Darwin re-visited

[Biochemist]

That's because you are stuck with genomic constaints its really simple like I have said many times now This has nothing to do with genomic constraints. It is prior to the multi-cellular organism.

TB- I feel a little like we are talking different languages. The question we are trying to answer is how did we get such incredible genomic complexity in such a short time. It seems to me like you are saying that we accrued genomic complexity without a genetic mechanism. Is that what you are saying?

[Thunderbird]

TB- I feel a little like we are talking different languages. The question we are trying to answer is how did we get such incredible genomic complexity in such a short time. It seems to me like you are saying that we accrued genomic complexity without a genetic mechanism. Is that what you are saying?

 

 

The assumption your making is that genomic complexity has to be built peice by peice within a multi-cellular animal. the genomic complexity can be achieved by the single autonomous cell before the CE.

 

Keep in mind genomic function is chemical. What we see in the CE event is complex structures, this does not necessarily mean the animals had to acquire code for this array of structures just the proteins.

Once the single autonomous cell had these genetic abilities built up though billions of years of evolution, a threshold of complexity was reached.

 

The CE event is a manifestation of geometric structures crystallizing around basic principles of organization. complex genomic Code first,.. than.... BOOM all the pieces fall into place. The complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian, such as arthropods gastropods and chordates do not have very simple ancestors.... they arrived complex directly from an agglomerations of cells livening within an autopoetic chemical system. A benthic microbial mat made up of a colony of cells that were already coding as a symbiotic colony. Think about which came first... the animal, or the stem cell with the chemical code to make a variety potential structures. Its the classic chicken and egg senerio, in this case it was the egg.

BTW I derived this hypothesis though a discovery, by collecting and studing micro-fossils in the strata in the geological layer just prior to CE. This is an observation made though studying the patterns in these stones.

[Moontanman]

The assumption your making is that genomic complexity has to be built peice by peice within a multi-cellular animal. the genomic complexity can be achieved by the single autonomous cell before the CE.

 

Keep in mind genomic function is chemical. What we see in the CE event is complex structures, this does not necessarily mean the animals had to acquire code for this array of structures just the proteins.

Once the single autonomous cell had these genetic abilities built up though billions of years of evolution, a threshold of complexity was reached.

 

The CE event is a manifestation of geometric structures crystallizing around basic principles of organization. complex genomic Code first,.. than.... BOOM all the pieces fall into place. The complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian, such as arthropods gastropods and chordates do not have very simple ancestors.... they arrived complex directly from an agglomerations of cells livening within an antipoetic chemical system. A benthic microbial mat made up of a colony of cells that were already coding as a symbiotic colony. Think about which came first... the animal, or the stem cell with the chemical code to make a variety potential structures. Its the classic chicken and egg senerio, in this case it was the egg.

 

Ok Thunderbird I think I might finally see where you are coming from on this. Let me see if I can simplify it so my tiny brain can wrap around it. Are you sayiong that colonies of microrganisms developed into complex life forms? If so I think there is no doubt that at least some organisms developed in the way. I good example would be the volvox or a little further on sponges. I would have to have more evidense that other complex animals developed that way but I can't say it's impossible. I have had volvox colonise my algae cultures collected from the wild and they can get to be quite big, maybe 2 or 3 milimeters in diameter. Very odd creatures.

[Biochemist]

The assumption your making is that genomic complexity has to be built peice by peice within a multi-cellular animal. the genomic complexity can be achieved by the single autonomous cell before the CE.

TB- I did not make any assumptions about the number of cells or even any assumption about animal morphology. I only assumed that we had to generate the genetic code for a single incremental enzyme system. The assumptions I made would apply to any eukaryote, and most would apply to any prokaryote. The issue is that 250 million years does not appear long enough to build a singe enzyme system via a mutative model.

 

Bio

[Thunderbird]

Ok Thunderbird I think I might finally see where you are coming from on this. Let me see if I can simplify it so my tiny brain can wrap around it. Are you sayiong that colonies of microrganisms developed into complex life forms? If so I think there is no doubt that at least some organisms developed in the way. I good example would be the volvox or a little further on sponges. I would have to have more evidense that other complex animals developed that way but I can't say it's impossible. I have had volvox colonise my algae cultures collected from the wild and they can get to be quite big, maybe 2 or 3 milimeters in diameter. Very odd creatures.

This is the perfect next question, how could the cells that are already cooperating symbiotically form complex organs and tissues bilateral symmetry and so on. Sounds far fetched. what you need is an dynamic geometric engine that starts with a certain amount of mass and energy that will run down that energy and mass wile gaining more complexity. This geometric engine is what I discovered. I refer you back to post 251

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thunderbird]

To visualize this layered pattern take a pencil, tape the end of a ribbon around the pencil now wrap the ribbon tightly three or four times in a clockwise direction. Now reverse the direction counterclockwise do this about 7-8 times. Now tape down the outside all the way around tightly. now wrap your thumb and forefinger around the ribbon in a circle. take the end of the pencil and turn in a ratcheting motion. You will get a rough idea of the internal dynamic of the attractor. A central paisley turning in unison with the surrounding layers resembling a circulating Taoist Mandela , contained in a torus or bagel structure.

 

 

 

 

 

This representation is what I think this embryo would have looked like when it was alive. The right intake aperture became dominant over the left, resulting in an asymmetrical growth of extruding mineralization around the left aperture.

 

This particular embryo would have resulted in a conch, or gastropod design.

The dominant right intake would develop a gill while the left developed a spiraling shell and central axis of the [columella.]

 

This would keep spiraling until the shell enclosed the left aperture completely.

 

If both chambers keep a symmetrical flow, which would have been very rare, the result would be a symmetrical body plan and two gills.

 

If the attractor retained the shell and a symmetrical flow though the apertures, the result would be a cephalopod. This shell is not a genetic adaptation but more precisely the a receipt from paying {Schrödinger entropy debt} "http://www.entropylaw.com/thermoevolution9.html"

 

{The oolitic mass would shrink [dissipate] during this pulse into a higher ordered state.}

 

A fish’s body plan is the most perfect of all the possible out comes, and looks as though it only occurred once. All the myriad shell designs now appear to me as beautiful attempts at a fish’s body plan. Even natures screw up’s are geometrical marvels.

 

The fossil came from a creek bed cutting down though early Cambrian strata This strata is made up of dolomite limestone. The strata this originated from developed layers of a microbial mats in fine silty mud, that is devoid of any particles that would induce the growth of stromatalites, so instead you just find layers of cyanobacteia.

[Thunderbird]

TB- I did not make any assumptions about the number of cells or even any assumption about animal morphology. I only assumed that we had to generate the genetic code for a single incremental enzyme system. The assumptions I made would apply to any eukaryote, and most would apply to any prokaryote. The issue is that 250 million years does not appear long enough to build a singe enzyme system via a mutative model.

 

Bio

It may not be so random...but,

The enzyme system evolved over a period of 3.5 billion years. Thats alot of dividing

[Pyrotex]

It may not be so random...but,

The enzyme system evolved over a period of 3.5 billion years. Thats alot of dividing

Are you assuming only the one experiment? Then 3.5 E9 years may be not enough.

 

But in the early Earth oceans, there were at least E20 (a hundred billion, billion) experiments going on simultaneously. All similar, all different.

 

Only ONE experiment had to succeed to produce (something like) life, which would rapidly spread.

[Thunderbird]

Are you assuming only the one experiment? Then 3.5 E9 years may be not enough.

 

But in the early Earth oceans, there were at least E20 (a hundred billion, billion) experiments going on simultaneously. All similar, all different.

 

Only ONE experiment had to succeed to produce (something like) life, which would rapidly spread.

This is my point. Randomness, or what every process that leads to higher complexity of the genome, occurred before the multi-cell animals, before CE. Once a threshold is reached complex organisms manifested around basic principles of organization that I have described previously.

[Moontanman]

This is my point. Randomness, or what every process that leads to higher complexity of the genome, occurred before the multi-cell animals, before CE. Once a threshold is reached complex organisms manifested around basic principles of organization that I have described previously.

 

I'm not as sure as you are about your principles of organization but I agree that the genetic "stuff" was laready in place before the CE. What we see as evolution isn't mutation directly to new species, it's mutation after mutation for other things that are then used for other purposes. Most of the time life conserves genetic material. A new species comes into play not from a sudden mutation but by captializing on mutations that are already in place then adopting them for other uses. Example?

 

Raptor dinosaurs with feathers on their upper arms used to stablize them while they ran being used to allow gliding and then as wings into birds. or

 

eukarotes with internal scaffolding being used to keep the nucleus in place then used by larger protists to hold all their organels and the shape of their bodies to the same principle being used to keep multicellular animal shapes and hold the cells together. I suspect that internal and external skeletons have at their basis the same genetic structure. This by the way my own thoughts, nothing to back it up but it feels right to me.

[Thunderbird]

 

eukarotes with internal scaffolding being used to keep the nucleus in place then used by larger protists to hold all their organels and the shape of their bodies to the same principle being used to keep multicellular animal shapes and hold the cells together. I suspect that internal and external skeletons have at their basis the same genetic structure. This by the way my own thoughts, nothing to back it up but it feels right to me.

 

Your or correct about code that can make protiens and even organs, a larger fractal version of its own enternal workings. A second level autopoeitic system but.....

The problem here is the cell had no prior genitic blue print for an achetecture for the envoinment, so where did the information come from..........Take...Your ...time.

 

Oh BTW flight feathers more than likely formed on the tail first...not the arms.

[Moontanman]

Your or correct about code that can make protiens and even organs, a larger fractal version of its own enternal workings. A second level autopoeitic system but.....

The problem here is the cell had no prior genitic blue print for an achetecture for the envoinment, so where did the information come from..........Take...Your ...time.

 

Oh BTW flight feathers more than likely formed on the tail first...not the arms.

 

Ooo, Ooo, Ooo I know, I know, oolitic spheres:hyper: YES, I got it right!:)

[Thunderbird]

Ooo, Ooo, Ooo I know, I know, oolitic spheres:hyper: YES, I got it right!

 

BRRRRRRRR... wrong.:).. thanks for playing.

[Michaelangelica]

Not as interesting as the title

New findings challenge conventional ideas on evolution of human diet, natural selection

New findings challenge conventional ideas on evolution of human diet, natural selection

 

 

Change the environment and immediately change the genes expressed?

Silent fungus metabolism awakened for source of new drugs

[Galapagos]

Evolution itself is constantly evolving! It's hard to look at the science head lines and not re-visit Darwin:

 

Regulating Evolution: How Gene Switches Make Life: Scientific American

Switches within DNA that govern when and where genes are turned on enable genomes to generate the great diversity of animal forms from very similar sets of genes

 

KEY CONCEPTS

 

- Because genes encode instructions for building animal bodies, biologists once expected to find significant genetic differences among animals, reflecing their great diversity of forms. Instead very dissimilar animals have turned out to have very similar genes.

 

- Mutations in DNA "switches" that control body-shaping genes, rather than in the genes themselves, have been a significant source of evolving differences among animals.

 

- If humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes.

 

Here is an excerpt from the summary of chapter 4, Natural Selection in "The Origin of Species", in which Darwin first described the mechanism, all the way back in 1859:

If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

 

I think Natural Selection's brilliance is amplified by the fact that it seems(to me at least) so intuitively obvious. It's like a good song that almost feels familiar, but is clearly too captivating to ever be something forgotten.

[Michaelangelica]

Evolution itself is constantly evolving! It's hard to look at the science head lines and not re-visit Darwin:

Yes and VERY fast too. I find some of it a bit hard to keep up with and understand.

 

Is sex necessary for natural Selection?

I wasn't sure where to put this in with the musroomy/ fungus threads or here

Birds Do It, Bees Do It, but Candida albicans Does It Differently

Richard Robinson

The yeast Candida albicans

. . .

after it mates, its progeny randomly cast off chromosomes to restore the diploid number, or something close to it.

. . .

. . .

C. albicans, though, does none of that. Its diploid number is 16, and a reductional division to an 8-chromosome haploid has never been observed. Instead of going down, the number goes up—during conjugation, two different mating strains unite diploid cells to form tetraploid (32-chromosome) cells, which then reduce back toward the diploid number by chromosomal loss.

 

This “parasexual” cycle has only recently been discovered, and its details and genetic consequences have not been well characterized.

PLoS Biology - Birds Do It, Bees Do It, but Candida albicans Does It Differently

The rest of the article made a wooshing sound as it went over my head.

So how does this fellow traveller of ours decide what to keep and what to thow away? What selects? How do we influence that decision?

 

Still more sex

Is DNA Repair A Substitute For Sex?

 

ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2008) — Birds and bees may do it, but the microscopic animals called bdelloid rotifers seem to get along just fine without sex, thank you.

Is DNA Repair A Substitute For Sex?

i hope the rotweilers dont bite back , pretty nasty being zaped by ray guns.

You would get ionisng radiation in space would you not?

[freeztar]

That last article is very interesting! :(

 

In the future MA, please don't quote so much of the articles as it is copyrighted material. Two to three paragraphs should be fine as it would fall under "fair use". Thanks.