

 

Once we got the right factors it's pretty easy to transform and sustain habitable environment, as long as we have together the necessary inorganic factors and organic plan (blueprint bacteria). If we don’t have the right factors it’ll take too much energy for the task to be done or even make it impossible. Transporting the blueprint bacteria can be done by sending comets in space and spread it on its way to probable target planets. Once there process of terraforming and deployment begins. Some planets will fail to become live because of partial missing factors. There are tree stages in planet formation: A freshly formed one, transformation without biological interference – desert one (for instance weathering) and terraformed through biological interference – live one.

 

Volcanic activity releases/unlocks minerals, gases (like oxygen, sulphur dioxide, later carbon dioxide), ash (rock crushed – this will lead to first soil formation), energy and by releasing chemicals others are mixed. Released oxygen mixed with hydrocarbon converts to water and carbon dioxide. The excess oxygen ends up in the atmosphere. After water formation planet is divided into two sub-environments: water (hydrospheric) and land (atmospheric) with some difference how species function in it. Unlocked minerals dissolve in water and are ready for respiration and other chemical reactions. Some other releases will lead to mineral acid formation which will accelerate weathering and soil formation. Abundant calcite and other buffers in the oceans (which primarily comes from underground rivers - salt leaching, rivers, erosion and black and white smokers) protects marine live from acid toxification. Super volcanoes can contribute to early land vegetation, by spreading vast amount of volcanic ash before the natural soil has formed. Even after the oceans has been created, hydrothermal vents (black and white smokers) keeps on nitrify the marine – It’s important to keep nitrify the environment because of the biomass building up exhausts the mineral availability. In other words volcanoes work as enzymes and planet nitrification. After volcanoes has done their job, bacteria (autotrophic) takes over to convert inorganic minerals to organic nutrition and make sure further availability by recycling it (autotrophic and decomposers).

 

In order a cell to divide and sustain live it needs nutrition in acceptable non-pathogenic medium - a liquid solution with mild amount of nutrition/minerals. They can be obtained from weathering or volcanic processes. Some species dissolve their nutrients during digestion.

 

Climate mechanism and its connection with water and biological interference:

 

Water has many positive properties. It's a very efficient solvent and transporter, which also facilitates many chemical reactions. Its also perfect specific heat and thermal conductivity, meaning it can absorb a lot of energy and distribute it even. If air doesn't have moisture it's a poor conductor of heat and that's why we have so extreme temperature variations in deserts. Also one of the main reasons we're made primarily of water.

 

Poles ice (energy discharged medium) build up, is crucial because it will act as thermal tanks/buffer for sudden climate changes and part of the marine climate apparatus. They are a source of fresh water, which combined with already existing salt water leads to deep ocean currents (circulation) known as "the conveyor belt" (global climate distribution).

 

Water has its greatest density at 4°C, meaning that bottom of a lake, sea or ocean is at stable 4°C no matter if it’s freezing or heating up.

In other words water transfer, store and release temperature to stabilize temperature which is one of the main goals in living friendly environment.

 

Moisture in the soil, atmosphere and oceans levels the global temperature. Water and greenhouse gases hold the temperature down (suppressed by sun radiation) on the ground during the day, while vapors release excess temperature in the cosmos during the night by means of evaporation/convection.

 

In addition there is the clouds’ negative feedback mechanism that changes the atmospheric albedo. We should mention the biological importance of the coccolithophores the major phytoplankton in oceans who changes the oceanic albedo (calcite which refracts light very efficiently in the water column) and triggers clouds by releasing dimethyl sulfide (DMS).

Coccolithophores (albedo) and photosynthetic bacteria, algae, plankton and plants (carbon dioxide) are the biological feedback for the greenhouse machinery (oceans also buffer excess carbon dioxide).

 

Weathering is a process of disintegration of rock that turns into soil (nutrition thank for vegetation). There are 4 stages of weathering:

 

W1:

-Thermal expansion - During the day rock’s outer layer heats up and expands, during night it contracts. This stress through contractions causes the rock to break off. In environment that lacks humidity (deserts or planet who hasn’t form stable weather yet), having big temperatures ranges leads to speeded process.

W2:

-Acid rain – Mineral acids like sulfuric and carbonic acid easily dissolve rocks (as example product of volcanic gas releases).

-Salt and Ice – Freezing water or heated salt in cracks crystallize leading to expansion and break off.

W3:

-Chemical – Adding or subtracting minerals to/from rock or when minerals are broken down into other minerals cause disintegration.

-Oxidation - When oxygen is combined.

 

-Hydration – Some rocks can absorb water, the result is swelling which leads to break down.

-Hydrolysis – Water combines with rock’s mineral ions.

W4:

-Organic – Plants and bacteria release organic acids and thus break the soil down even further.

-Root – As the seed and plant roots grow up through cracks.

 

Formed soil contains water/vapor, minerals, symbiotic bacteria, decomposing biomass and decomposers (nutrient cycling) – insects and bacteria.

 

All this biological interference fills up the gaps, so a desert planet can become a live one. We all know live have started from bacteria, but how? What we need is a bacterium which can resist desert environment (extremophilic), find a suitable place and start deploying other bacteria with genetically altered functions that can fill up the environment gaps. Later on finish up deploying the rest of the species from the world they came from. What we need for the deployment is:

-Stored gene modules (group of genes working together to fulfill a function).

-A way to keep gene modules suppressed until transplanted (memory bacteria doesn’t transcode these extra genes – probably condense that extra chromosome).

-A transplanting tool – vector (virus).

-And a way the transplanting tool to identify only the target specie and specific type of cell (antigen/antibody mechanism).

-A blueprint - all the life form's DNA of the previous world ecosystem gathered and reduced it to greatest common factors (example for that is vertebrates – head, body, arms/wings/fins, legs and tail), strategically planned and stored in many memory bacteria.

 

At first bacteria secrets a blank virus (a virus with DNA for its own structure only), by infecting a memory bacterium it multiplies and charging itself with the designated gene modules and antigens (a process called “transduction”). Now because of the antigen/antibody mechanism the virus is targeted to fuse/append (new DNA information) only with a specific specie and tissue.

 

The building from a blueprint begins with the most common and most simple specie, and then we start appending the DNA difference to form new and new type species come out (that’s why evolution is a tree alike). In case of more complex species, they have to be deployed by transition/accumulation (also known as evolution, evidence for that is the junk DNA and pseudogenes). Sexual mechanism makes sure the newly acquired genes have been distributed in between that one genus and as one of the mechanisms clearing unwanted mutations (DNA integrity break up).

 

All species has to find their spot in the ecosystem. That’s why they have to be able to mold their functionality (or the ecosystem would collapse), by means of shuffling/rearranging genes just before cell division of the newborn.

 

There are tree types of live form:

-Archaea – Deploying.

-Eubacteria – A simplified version (prokaryotes) with only the necessary functions, so it can be more efficient servicing the environment.

-Species – A copy of the previous world.

 

A great man had a big hunch and vision for how we’ve evolve so far. He was on the right path, but didn't have the knowledge of the today’s science to go deeper with his vision. So based just on observations the theory leaves gaps and confusions - “Natural selection - after a century of obscure and vague preliminary formulations, it was proposed as the main mechanism of evolution” (encyclopedia definition).

 

It’s known that viruses spread/transfer genes of other living organisms (transduction) - this model can easily explain even how mitochondrion and chloroplast has been transferred into eukaryotes. It can explain how did we get on our planet and evolve or save us from extinction in case of disaster. Unfortunately many people vindicate the “natural selection” model, even if it doesn’t clarify much of how evolution have proceeded and gets protective when somebody tries to introduce a new model.

teory_v2.pdf

[Mokele]

I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes...

 

Volcanic activity releases/unlocks minerals, gases (like oxygen, sulphur dioxide, later carbon dioxide), ash (rock crushed – this will lead to first soil formation), energy and by releasing chemicals others are mixed. Released oxygen mixed with hydrocarbon converts to water and carbon dioxide. The excess oxygen ends up in the atmosphere.

 

Someone with more geology knowledge correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, volcanoes do not release oxygen.

 

-A blueprint - all the life form's DNA of the previous world ecosystem gathered and reduced it to greatest common factors (example for that is vertebrates – head, body, arms/wings/fins, legs and tail), strategically planned and stored in many memory bacteria.

 

Any extra DNA would be a burden on so simple an organism as a bacteria (note how little of their DNA is unused), and any bacteria that discarded this "memory store" would enjoy faster reproduction and lower nutrient requirements, which means natural selection will ensure that bacteria will out-compete those who retain the stores, eliminating them.

 

Let's not forget that any "stored" DNA is subject to mutation (*and* that bacteria have a higher mutation rate than eukaryotes), so by the time the bacteria even could evolve into eukaryotic or multicellular life, all that would be left is the random genetic gibberish. All the information would be wiped out by accumulated mutations.

 

A great man had a big hunch and vision for how we’ve evolve so far. He was on the right path, but didn't have the knowledge of the today’s science to go deeper with his vision. So based just on observations the theory leaves gaps and confusions - “Natural selection - after a century of obscure and vague preliminary formulations, it was proposed as the main mechanism of evolution” (encyclopedia definition).

 

I suggest you actually learn something about Darwin and natural selection.

 

1) It is called a "theory", not a hunch. The difference is mountains and mountains of evidence.

 

2) While he didn't all our modern knowledge, guess what? Theories can be changed, and evolution has (fittingly) evolved to suit new discoveries and data. What is currently used is the New Synthesis, a re-formulation far superior to the old.

 

3) I am not aware of any significant major gaps in modern evolutionary theory.

 

4) Encyclopedias are worthless, pedestrian tomes. If you want real information, look in the primary literature or at least in textbooks.

 

Unfortunately many people vindicate the “natural selection” model, even if it doesn’t clarify much of how evolution have proceeded and gets protective when somebody tries to introduce a new model

 

1) There is no need for a new model. Evolution as is works perfectly well and explains the data.

 

2) None of the crackpot "new models" proposed have ever been able to show that their "new model" is any better, explains things more clearly and completely, or accounts for more data. In fact, most have glaring holes and are formulated by those with a merely cursory knowledge of biology.

 

-------------------------------

 

On the whole your post is a useless waste of space. It begins by stating the bleedingly obvious, providing a review of this obvious information. This information all seems to build towards a central goal (something about terraforming planets), but that goal never quite materializes, and the short remaineder of the paper seems to wander around pointlessly, generating a few errors, then dies quietly in a corner somewhere.

 

Please sweep up the carcass before it starts to smell.

 

Mokele

[cyber_indian]

First thank you for having a comment, there are not many having the courage

 

>>Someone with more geology knowledge correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, volcanoes do not release oxygen.

 

Main volcano gas releases are sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. For example, on May 13, 1991, 500 tonnes of sulfur dioxide were released from Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.

 

>>Any extra DNA would be a burden on so simple an organism as a bacteria (note how little of their DNA is unused), and any bacteria that discarded this "memory store" would enjoy faster reproduction and lower nutrient requirements, which means natural selection will ensure that bacteria will out-compete those who retain the stores, eliminating them.

 

>>Let's not forget that any "stored" DNA is subject to mutation (*and* that bacteria have a higher mutation rate than eukaryotes), so by the time the bacteria even could evolve into eukaryotic or multicellular life, all that would be left is the random genetic gibberish. All the information would be wiped out by accumulated mutations.

 

There is no such thing as a burden in cells - they just function as they are made to. Now most cells have mechanism to mutate as the "transposons" so they can adapt to their environment. This means that a memory cell can be designed not to mutate or mutate but doesn't touch the suppressed DNA. Archaea is another kingdom it's different than the bacterium.

 

>>I suggest you actually learn something about Darwin and natural selection.

1) It is called a "theory", not a hunch. The difference is mountains and mountains of evidence.

2) While he didn't all our modern knowledge, guess what? Theories can be changed, and evolution has (fittingly) evolved to suit new discoveries and data. What is currently used is the New Synthesis, a re-formulation far superior to the old.

3) I am not aware of any significant major gaps in modern evolutionary theory.

4) Encyclopedias are worthless, pedestrian tomes. If you want real information, look in the primary literature or at least in textbooks.

 

Natural selection actually is not a modern theory. If you like the Dawin theory it's ok, but just prove me wrong. "Guilty until proven innocent" All I know is the more I research my theory the more the puzzle fits by itself.

 

>>1) There is no need for a new model. Evolution as is works perfectly well and explains the data.

2) None of the crackpot "new models" proposed have ever been able to show that their "new model" is any better, explains things more clearly and completely, or accounts for more data. In fact, most have glaring holes and are formulated by those with a merely cursory knowledge of biology.

 

Nobody have the right to say that this is it, this is the right one. Anyway Darwin himself hesitated about his theory - "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

 

I’m happy if anybody can give a comment.

[Mokele]

Main volcano gas releases are sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. For example, on May 13, 1991, 500 tonnes of sulfur dioxide were released from Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines.

 

While both of those *contain* oxygen, there's a world of difference between belching CO2 and SO2 into the air, compared to O2. AFAIK, that combination will *not* react to produce significant ammounts of O2.

 

There is no such thing as a burden in cells - they just function as they are made to. Now most cells have mechanism to mutate as the "transposons" so they can adapt to their environment. This means that a memory cell can be designed not to mutate or mutate but doesn't touch the suppressed DNA.

 

There most definitely is such a thing as a burden in cells, and your concept of how mutation works is grossly misinformed.

 

For instance, take antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Great thing, that adaptation, but, like everything else in the natural world, there is an associated cost, in terms of the time and energy and materials needed to produce the protiens that render them immune. As a result, you see that antibiotic bacteria *only* proliferate when there are antibiotics around. If you remove the antibiotics, some will (through mutation) lose their resistance, and be better off because they no longer have to waste energy making protiens they don't need. Those individuals will be able to compete for resources more effective, and will supplant the resistant bacteria, so long as no antibiotics are introduced.

 

Everything has a cost.

 

As for mutation, while trasposons *can* cause alteration in gene function, that is *not* where the vast majority of mutations come from. In fact, most mutations are the product of either errors in the process of DNA replication or environmental insults (carcinogenic/mutagenic chemicals and radiation). These muations permanently alter the DNA in a totally random way, and there is no way to "prevent" mutation from happening.

 

Mutation doesn't work the way you think it does.

 

Oh, and so you know, Lamarkian evolution was thrown out centuries ago, and that's precisely what you're advocating, along with a healthy dose of the also-wrong concept of group selection.

 

Natural selection actually is not a modern theory. If you like the Dawin theory it's ok, but just prove me wrong. "Guilty until proven innocent" All I know is the more I research my theory the more the puzzle fits by itself.

 

What, precisely, am I supposed to prove wrong? As I said in the prior post, the main thesis of your initial post never materialized, nor did anything after it.

 

Natural selection fits, it works, and it has been observed. You haven't even *stated* your position, much less presented any support for it. Unless you count the parts I disproved above as "support".

 

Nobody have the right to say that this is it, this is the right one. Anyway Darwin himself hesitated about his theory - "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

 

Yes, but what I am saying is "There is so reason to presume the current theory is *not* right, nor any compelling reason to seek it's alteration." That's not saying "It is right", but rather "There is nothing to indicate that it is wrong or inadequate".

 

As for the eye, that was simply a problem that needed solving, and it has been solved. Darwin simply had insufficient data due to the level of scientific knowledge availible at his time.

 

Mokele

[cyber_indian]

Considering that you have at least high school diploma you had gone through many tests and exams. Now tell me did you actually gave random answers to those exams and failed N numbers of times until you took those exams. Because that way you'll never graduate any school and the same is with random scrambling of DNA – natural selection. Or maybe you feel better person if actually life have started on earth, meaning that humans are first of a kind. That way ignoring any other possibilities.

 

>>If you remove the antibiotics, some will (through mutation) lose their resistance, and be better off because they no longer have to waste energy making proteins they don't need.

 

AFIK new and new antibiotics like - penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline, erythromycin, vancomycin are made because bacteria keeps building resistance.

 

Then why B-cells keep memorized those burden antibodies - or maybe they've been programmed to keep this heavy burden.

 

>>Yes, but what I am saying is "There is so reason to presume the current theory is *not* right, nor any compelling reason to seek its alteration." That's not saying "It is right", but rather "There is nothing to indicate that it is wrong or inadequate".

>>Natural selection fits, it works, and it has been observed.

>>!!! so by the time the bacteria even could evolve into eukaryotic or multicellular life, all that would be left is the random genetic gibberish. All the information would be wiped out by accumulated mutations!

 

YOU yourself just proved that "natural selection" will ensure species extinction than survival and evolution. in fact it will ensure increase of mortal birth-rate, mutants and genetic diseases. NO COMMENT.

 

>>While both of those *contain* oxygen, there's a world of difference between belching CO2 and SO2 into the air, compared to O2. AFAIK, that combination will *not* react to produce significant amounts of O2

 

Where do you think all that SO2 and CO2 goes nowadays? Maybe bacterial and eukaryotic species with photosynthetic trait releases the O2 from CO2 for instance. As I mentioned bacteria with various traits terraform or contribute to terraformation and ensure the biological cycle. Don't forget there are anaerobic and autotrophic species.

[Mokele]

Where do you think all that SO2 and CO2 goes nowadays? Maybe bacterial and eukaryotic species with photosynthetic trait releases the O2 from CO2 for instance. As I mentioned bacteria with various traits terraform or contribute to terraformation and ensure the biological cycle. Don't forget there are anaerobic and autotrophic species.

 

True, and you are right, but I was mostly taking issue with your claim that the volcanoes themselves would vent oxygen (which you mentioned specifically as something given off by volcanoes, not as a product of the actions of autotrophs).

 

Considering that you have at least high school diploma you had gone through many tests and exams. Now tell me did you actually gave random answers to those exams and failed N numbers of times until you took those exams. Because that way you'll never graduate any school and the same is with random scrambling of DNA – natural selection. Or maybe you feel better person if actually life have started on earth, meaning that humans are first of a kind. That way ignoring any other possibilities.

 

The last part is unwarranted speculation. The only issue I have with an extraterrestrial origin of life on earth is the current testability of the hypothesis, and that it seems a bit like "passing the buck". I don't object to the hypothesis or it's implications, but merely think it's not terribly useful until it can be tested.

 

As for you hideously inept understand of mutation and natural selection, it's time for evolution 101:

 

Mutation introduces *RANDOM* variation into the gene pool (Source: every biology textbook written since 1910)

 

Selection, on the other hand, *removes* diversity from the gene pool, acting in such a way that those random variants who reproduce the best become more common, supplanting those who do not.

 

To give you an idea of how well selection can counterbalance random mutation, I cite a computer experiment run, IIRC, by Richard Dawkins. He decided that he wanted to get a character string of 13 letters, "TOBEORNOTTOBE" from a computer. He calculated that, if the computer simply generated a series of random strings, it would take, on average, several billion cycles to generate that string. Then, he wrote a different program. This time, it started with one random string of letters. Each cycle, it copied that 5 times, but imperfectly, with a few letters switched in each one. Whichever was closest to the ideal was *SELECTED* for, and became the basis for the next generation. Do you know how long it took? 31 cycles, on average. 31, versus several billion. THAT is how powerful natural selection is.

 

AFIK new and new antibiotics like - penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline, erythromycin, vancomycin are made because bacteria keeps building resistance.

 

Yes, because in the real world, the selective pressure that maintains antibiotic resistance is constant. These were laboratory tests. The same thing happened with mosquitoes and pesticides (specifically DDT) in the late 60's in Thailand: within months of starting to use it, resistant forms appeared and spread, until the entire population was resistant and the sprayings did nothing. So, they switched to a different pesticide, and a few years later, the DDT resistance in the population was back to almost 0. Why? Because it cost energy to be resistant, so when the DDT was stopped, there was expense without benefit. What formerly was a positive trait became negative, and soon vanished.

 

Then why B-cells keep memorized those burden antibodies - or maybe they've been programmed to keep this heavy burden.

 

They keep them because B-cells never totally die off (unless you have some horrible immune disease). It's vaguely like evolution. You initially have lots of different B-cells, and every time they divide, they make errors that produce mutations that can result in new antibodies. When an infectous disease invades, the B-cell with the right antibodies proliferates wildly. Then, when the infection is gone, *it returns to a background level*.

 

However, the immune system is *not* a good model for evolution as a whole. It cannot reproduce beyond the organism it is in, and any children of that organism inherit the immune system that organism had at birth, not the one it developed (plus mutations, of course).

 

YOU yourself just proved that "natural selection" will ensure species extinction than survival and evolution. in fact it will ensure increase of mortal birth-rate, mutants and genetic diseases. NO COMMENT.

 

No, I have explained how it works. Any gene that is lethal or selectively negative will be quickly wiped out.

 

Oh, guess how many mutations you and I have, statistically speaking, that affect final protien structure. Four. And many, many more that are neutral because they have no effect or act on "dead" genes. If you want, I can dig up the source for this, but I remember it was in Nature within the past 4 years or so.

 

Ever met a dwarf? That proves me right. Achondroplasic dwarfism (as distinguished from other disorders, usually of the growth hormones or receptors, that reduce height while maintaining proportions, usually called midgets) is a Dominant trait that is *lethal* in homozygous form. Every dwarf either is the product of a mating of a dwarf with a non-dwarf, or is a mutant. There's a lot of them, eh? Mutation is more common than you think.

 

-------------

 

Frankly, you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of knowledge about the functionings of evolution, and I do not have time to teach you Evolution 101.

 

Your objections to natural selection (as well as your theories) are based entirely on misunderstandings due to your lack of knowledge. I suggest talk.origins as a great source for information (google it) which will clear up many of your errors.

 

If you want to continue to debate this, I'm going to ask the mods that it be moved into the Psuedoscience forum.

 

I'd like to end with a quote:

None of the crackpot "new models" proposed have ever been able to show that their "new model" is any better, explains things more clearly and completely, or accounts for more data.[b']In fact, most have glaring holes and are formulated by those with a merely cursory knowledge of biology.[/b]

[cyber_indian]

Do I understand that you are believe that replication of a genome is not possible through Gene therapy? Or are we changing the subject.

[Bluenoise]

Do I understand that you are believe that replication of a genome is not possible through Gene therapy? Or are we changing the subject.

 

No, not at least how you're describing it. Like Mokele said already if you put something in a bacteria that doesn't benefit it, it WILL loose it pretty quickly. It's a plain and simple fact.

 

Go read a microbiology text book or something.

[cyber_indian]

microbiology text book keywords:

 

Gene expression

chromosomal activation or deactivation

genetically inactive

regulation of gene expression

Heterochromatin

[Bluenoise]

Here's another one for you:

 

Metabolic Load.

[Mokele]

Cyber, I think this post clearly demonstrates the difference between being able to cite crap from a textbook and actually *understanding* the governing principles of life, evolution and genetics.

 

Mokele

[cyber_indian]

I don't think you answered my question about the genome replication

 

>>True, and you are right, but I was mostly taking issue with your claim that the volcanoes themselves would vent oxygen (which you mentioned specifically as something given off by volcanoes, not as a product of the actions of autotrophs).

 

As i wrote in the paper "After volcanoes has done their job, bacteria (autotrophic) takes over to convert inorganic minerals to organic nutrition and make sure further availability by recycling it (autotrophic and decomposers)"

 

>>Extraterrestrial origin of life

 

I would see it more like it as ancestors if the hypothesis is true.

Do you see your parents as extraterrestrial to you or as ancestors ?

 

>>Selection, on the other hand, *removes* diversity from the gene pool, acting in such a way that those random variants who reproduce the best become more common, supplanting those who do not.

 

The only issue I have with natural selection is the current testability (on gene level) of the hypothesis (more like a scientific guess).

 

>>You initially have lots of different B-cells, and every time they divide, they make errors that produce mutations that can result in new antibodies.

 

B-Cell *are* programmed to memorize specific antibodies and after you get infected they divide again.

And antibodies don't result from mutation, but from a very sophisticated immune mechanism. Anyway aren't the extra antibodies burden or not, and how come they don't turn into random genetic gibberish?

 

I'm very curious how you gonna explain the MHC. Isn't it a burden for most of the cells that don't use it, especially bacteria and no CD4 viruses?

 

BTW antibodies *are* burden. They don't serve B-cell no purpose, aren't they ?

 

>>Mutation is more common than you think.

 

Mutants as dwarf and etc. are diseases caused by vitamin or mineral malnutrition, carcinogens, especially not caring parents, why do you think most of the rich daughters are so good looking. If it was that common half of your body cells ware going to be defective and useless.

 

>>Any extra DNA would be a burden on so simple an organism as a bacteria (note how little of their DNA is unused), and any bacteria that discarded this "memory store" would enjoy faster reproduction and lower nutrient requirements, which means natural selection will ensure that bacteria will out-compete those who retain the stores, eliminating them.

>>Let's not forget that any "stored" DNA is subject to mutation (*and* that bacteria have a higher mutation rate than eukaryotes), so by the time the bacteria even could evolve into eukaryotic or multicellular life, all that would be left is the random genetic gibberish. All the information would be wiped out by accumulated mutations.

 

Quote "A way to keep gene modules suppressed until transplanted (memory bacteria doesn’t transcode these extra genes – probably condense that extra chromosome)"

Or maybe modified chromatin like new heterochromatin that gonna suspend "genetically inactivate"/"chromosomal deactivation" that way no interaction/transcription/mutation would be possible. If the approach is a new chromatin it means also a special DNA polymerase is needed. Another approach is modified nuclei to cut the extra chromosome from any interaction.

 

How much will the burden or the metabolic load when that extra chromosome will not be expressed/interact in any way. I've read enough microbiology see that virtually anything is possible with genes. Just because there are sometimes obstacles doesn't mean it can't be done, if it wasn't that hard it would take one gene for one task to be done. All we need is imagination and more knowledge of genes.

 

>>Evolution 101

 

Please. And *Can* we not change the subject and discuss the Thread.

[Mokele]

As i wrote in the paper "After volcanoes has done their job, bacteria (autotrophic) takes over to convert inorganic minerals to organic nutrition and make sure further availability by recycling it (autotrophic and decomposers)"

 

You also wrote the following:

Volcanic activity releases/unlocks minerals, gases (like oxygen, sulphur dioxide, later carbon dioxide), ash (rock crushed – this will lead to first soil formation), energy and by releasing chemicals others are mixed. Released oxygen mixed with hydrocarbon converts to water and carbon dioxide. The excess oxygen ends up in the atmosphere.

 

In the above quote, you *EXPLICITLY* refer to molecular oxygen (not SO2 or CO2) coming out of volcanoes *directly*, not after processing by life.

 

You can't even keep track of what you've said, you need to stop wasting our time.

 

The only issue I have with natural selection is the current testability (on gene level) of the hypothesis (more like a scientific guess).

 

Then you obviously have *no* formal or even decent education in biology.

 

News flash: We've *witnessed* natural selection. We've caused it in the lab. We've charted the effects both on phenotype *and* genotype (including directly watching gene frequencies change through time).

 

Natural selection has been tested so many times it's impossible to list them all, and it has passed every test with flying colors.

 

Are you quite finished making a display of your ignorance, or do you wish to flaunt it some more for my amusement?

 

B-Cell *are* programmed to memorize specific antibodies and after you get infected they divide again.

And antibodies don't result from mutation, but from a very sophisticated immune mechanism. Anyway aren't the extra antibodies burden or not, and how come they don't turn into random genetic gibberish?

 

I'm very curious how you gonna explain the MHC. Isn't it a burden for most of the cells that don't use it, especially bacteria and no CD4 viruses?

 

BTW antibodies *are* burden. They don't serve B-cell no purpose, aren't they ?

 

Do you remember the part where I said "However, the immune system is *not* a good model for evolution as a whole."

 

ALL somatic cells are total failures if you try to apply straight evolution to them as if they are separate organisms, because only germ cells reproduce. News flash, sparky: cells work via kin selection. Becuase they're all geneticly identical, the B-cells can do things that bacteria *NEVER* could and still work, because they are helping the germ cells reproduce. Bacteria do *not* have any such kin-selective processes, on account of being unicellular, and therefore can *NOT* hold the same effects.

 

Oh, and as for the "memory", once again you're wrong. All cells in your body contain all possible antibodies. Only the immune cells *express* those genes, and in doing so they shuffle them around a lot, producing a nearly limitless number of possibilities. Ditto for the MHC. These "memory" stores persist because they help the organism as a whole reproduce, and to hell with the metabolic burden on the cells.

 

But, lest you try to divert into this again, I will repeat for the third time: "However, the immune system is *not* a good model for evolution as a whole."

 

Mutants as dwarf and etc. are diseases caused by vitamin or mineral malnutrition, carcinogens, especially not caring parents, why do you think most of the rich daughters are so good looking. If it was that common half of your body cells ware going to be defective and useless.

 

Are you *seriously* claiming that genetic diseases do not exist? If so, you're a total moron. We have *PROVEN* that achondroplasic dwarfism is genetic. Ditto for many other diseases.

 

As for "rich daughters" I strongly suggest you start relying on *real* data, not what you see on TV.

 

Quote "A way to keep gene modules suppressed until transplanted (memory bacteria doesn’t transcode these extra genes – probably condense that extra chromosome)"

Or maybe modified chromatin like new heterochromatin that gonna suspend "genetically inactivate"/"chromosomal deactivation" that way no interaction/transcription/mutation would be possible. If the approach is a new chromatin it means also a special DNA polymerase is needed. Another approach is modified nuclei to cut the extra chromosome from any interaction.

 

How much will the burden or the metabolic load when that extra chromosome will not be expressed/interact in any way.

 

So, we've got this heterochromatic mass that is metabolicly inert, right?

 

Now, the bacteria divides. You have ONE heterochromatic mass. How do you get two? Oh, that's right, replication. And guess what, dipshit? REPLICATION TAKES ENERGY.

 

Oh, and guess what, heterochromatin relies of protiens. But protiens degrade. In order to *keep* something as heterochromatin, you need to constantly synthesize new packing protiens to replace the ones that are wearing out. That takes metabolic energy too.

 

Are you really so dim that you cannot understand this?

 

I've read enough microbiology see that virtually anything is possible with genes.

 

Bullshit. I'm calling you on that. I want you to list every formal, university course you've taken in genetics, cell biology and evolution, and your grades in each.

 

Oh, that's right, you haven't taken anything. Your "knowledge" is random facts without context or deeper understanding.

 

Shit, this isn't even my field (I find genetics boring, and work at the organismal level whenever possible), and I can *still* effortlessly prove you wrong.

 

All we need is imagination and more knowledge of genes.

 

This is science, not Never-Never-Land. Imagination will only take you so far, and there are rules of the system which cannot be broken or simply ignored.

 

>>Evolution 101

 

Please. And *Can* we not change the subject and discuss the Thread.

 

Your perpetual displays of ignorance concerning basic biological facts have *made* this part of the subject.

 

If you want us to stop hassling you about this, go out and actually *learn* about evolution, rather than pretending it doesn't exist simply because it contradicts a plan that you obviously just copied out of a dime-store sci-fi novel.

 

Mokele

[cyber_indian]

If you don't have any argument please don't waste my time.

 

Being a biologist explaing gene behavior is like a customer explaing to a mechanic how cars works.

And black-boxing is just a way for daub and ignoring things not to explaing them.

 

P.S. There is something that will intrugue you:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

[Mokele]

If you don't have any argument please don't waste my time.

 

Translation: "I can't refute or even offer a half-assed rebuttal to anything Mokele said, so I'm going to tuck my tail between my legs and pray nobody notices."

 

Being a biologist explaing gene behavior is like a customer explaing to a mechanic how cars works.

And black-boxing is just a way for daub and ignoring things not to explaing them.

 

Your simile is inept and poorly formed, especially if you actually think you're a real biologist.

 

As for "black boxing", it's a useful conceptual tool that allows us to continue to make advances in spite of a current lack of understanding, and by doing so generates data that will lead to the eventual understanding of the contents of said conceptual box.

 

P.S. There is something that will intrugue you:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...nd=view&id=2177

 

The Discovery Institute? Why don't just just cite Bozo the Clown while your desperately fishing for any source, no matter how disreputable.

 

FYI, the Discovery Institute is a creationist think-tank, not a reptuable source of science. Try looking at *real* science in *real*, *peer-reviewed* journals.

 

Mokele

[cyber_indian]

Hey, where is your argument ...

I ask you a question or answer one, you always try to change the subject

[Mokele]

You didn't ask anything in your last post, and your entire participation in this thread has never produced any answers to any of my questions (at least none that weren't wrong or astonishingly ignorant).

 

In fact, I have patiently responded to every point you have raised, as appropriate. Your personal failure to understand these points as well as several fundamental issues of biology is not my problem.

 

Now do everyone a favor and go play in traffic, kid.

 

Mokele

[cyber_indian]

OK Granny "Do you believe it's possible to replicate a genome by gene therapy processes ?", "If a an extra chromosome is encapsulated in modified chromatin so it can't get transcribed - do you think your natural selection is gonna mutate it ?", "B-cell (now we know already they doesn't fit your natural selection), glands (and every excreting cell), symbiotic cells they all extracurricular work and that's ok, but somehow it's not possible for genetically engineered genes to exist" ... now answer and don't change the subject or explain it with secular philosophy 200 years old or blackboxed demonstrations.

[Mokele]

"Do you believe it's possible to replicate a genome by gene therapy processes ?"

 

Of course, I never disputed that. In fact, not just by gene therapy, large chunks of genetic material get duplicated all the time in nature due to uneven crossing over and meiotic errors. Plants are spectacular at this, and routinely form new species via polyploidy.

 

However, that was not my issue, an issue which you seem to be ignoring. My issue was that any such duplication will either be modified into a useful form or, if it imposes too great of a metabolic burden, discarded.

 

I'm not aguing that it can't be done, I'm arguing that it will be selected against. Pay attention, kid.

 

"If a an extra chromosome is encapsulated in modified chromatin so it can't get transcribed - do you think your natural selection is gonna mutate it ?"

 

First, natural selection doesn't mutate anything. Mutation is chemical process totally separate from selection, and each can occur without the other (though it's never very good when they do).

 

Secondly, yes, it will mutate, because a) it's *still* inside the organism, and this still subject to environmental nastiness like mutagens and radiation and b) it still has to be replicated when the cell divides, introducing unavoidable replication errors.

 

"B-cell (now we know already they doesn't fit your natural selection), glands (and every excreting cell), symbiotic cells they all extracurricular work and that's ok, but somehow it's not possible for genetically engineered genes to exist"

 

Strawman fallacy. Try actually *reading* and *understanding* my posts.

 

It is possible for cells in a whole organism to self-sacrifice and do "extra work", because they are operating on a form of kin selection. All the other cells are geneticly identical to them, so if they help the other cells reproduce, it's the same as them reproducing themselves. However, for bacteria, in which each organism is independent and not perfectly clonal (because of their higher mutation rate than eukaryotes), such a system would not and cannot work.

 

In short, the cells of multicellular organism can do these things because of a form of selection that is not present in bacteria, and therefore these are not applicable examples.

 

If you want to raise this point again, for the love of all that is holy, please at least learn what "kin selection" is.

 

-----

 

Seriously, kid, take Evolution 101 and you'll actually understand what I'm talking about. Until then, stop wasting the board's time.

 

Mokele

[cyber_indian]

Ok where was I ... First I what to say that I don't support any religious thoughts in my theory. Second, I do need to make a long more understandable version with some visualizations.

But I don't understand which part of suspended or not interacting DNA or different chromatin and DNA polymerase (DNA duplication) you did not get. I sure there are couple of more ways to keep a extra DNA non-interacting.

I do also support that the newly generated DNA will need a mechanism to arrange genes for the specie to be able to fit in it's environment, borrowed or final fitting genes that have been uploaded from the memory cells or other species ... which you might call gene drift and etc.

... and as one of the mechanisms clearing unwanted mutations (DNA integrity break up). All species has to find their spot in the ecosystem. That’s why they have to be able to mold their functionality (or the ecosystem would collapse), by means of shuffling/rearranging genes just before cell division of the newborn.

 

And also you still try to change subject ... how about symbiotic bacteria ... for instance bacteria that interacts with the roots of plants?

 

P.S. the my theory does state that the first living cells are the archaeas not the prokaryote bacteria.

[Mokele]

But I don't understand which part of suspended or not interacting DNA or different chromatin and DNA polymerase (DNA duplication) you did not get. I sure there are couple of more ways to keep a extra DNA non-interacting.

 

I "get" all of what you're trying to say. The problem is that you aren't "getting" my objection.

 

My objection: If condensed genetic material is present, and is replicated when the cell replicates, then it *MUST* impose a metabolic load (because you need materials and energy to replicate it) and it *MUST* gain mutations (because no copying method is perfect).

 

So, first, the information *will* be corrupted.

 

Secondly, chromosomal nondisjunctions are common in cell division. Every so often there's a screw-up and not all of the genetic material makes it into the new cell. If that happens in your cells, and the burdensome "memory store" is lost in one cell, that cell *WILL* enjoy a selective advantage, and *WILL* outcompete the others, eventually replacing them.

 

Do you even understand what I'm saying here, and have been saying for this entire thread?

 

As a friend of mine once said: "There is a point beyond which willful ignorance becomes intellectual dishonesty."

 

I do also support that the newly generated DNA will need a mechanism to arrange genes for the specie to be able to fit in it's environment, borrowed or final fitting genes that have been uploaded from the memory cells or other species ... which you might call gene drift and etc.

 

Do not throw around words that sound technical without knowing their meaning, kid. It only highlights your ignorance.

 

"Genetic drift", FYI, is the effect of randomness on natural selection, such as random death caused by non-selective forces like accidents, which would have an equal chance of killing any member of the population. It has nothing to do with this conversation. You'd know that if you knew the first thing about evolution.

 

That aside, species fit into their environment by evolution, not borrowing DNA from some mythical storage.

 

... and as one of the mechanisms clearing unwanted mutations (DNA integrity break up). All species has to find their spot in the ecosystem. That’s why they have to be able to mold their functionality (or the ecosystem would collapse), by means of shuffling/rearranging genes just before cell division of the newborn.

 

Flat-out wrong. Species *evolve* for only their own benefit, not that of the ecosystem. Ever hear of invasive species? The ones that practically destroy ecosystems for their own benefit? Well, that's been happening since *long* before man came into the picture.

 

In addition to evolution, you also need to learn about ecology, since you also have no clue about that.

 

how about symbiotic bacteria ... for instance bacteria that interacts with the roots of plants?

 

Yes, they live in a situation that benefits both the plant and the bacteria. That's why it persists. If the association were detrimental to one of them(parasitism), they would do their best to break free of it (the drive to escape one's parasites is one of the strongest forces in evolution, including our own). Natural selection preseves sistuation which are beneficial to both organisms.

 

Why are you even bringing this up? It has *nothing* to do with your main point.

 

P.S. the my theory does state that the first living cells are the archaeas not the prokaryote bacteria.

 

First, I am a bit of an old-schooler, I was mostly educated before "archea" was recognized as separate, and thus by habit refer to them as simply bacteria.

 

Secondly, the difference is trivial anyway.

 

My objections are about natural selection and evolution, and how it effectively renders your idea dead in the water. What kingdom the organisms belong to is irrelevant; natural selection still applies to them, and still functions on them.

 

You seem to be under the delusion that there is something somehow "wrong" with natural selection, but have never once backed up this claim with anything more than "well it gets in the way of my ideas, so it must be wrong!"

 

You've read a lot of books, and assimilated a lot of information, but you lack the basic understanding of certain core concepts of biology that is needed.

 

Education and universities exist for a reason. Make use of them.

 

Mokele

[rakuenso]

Mutants as dwarf and etc. are diseases caused by vitamin or mineral malnutrition, carcinogens, especially not caring parents, why do you think most of the rich daughters are so good looking. If it was that common half of your body cells ware going to be defective and useless.

 

_lol_

 

ok time for me to jump in

 

But I don't understand which part of suspended or not interacting DNA or different chromatin and DNA polymerase (DNA duplication) you did not get. I sure there are couple of more ways to keep a extra DNA non-interacting.

 

 

 

The DNA polymerase enzyme is a ridiculously delicate enzyme, as it is one of THE ancestral enzymes, I doubt you can just tinker around with it to anymore perfection that it already is. The nuclei also happens to be an ancient organelle of eukaryotes, oh wait actually, no nuclei just means no eukaryotes! And thus because its ancient, it also has undergone countless years since the dawn of eukaryotes. And I highly doubt I'd live on a planet comprised of prokaryotes ;P

 

As for heterochromatin, evidence has shown that it contains very few genes, yet is still genetically massive. What does this mean? IT has lots of introns, and despite the inactive expression of introns, which are also composed of ATCG bases, anything that contains these bases are prone to genetic mutation. We do not know anywhere near enough about eukaryotic gene expression to be able to say for sure that introns are useless, as they still have to excised in the nucleus and end up somewhere even during protein synthesis.

 

"how about symbiotic bacteria ... for instance bacteria that interacts with the roots of plants?"

 

Symbiotic bacteria are more of the less the result of genetic evolution and natural selection, if a bacteria mutated a gene that allowed it to manufacture a certain intermembrane protein that facilited the entry into plant root then obviously natural selection will favor its reproduction.

 

Just because its archae doesn't change anything. The exact classification fo archae is still in debate due to taxonomic purposes, but they still undergo some of the basic cellular mechanisms such as mitosis and thus natural selection. Just because some of them can thrive under extreme conditions doesn't mean they are immune to mutations. Thus the theory of natural selection and evolution still applies

[cyber_indian]

I want to remind you that we're still verry primitive in genes knowledge. Genomes are like looking in the executable code of computer program and watering what all those munkey simbols means. But it doesn't mean one we cover that knowledge, we wouldn't be able to modify them or even add easily cluster by cluster. After all genomes do exactly as what they've been instructed as coumputer program does.

 

It's a fact that if you count your cells and multiply that number by 10 you'll get the number of bacteria living inside and on you.

 

And Archae does cover silmiliarity with both procariotes and eucariotes.

 

Quote:

Halobacteria can repair badly damaged DNA. "We have completely fragmented their DNA. ...And they can reassemble their entire chromosome and put it back into working order within several hours," says Adrienne Kish, a member of the research group studying Halobacteria at the University of Maryland. These Archaea can also survive extreme dryness, a hard vacuum, and of course, high salt concentrations. We are not the only ones to notice that Halobacteria could use these capabilities to survive in space.

 

P.S. I'll update more at that link.

http://www.cyber-indian.com/theory/index.html

[Deathby]

I tried reading through that and I never quite understood your point cyber-indian. Is this what you are trying to say?

 

"In order to survive after the Earth is destroyed, we must send bacteria to another world. These bacteria must be able to create a new biosphere as well as evolve as we want them to so our present biosphere is recreated."

 

If so, then you may be correct. If you can find a way of making it worthwhile for those memory bacteria not to shed their excess DNA then you may have a point. Having excess DNA will cause extra metabolic load even if the DNA does nothing because it has to be replicated. However, there are key proteins which do not change much. For example cytochrome c has had very few changes in it. There are 17 differences between us and yeast (I think, don't quote me on that). That is because it is a critical protein and a single change will cause the mutated organism to die. If you can find some way of making your memory DNA so critical that is cannot be changed then yes, you have a way of doing it.

 

However that said you still haven't figured out how you are going to turn the genetic coding for millions of species into millions of species. Just having the coding for those species won't make it reality. It would be an incredibly complex task to recreate the entire history of the Earth at a microscopic level right up to the level of the biosphere so those genes will show up in the same order they appear in modern day animals. It's ridiculous.

 

Unless of course you are saying that we just want to use the bacteria to store the information until we get there after they've terraformed the place. but why bother, we have computers to remember that. Computers which are guaranteed not to mutate randomly.

 

If you could just summarise your theory in a few sentences then we could debate it more logically.

[Deathby]

oh and Mokele, just to help your case a little. Scientists have created a nice scissors paper rock game using GM bacteria [i'm fairly certain this is the article: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18424765.700]. One bacteria creates a toxin, another bacteria is immune, yet another bacteria has neither toxin nor immunity. Otherwise they are all exactly the same.

 

toxin + immune => immune wins (because the toxin bacteria is wasting energy on producing toxins)

toxin + normal =>toxin wins (because normals die)

immune + normal => normal wins (because the immunes have an increased metabolic load with no use so they are out-competed)

 

Let's look at that last result and compare it with cyber_indian's scenario. The immunity gene, like your memory stuff, is very useful. However, at this present moment it provides no evolutionary advantage so those without that gene become dominant and eventually take over.