Ancient RNA
heekster
This article talks about riboswitches and tiny circular RNA molecules
called cyclic di-GMP, which are able to turn genes on and off, similar
to epigenetic effects.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
All-seeing-I
Funny. The article says "tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-
GMP are able to turn genes on and off." "all without initial
involvement of DNA"
But the DNA is kept in the nucleus of the cell found on the
chromosomes which is where the genes are.
More double talk.
heekster
What part of "well before DNA existed" do you not understand, fool?
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
is that observed?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
yeah. just like your post. try repeating this in english
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 24, 8:35 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> This is a year old, but I don't think it has been mentioned in here.
>>
>> This article talks about riboswitches and tiny circular RNA molecules
>> called cyclic di-GMP, which are able to turn genes on and off,
>> similar to epigenetic effects.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
>
> Funny. The article says "tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-
> GMP are able to turn genes on and off." "all without initial
> involvement of DNA"
Yes. Your point?
>
> But the DNA is kept in the nucleus of the cell found on the
> chromosomes which is where the genes are.
Not in bacteria, which don't have a nucleus, or chromosones. The first
relplicating life forms probably didn't use DNA.
>
> More double talk.
No, just more ignorance on your part.
DJT
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Have an adult read the article to you, and find out.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>is that observed?
Yes. Are you unable to understand the article, or didn't you
bother to read it before vomiting?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 24, 8:35�am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> This is a year old, but I don't think it has been mentioned in here.
>>
>> This article talks about riboswitches and �tiny circular RNA molecules
>> called cyclic di-GMP, which are able to turn genes on and off, similar
>> to �epigenetic effects.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
>
>Funny. The article says "tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-
>GMP are able to turn genes on and off."
Yes, I said that, above.
> "all without initial
>involvement of DNA"
>
That is what the article is about.
>But the DNA is kept in the nucleus of the cell found on the
>chromosomes which is where the genes are.
If you had read the article instead of sound biting it, you might have
seen this:
"To initiate many important functions, bacteria sometimes depend
entirely upon ancient forms of RNA..."
>
>More double talk.
Obviously, this article is beyond your feeble ken.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net>:
Spot, Dick and Jane are beyond his ken.
All-Seeing-I
oh lookie here. I was right.
evolution is in conflict once again
"The nature of the last universal ancestor to all extent cellular
organisms and the rooting of the universal tree of life are
fundamental questions which can now be adressed by molecular
evolutionists. Several scenarios have been proposed during the last
years, based on the phylogenies of ribosomal RNA and of duplicated
proteins, which suggest that the last universal ancestor was either an
RNA progenote or an hyperthermophilic prokaryote.
We discuss these hypotheses in the light of new data on the evolution
of DNA metabolizing enzymes and of contradictions between different
protein phylogenies. We conclude that the last universal ancestor was
a member of the DNA world already containing several DNA polymerases
and DNA topoisomerases.
Furthermore, we criticize current data which suggest that the rooting
of the universal tree of life is located in the eubacterial branch and
we conclude that both rooting the universal tree and the nature of the
last universal ancestor are still open questions."
I guess that DNA was there after all heekster my boi`. It also seems
bacteria is not our UCA, as so many here have claimed
No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer heekster.
why is THAT.
And,
Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final answer can
be found.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-49KK7J7-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f9aa4fa48dea94374947b9f4ff206368>
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 24, 8:51 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer heekster.
> why is THAT.
Because, and as has been explained to you over and over again, science
doesn't offer "final answers" or "absolute truth". It offers
*provisional* explanations for phenomena which can be observed and
measured with the understanding that all such explanations are subject
to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. The
reason why we use science as a tool for investigating the workings of
the universe is that it works, and has advanced our understanding more
in the past century than in the previous hundred millennia of our
existence as a species.
Feel free to reject science, though the irony of the fact that you are
using a device made possible by the findings of science to do so will
not be lost on others. However, persisting in misrepresenting the
nature of science even when it has been explained to you many times
only makes you look dogmatically and willfully ignorant at best and
deeply and systematically dishonest at worst.
>
> And,
> Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final answer can
> be found.
Because it is the only testable explanation for much of the science of
biology as well as the fossil record. If you have a better explanation
which can be tested by the acquisition of evidence, feel free to offer
it.
RF
>
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
> _ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-49KK7J7-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f9aa4fa48dea94374947b9f4ff206368>
Boikat
> On Nov 24, 8:51 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:35 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is a year old, but I don't think it has been mentioned in here.
>
> > > This article talks about riboswitches and tiny circular RNA molecules
> > > called cyclic di-GMP, which are able to turn genes on and off, similar
> > > to epigenetic effects.
>
> > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
>
> > Funny. The article says "tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-
> > GMP are able to turn genes on and off." "all without initial
> > involvement of DNA"
>
> > But the DNA is kept in the nucleus of the cell found on the
> > chromosomes which is where the genes are.
>
> > More double talk.
>
> oh lookie here. I was right.
>
>
> No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer heekster.
> why is THAT.
In science, there are very few, if any, "final answers".
>
> And,
> Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final answer can
> be found.
>
That sounds like a nice codification of willful ignorance, a code you
obviously embrace.
Boikat
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer heekster.
>why is THAT.
>
>And,
>Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final answer can
>be found.
holy cow. the creationist has discovered the fact scientists do
research. we go with the evidence
to him this means we don't have a central authority that determines a
dogmatic belief like creationism does
and look at all the progress creationism made in the last 2000 years.
it explained earthquakes...not
weather...not
disease....not
planetary motion....not
well...dont worry...in another 2000 years they'll have made as much
progress as they have to date
none at all
Ron O
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:42 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:51 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
> > No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer heekster.
> > why is THAT.
>
> Because, and as has been explained to you over and over again, science
> doesn't offer "final answers" or "absolute truth". It offers
> *provisional* explanations for phenomena which can be observed and
> measured with the understanding that all such explanations are subject
> to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. The
> reason why we use science as a tool for investigating the workings of
> the universe is that it works, and has advanced our understanding more
> in the past century than in the previous hundred millennia of our
> existence as a species.
It is more basic than that. We can tell that the last (most recent)
universal common ancestor for all extant lifeforms that we have been
able to identify, had a DNA based genetic system. We have some
"selfish" bits of nucleic acid sequences that are self splicing RNAs
and seem to be parasites or derived from parasites on DNA based
organisms, but there is so little too them that it is pretty much
impossible to try to trace them back to before we had a DNA based
mechanism of inheritance.
The point is that what evidence we have today has hit what in physics
would be called a singularity. We haven't developed the tools to
search past the singularity. So there isn't any good basis to claim
what kinds of lifeforms went into creating the last (most recent) DNA
based universal common ancestor. No one doubts that there were
different lifeforms that likely evolved and combined to form life as
we know it, but their genetic systems may not have survived for us to
study.
This shouldn't be any comfort to pathetic losers like all-screeching-
denial because he can't accept what we can figure out about our
relationships between humans and the other great apes. Why he thinks
that it is important to harp on something so far back as the last
universal common ancestor is just stupid.
Ron Okimoto
>
> Feel free to reject science, though the irony of the fact that you are
> using a device made possible by the findings of science to do so will
> not be lost on others. However, persisting in misrepresenting the
> nature of science even when it has been explained to you many times
> only makes you look dogmatically and willfully ignorant at best and
> deeply and systematically dishonest at worst.
>
>
>
> > And,
> > Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final answer can
> > be found.
>
> Because it is the only testable explanation for much of the science of
> biology as well as the fossil record. If you have a better explanation
> which can be tested by the acquisition of evidence, feel free to offer
> it.
>
> RF
>
>
>
>
>
> > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
> > _ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-49KK7J7-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f9aa4fa48dea94374947b9f4ff206368>- Hide quoted text -
heekster
>On Nov 24, 8:51锟絘m, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 8:35锟絘m, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>
>> > This is a year old, but I don't think it has been mentioned in here.
>>
>> > This article talks about riboswitches and 锟絫iny circular RNA molecules
>> > called cyclic di-GMP, which are able to turn genes on and off, similar
>> > to 锟絜pigenetic effects.
>>
>> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
>>
>> Funny. The article says "tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-
>> GMP are able to turn genes on and off." "all without initial
>> involvement of DNA"
>>
>> But the DNA is kept in the nucleus of the cell found on the
>> chromosomes which is where the genes are.
>>
>> More double talk.
>
>oh lookie here. I was right.
>
No, you simply do not understand what you are talking about.
>evolution is in conflict once again
>
Nope.
>"The nature of the last universal ancestor to all extent cellular
>organisms and the rooting of the universal tree of life are
>fundamental questions which can now be adressed by molecular
>evolutionists. Several scenarios have been proposed during the last
>years, based on the phylogenies of ribosomal RNA and of duplicated
>proteins, which suggest that the last universal ancestor was either an
>RNA progenote or an hyperthermophilic prokaryote.
>
>We discuss these hypotheses in the light of new data on the evolution
>of DNA metabolizing enzymes and of contradictions between different
>protein phylogenies. We conclude that the last universal ancestor was
>a member of the DNA world already containing several DNA polymerases
>and DNA topoisomerases.
>
>Furthermore, we criticize current data which suggest that the rooting
>of the universal tree of life is located in the eubacterial branch and
>we conclude that both rooting the universal tree and the nature of the
>last universal ancestor are still open questions."
>
>I guess that DNA was there after all heekster my boi`.
You guess wrong, child.
> It also seems
>bacteria is not our UCA, as so many here have claimed
>
This is a strawman. Why don't you light it on fire, and shove it up
your ass?
>No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer heekster.
>why is THAT.
>
You are too stupid to understand it, and you lack the educational
background necessary to understand it. You could do something to
remedy these deficiencies, but it is highly doubtful that you ever
will.
You are an idiot for thinking that a 1992 publication abstract can
somehow constitute a rebuttal for research done in 2008. The "current
data" in the article you cited is 16 years older than the article that
I provided.
Once again, you play the insensate, incognizant idiot.
>
>
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-49KK7J7-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f9aa4fa48dea94374947b9f4ff206368
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>On Nov 24, 8:51 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 8:35 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>
>> > This is a year old, but I don't think it has been mentioned in here.
>>
>> > This article talks about riboswitches and tiny circular RNA molecules
>> > called cyclic di-GMP, which are able to turn genes on and off, similar
>> > to epigenetic effects.
>>
>> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
>>
>> Funny. The article says "tiny circular RNA molecules called cyclic di-
>> GMP are able to turn genes on and off." "all without initial
>> involvement of DNA"
>>
>> But the DNA is kept in the nucleus of the cell found on the
>> chromosomes which is where the genes are.
>>
>> More double talk.
>
>oh lookie here. I was right.
>
>evolution
Sure you didn't mean "science"? Evolution, being an observed
process, seems unlikely to be "in conflict" with anything.
> is in conflict once again
....for values of "in conflict" indistinguishable from
"operating in the usual research mode".
>"The nature of the last universal ancestor to all extent cellular
>organisms and the rooting of the universal tree of life are
>fundamental questions which can now be adressed by molecular
>evolutionists. Several scenarios have been proposed during the last
>years, based on the phylogenies of ribosomal RNA and of duplicated
>proteins, which suggest that the last universal ancestor was either an
>RNA progenote or an hyperthermophilic prokaryote.
>
>We discuss these hypotheses in the light of new data on the evolution
>of DNA metabolizing enzymes and of contradictions between different
>protein phylogenies. We conclude that the last universal ancestor was
>a member of the DNA world already containing several DNA polymerases
>and DNA topoisomerases.
>
>Furthermore, we criticize current data which suggest that the rooting
>of the universal tree of life is located in the eubacterial branch and
>we conclude that both rooting the universal tree and the nature of the
>last universal ancestor are still open questions."
>
>I guess that DNA was there after all heekster my boi`. It also seems
>bacteria is not our UCA, as so many here have claimed
>
>No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer heekster.
>why is THAT.
>
>And,
>Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final answer can
>be found.
Because, unlike your favorite myths, the evidence supports
it and no evidence refutes it.
><http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?
>_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-49KK7J7-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f9aa4fa48dea94374947b9f4ff206368>
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> "To initiate many important functions, bacteria sometimes depend
> entirely upon ancient forms of RNA..."
I don't think that sentence has any meaning. What could it possibly
mean to depend *entirely* on one thing, when in fact bacteria
*always* depend on more than one thing, such as:
- Stable temperature that doesn't swing hot enough to cremate the
biomass nor too cold to freeze it.
- Low level of radioactivity that doesn't cause virtually every
nucleus to mutate to a different isotope on a time scale shorter
than the reproductive cycle.
- Some source of useful energy, either sunlight or a combination of
an oxidizer and a reducer.
Those are just the bare minimum that the bacterium as a whole can
even survive for a few minutes, long enough to carry out some
complex chemical function. In addition to those, each specific
function of a bacterium also depends on:
- Specific chemical mix in the "cytoplasm", including stable pH and
hydration and availability of ATP or NADH+ to energize the local
reactions.
- Multiple inputs (reagents) to various chemical reactions involved
in the function.
- Sufficiently low density of reaction products as to not block the
forward direction of the reactions.
The quoted sentence seems to say that the function (typically a
combination of chemical reactions) can be initiated without *any*
of those conditions being present, which is utterly absurd. So then
what could the sentence possibly mean?
It can be said that a newborn infant is "depends entirely" on its
mother. This means that the mother keeps the infant away from
temperature extremes and highly radioactive or chemically toxic
locales, provides food (milk), provides access to air (for oxygen),
and protects from anything else that would harm the baby.
Roughly analagously, a colony of bacteria in a petri dish, under
carefully controlled laboratory conditions, might be said to
"depend entirely" on the laboratory situation for survival and also
for any particular function performed by the bacteria such as
synthesizing H1N1 vaccine. But there's no way that RNA by itself
can provide *all* that kind of protective environment for a
bacterium. At best the RNA provides one trigger or catalyst to
initiate a reaction that is *dependent* on many other factors at
the same time, both general factors to prevent total destruction,
and specific factors to enable the triggering to occur, in order
for the reactions comprising the "function" to proceed even the
first step.
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> "The nature of the last universal ancestor to all extent cellular
> organisms and the rooting of the universal tree of life are
> fundamental questions which can now be adressed by molecular
> evolutionists.
The phrase "the last universal ancestor" is *singular*.
AFAIK we do not yet know whether there was *one* or multiple last
universal ancestor(s). Thus the phrase begs that question, pre-supposes
that there was in fact just one.
If we look at the last thousand years, we see for the most part a
set of stable sexually-reproducing species, perhaps several tens of
millions of them, most of them insects, most of those beetles, plus
some unknown collection of asexual clades that form loose groups
that trade DNA, pseudo-species. If we go back a few tens of
millions of years, we find several groups of modern species have
descended from one-each ancestral species, while we find several
ancient species that have since gone extinct. The former constitute
the common ancestor*S* of today's species and pseudo-species,
probably several tens of millions back then too. If we go back to
before the Cambrian "explosion", we might find an extremely lesser
number of species and pseudo-species which are ancestors of today's
life, maybe only a few thousand, with tens of thousands of *other*
species at that time which are *not* ancestors of today's life. If
we go further back in time, the species and pseudo-species which
are ancestral to today's life decreases further. But it's entirely
conceivable that no matter how far back we go, to the very last
independent abiogenesis event, we would still find *more* than one
species or pseudo-species that are ancestors of today's life. At
present, we have no evidence whether that number of common
ancestors was one or more than one at that time.
> Several scenarios have been proposed during the last years, based
> on the phylogenies of ribosomal RNA and of duplicated proteins,
> which suggest that the last universal ancestor was either an RNA
> progenote or an hyperthermophilic prokaryote.
Although I accept the evidence that the ancestor*S* of today's life
were probably indeed such kinds of cells, the argument does not
support the claim that there was exactly one such cellular clade at
that time. It does not refute the alternative hypothesis that there
were more than one independent clade at that time. It seems to me
entirely possible that at that time there was an ecosystem of
several independent clades of life, all of that general nature,
which later exchanged genetic material to form pseudo-species of
larger scope hence of fewer number, while at the same time natural
selection produced splits of lineage which increased the number of
independent types of life, such that at no point from then to now
was there ever just one species or pseudo-species.
Here's a "just so story" as an example of how this *might* have
progressed: Just before the start of the RNA era, there might have
been a pseudo-species that inhabited the vicinity of a certain type
of undersea vent, utilizing hydrogen sulfide as a primary source of
energy for metabolism. At the same time, there might have been
another pseudo-species that inhabited shallow seas, utilizing
high-energy radicals produced when ultraviolet light strikes the
surface of the ocean, for metabolism. Then one or the other evolved
a way to make RNA, which enabled that pseudo-species to suddenly
begin evolving to achieve much more efficient metabolism and other
biochemical functions by use of RNA in the process. This one
pseudo-species synthesized so much RNA that it leaked out into the
ocean and became available for the *other* pseudo-species far away
to use it as a food, first to just eat it for energy, but later
evolved a way to use it to make enzymes just as the original
species could. With that second pseudo-species getting more and
more dependent on RNA drifting in, evolution produced a way to
directly synthesize it, to no longer be depending on the scarse
supply diffusing from afar. Thus two pseudo-species now *both* had
ways to synthesize and use RNA, by very different mechanisms for
synthesis, and different-in-detail usages. Because the two
pseudo-species survived *only* under very different environmental
conditions, there was no way that either could invade the other's
locale and drive it to extinction to become a single
pseudo-species.
Continuation of "just so story" counterexample: RNA for enzymes
gave both pseudo-species much greater ability to evolve new kinds
of enzymes to support new kinds of metabolism, allowing each to
expand past its original locale, filling the rest of the ocean with
life derived from one or the other, or both at the same time in
boundary regions. In those boundary regions, endosymbiosis may have
occurred, both prior pseudo-species now living togehter in single
cells, integrating their separate metabolic processes into a single
more unified process. These integrated clades of life were more
successful than the precursors, so they expanded to fill most of
the ocean, but divided into mulitiple pseudo-species. These
multiple pseudo-species achieved additional endosymbiosis with all
the remaining pre-endosymbiosis clades, driving the last of the
pre-endosymbiosis clades to extinction. But throughtout this
process, never was a single pseudo-species able to drive all other
pseudo-species to extinction, because each pseudo-species was
composed of several clades that had adapted to different
environment, and each pseudo-species comprised a different set of
clades hence a different set of adaptions hence a different set of
locales where it could proliferate.
Continuation of "just so story" counterexample: Eventually one of
the clades evolved a way to map its old polymeric genome to RNA and
back again, allowing a life-cycle that included both not-RNA and
RNA generations of each segment of genome, alternating generations
on a per-genome-segment basis, with possible mutations in each
generation, with non-RNA mutations usually being fatal, but RNA
mutations often being non-fatal, merely variation of phenotype.
Eventually this led to a totally organized reproductive system
which had strict alternation of whole-cell RNA-genome and
non-RNA-genome generations, but where the RNA-genome generation
occupied most of the time of the life cycle because that way the
100% fatal mutations of the non-RNA-genome generation would be
minimized. Over time, dependence on the non-RNA-genome was reduced,
to zero eventually, thereby making the non-RNA-genome generation
unnecessary. Then a way was evolved to omit the non-RNA-genome
generation entirely. Meanwhile the non-RNA-genome genes for these
RNA-genome processes diffused out to other clades of life, until
more and more clades could take advantage of the RNA-genome stage
of the life cycle, and then more and more clades could get rid of
the non-RNA-genome stage entirely. At this point all life on Earth
used RNA as the primary (or entire) genome. At no point in this
whole process was there just a single pseudo-species comprising all
life on earth, hence (with continued horizontal gene flow later) at
no time was there a single LCA to all later life.
Caveat of the "just so story": Any RNA mutation that didn't have a
way to map back to non-RNA genome, couldn't participate in the
alternating cell cycle, needed to stay *always* as RNA-genome
forever in the future (until the later DNA takeover of course).
Thus what probably happened is that at first *all* the genome
stayed non-RNA, but then one trick was evolved for mapping one
non-RNA codon to some RNA sequence and back again, so that one
codon wherever it occurred could be converted to RNA and later back
again. Over time, more and more non-RNA codons found ways to map to
RNA and back again, so that entire sequences of codons could
alternate generations on a per-sequence basis. Eventually every
non-RNA codon either got mapped to an RNA sequence or went extinct.
At this point all genome sequences participated in alternating
generations. Then some RNA mutations occurred which couldn't map to
any known non-RNA codon, forcing that part of the genome to stay
all-RNA. More and more such mutations locked various parts of the
RNA genome into non-alternating life cycle, until eventually all
the non-RNA codons became unnecessary, and the life cycle was now
100% RNA genome.
> We discuss these hypotheses in the light of new data on the
> evolution of DNA metabolizing enzymes and of contradictions between
> different protein phylogenies. We conclude that the last universal
> ancestor was a member of the DNA world already containing several
> DNA polymerases and DNA topoisomerases.
If there never was just *one* UCA, then that paragraph lacks meaning.
> No one seems to be able to find the real and final answer ...
Not yet, a mere 55 years after the structure of DNA was discovered.
Give it a few hundred more years before you throw your hands up in
despair and decide we'll never know. After all, it took about a
hundred years from Darwin's theory until DNA structure was
discovered, and then another 40 years before we started sequencing
lots of genomes. And all that (DNA and genomes) deals with
*current* situations that can be directly measured in the
laboratory. Trying to figure out what happened billions of years
ago is much harder and might take many hundreds of years to figure
out, or to reach a point of seriously saying "we'll never know".
> Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final
> answer can be found.
*What* mumbo-jumbo??? I've seen lots of technical jargon, most of
which has pretty well defined meaning, some of which is too
ambiguous or confused to satisfy me, and a few isolated frauds such
as Heckel's drawings of embryos that are identical across very
different clades of animal life (when in fact they are merely
*similar*, not identical) and the Piltdown re-assembly from
different species, but nothing at all like "mumbo-jumbo" except
Lamarkism or Creationism any time since I was a child.
Kent Paul Dolan
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm
Some messages to carry away from that article
1) The chemical possibilities for "simple things
that can make an organizm live at low levels" and
for "simple things that can arise abiotically" are
starting to intersect, so that abiogenesis is
becoming easier to understand and eventually to
confirm.
"How could RNA trigger changes in ancient cells
without all the proteins present in modern
cells? Well, in this case, no proteins, no
problem," [...]
Breaker's lab solved a decades-old mystery by
describing how tiny circular RNA molecules
called cyclic di-GMP are able to turn genes on
and off. This process determines whether the
bacterium swims or stays stationary, and whether
it remains solitary or joins with other bacteria
to form organic masses called biofilms.
2) Genetic science's understanding of the genetic
chemistry evolved to make inheritance and and life
work is so well understood it's components can now
be predicted to exist from chemistry created in the
lab before they are seen in evolved genomes:
The tiny RNA molecule, comprised of only two
nucleotides, activates a larger RNA structure
called a riboswitch. Breaker's lab discovered
riboswitches in bacteria six years ago and has
since shown that they can regulate a surprising
amount of biological activity. Riboswitches,
located within single strands of messenger RNA
that transmit a copy of DNA's genetic
instructions, can independently "decide'' which
genes in the cell to activate, an ability once
thought to rest exclusively with proteins.
Breaker had chemically created riboswitches in
his own lab and - given their efficiency at
regulating gene expressions - predicted such RNA
structures would be found in nature. Since 2002,
almost 20 classes of riboswitches, including the
one described in today's paper, have been
discovered, mostly hidden in non-gene-coding
regions on DNA.
"We predicted that there would be an ancient
'RNA city' out there in the jungle, and we went
out and found it,'' Breaker said.
3) These lower scale, "abiotically possible"
mechanisms are conserved from the earliest bacteria
to more complex bacteria, showing that the tree of
life is indeed "connected" by inheritance and
evolution, not separately created, in which latter
case such simple piece parts would not need to be
reused as tools, when larger cells conceptually
leave room for larger, more integrated tools to
replace the simpler tools of the abiogenesis era.
The riboswitches are highly conserved in
bacteria, illustrating their importance and
ancient ancestry,
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>> No one seems to be able to find the real and
>> final answer heekster. why is THAT.
The last "Final Answer" I recall was called
Auswitcz. That might, to the intelligent mind,
suggest a reason why answers that prevent all
further progress aren't too popular with sane
people.
>> And, Why believe any of this
>> evolution-mumbo-jumbo until a final answer can be
>> found.
> holy cow. the creationist has discovered the fact
> scientists do research. we go with the evidence
> to him this means we don't have a central
> authority that determines a dogmatic belief like
> creationism does
> and look at all the progress creationism made in
> the last 2000 years.
> it explained earthquakes...not
> weather...not
> disease....not
> planetary motion....not
> well...dont worry...in another 2000 years they'll
> have made as much progress as they have to date
> none at all
Well, I don't think you are giving biblical
literalists quite enough credit there.
They certainly do have one monumental accomplishment
about which to boast.
We call that accomplishment "The Dark Ages".
If the current crop of scriptural literalists
(we now have the conservative Muslims and
orthodox Jews joining in on the effort, so we
can't say "biblical" any more, we have to say
"literalists of the book", or some such,
instead.)
have their way, I'm sure a "Dark Ages, The Sequel"
is quite within their means.
Something about which to think when deciding how
much of your personal time and effort it is worth
spending to send these bozos into the dustbin of
history.
I have grandchildren now, and one of them almost old
enough (15) for me to start thinking about
greatgrandchildren (his dad was a father at 17 --
sigh -- not on my watch, his mother demanded and got
full custody with no visitiation for me), so I've
got an investment in preventing a second Dark Age
produced by morons like Adman.
Others might want to make a similar reckoning.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> You are too stupid to understand it, and you lack
> the educational background necessary to understand
> it.
> You could do something to remedy these
> deficiencies, but it is highly doubtful that you
> ever will.
Granted, he could get an education, but has
someone really come up with a cure for stupidity?
Especially, for stupidity of the monumental sort?
IMWTK
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
>> "To initiate many important functions, bacteria
>> sometimes depend entirely upon ancient forms of
>> RNA..."
> I don't think that sentence has any meaning. What
> could it possibly mean to depend *entirely* on one
> thing, when in fact bacteria *always* depend on
> more than one thing,
That is just too egregiously stupid to let pass.
How did you managae to avoid seeing the words "TO
INITIATE" and "SOMETIMES" in that sentence to which
you object so unintelligently?
The rest of your posting is snipped for the
contextually meaningless rubbish it is.
xanthian.
Kermit
You forgot to mention that the newborn also depends on Earth's mass
maintaining its normal gravitational field. It also requires no
asteroids to strike the ground in its immediate vicinity, and also
very much depends on the sun not going nova. Few newborns survive
attacks by deranged serial killers.
Really, while what you say is technically true, it is a given in most
conversations that the standard environment is maintained without
dramatic changes. it would be tiresome and uninformative to qualify
all such known background conditions. we are ordinarily interested in
unusual conditions, or changes in processes which vary quite a bit.
You make an unnecessarily strong case for a minor change in wording, I
think. While it could undoubtedly have been worded better by your
standards, it was probably intended to simply exclude the necessity
for DNA involvement in certain processes, which *would ordinarily be
assumed.
Kermit
Kermit
> heekster wrote:
>
> �> You are too stupid to understand it, and you lack
> �> the educational background necessary to understand
> �> it.
>
> �> You could do something to remedy these
> �> deficiencies, but it is highly doubtful that you
> �> ever will.
>
> Granted, he could get an education, but has
> someone really come up with a cure for stupidity?
Mere stupidity can be overcome to a degree, but it requires the
afflicted to *want to learn and "be smarter". When you and I were
kids, babies born with Down's Syndrome were largely mindless and
speechless, and nearly always institutionalized. Now, with scientific
advances in educational techniques, they can often become semi-
independent and functioning adults.
There is no cure for the determinedly ignorant.
>
> Especially, for stupidity of the monumental sort?
Carved in granite, mounted on concrete, set for the ages?
Nope.
>
> IMWTK
>
> xanthian.
Kermit
Kent Paul Dolan
> From: All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com>
>> "The nature of the last universal ancestor to all
>> extent cellular organisms and the rooting of the
>> universal tree of life are fundamental questions
>> which can now be adressed by molecular
>> evolutionists.
[...]
>> Several scenarios have been proposed during the
>> last years, based on the phylogenies of ribosomal
>> RNA and of duplicated proteins, which suggest
>> that the last universal ancestor was either an
>> RNA progenote or an hyperthermophilic prokaryote.
[...]
>> We discuss these hypotheses in the light of new
>> data on the evolution of DNA metabolizing enzymes
>> and of contradictions between different protein
>> phylogenies. We conclude that the last universal
>> ancestor was a member of the DNA world already
>> containing several DNA polymerases and DNA
>> topoisomerases.
[...]
>> No one seems to be able to find the real and
>> final answer ...
[...]
>> Why believe any of this evolution-mumbo-jumbo
>> until a final answer can be found.
You have failed to attribute to Ron O material that
he wrote, the first three quoted paragraphs, and
muddled it at the same quoting level with material
that All-Seeing-I wrote, the last two quoted
paragraphs.
This is all of
intellectually dishonest of you,
sloppy of you,
rude of you,
intellectual property theft by you,
insulting of Ron O by you,
unjustly glorifying of All-Seeing-I (who could
not possibly have written such sane,
knowledgeable text) by you.
If you cannot find and use a posting client that
does quoting and attributions correctly, or learn
the self-discipline yourself without fail do them
correctly by hand yourself every time, please
refrain from posting to Usenet, and to this
newsgroup in particular.
All that your pied posting style accomplishes is to
sow confusion.
Also, your own material was entirely bogus, you are
deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of "Least
Common Ancestor" to fuel your diatribe.
Certainly, starting at the beginning, in the
"molecular life" era, and beyond the "grabbing only
free radicals from the environment as building
blocks" era because the raw materials were becoming
in scarce supply, there was little to choose between
one organism consuming another, and one organism
merging its reproductive/reproduction encoding
machinery with another.
Moving forward, no one disputes that at each level,
multiple trees of life may have, and probably did,
exist.
Today, however, all evidence we have is that we have
a common descent from an ancestory with a common
reproductive and energy processing chemistry. So
much is in common, the chance of their having been
more than a single common ancestry is essentially
zero.
That is "an ancestory" rather than "an ancestor"
because sex or something much like it but more
primitive may have been in place by then.
What happened in between all those earlier trees and
that single common ancestor? One line of descent
survived, all the rest went extinct, just as
evolution theory expects. Thus, the term "least
common ancestor" is entirely appropriate despite
that you don't like it and despite that it is a bit
fuzzy.
Even today, it is a misnomer to name the genetic
level inheritance path of life the graph termed "a
tree"; there is so much horizontal swapping of
genetic snippets, what exists is the graph termed a
"lattice". In its major features, including the
nested hierarchy of phenotypes, however, that
lattice can be well approximated by a tree to levels
of detail only distinguishable by chemical analysis
of the genome.
xanthian.
Nashton
I don't know, but being homeless for a while and losing the custody of
your kid(s) to your ex are sure signs that you didn't do everything
right yourself.
I especially appreciated how you implied that she got custody of the
children because she fought and won. As if the courts give custody to
parents because of their score on how hard they fought.
Laughable.
JTEM
Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> I don't know, but being homeless for a while and losing
> the custody of your kid(s) to your ex are sure signs
> that you didn't do everything right yourself.
WHAT planet are YOU on?
All of the above can be explained in 90% of cases by the
following: Appearing in divorce court while being male.
Idiot.
Nashton
And I'm sure you know all about, don't you? Did you also lose your kids
to your wife because you were an inadequate husband?
Blame the courts, moron.
Boikat
Since you do not know the fcts, it's a sign of a small mind to make
such comments, in such a spiteful manner, about something that you do
not know *anything* about. Sort of like your whinges about science.
Boikat
gregwrld
He's gotten very good at being a
sort of brutish clod. Maybe he just
wants to be good at something.
gregwrld
JTEM
Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > WHAT planet are YOU on?
>
> > All of the above can be explained in 90% of cases by the
> > following: Appearing in divorce court while being male.
>
> > Idiot.
>
> And I'm sure you know all about, don't you?
Depends. If you mean that I've been divorced, no. You're
wrong. If you mean that I've know people who got it rammed
up the ass in divorce court, yes. Yes I have.
Idiot.