Researchers show how 1 gene becomes 2 (with different functions)

Jan 12, 2011
The researchers traced the evolution of a gene in the Antarctic eelpout (Lycodichthys dearborni) that enables it to survive in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean. Credit: Photo by Christina Cheng

Researchers report that they are the first to show in molecular detail how one gene evolved two competing functions that eventually split up – via gene duplication – to pursue their separate destinies.

The study, in the , validates a decades-old hypothesis about a key mechanism of evolution. The study also confirms the ancestry of a family of "antifreeze proteins" that helps the Antarctic eelpout survive in the frigid waters of the Southern Ocean.

"I'm always asking the question of where these antifreeze proteins come from," said University of Illinois animal biology professor Christina Cheng, who has spent three decades studying the genetic adaptations that enable Antarctic fish to survive in one of the coldest zones on the planet. "The cell usually does not create new proteins from scratch."

Scientists have known since 2001 that the sequence of genes coding for a family of antifreeze proteins (known as AFP III) was very similar to part of a sequence of a gene that codes for a cellular enzyme in humans. Since Antarctic fish also produce this enzyme, sialic acid synthase (SAS), it was thought that the genes for these antifreeze proteins had somehow evolved from a duplicate copy of the SAS gene. But no study had shown how this happened with solid experimental data.

Cheng and her colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences began by comparing the sequences of the SAS and AFP III genes. There are two SAS genes in fish: SAS-A and SAS-B. The researchers confirmed that the AFP III genes contain sequences that are most similar to those in a region of SAS-B.

They also found a sequence in the SAS-B gene that, when translated into a new protein, could – with a few modifications – direct the cell to secrete the protein. This slightly modified signal sequence also appears in the AFP III genes. Unlike the SAS enzymes, which remain inside the cell, the AFP III proteins are secreted into the blood or extracellular fluid, where they can more easily disrupt the growth of invading ice crystals.

"This basically demonstrates how something that 'lives' inside the cell can acquire this new functionality and get moved out into the bloodstream to do something else," Cheng said.

Further analysis revealed that the SAS proteins function as enzymes but also have modest ice-binding capabilities. This finding supports a decades-old hypothesis that states that when a single gene begins to develop more than one function, duplication of that gene could result in the divergent evolution of the original gene and its duplicate.

The new finding also supports the proposed mechanism, called "escape from adaptive conflict," by which this can occur. According to this idea, if a gene has more than one function, mutations or other changes to the gene through natural selection that enhance one function may undermine its other function.

"The original enzyme function and the emerging ice-binding function of the ancestral SAS molecule might conflict with each other," Cheng said. When the SAS-B gene became duplicated as a result of a copying error or some other random event in the cell, she said, then each of the duplicate was freed from the conflict and "could go on its own evolutionary path."

"This is the first clear demonstration – with strong supporting molecular and functional evidence – of escape from adaptive conflict as the underlying process of gene duplication and the creation of a completely new function in one of the daughter copies," Cheng said. "This has not been documented before in the field of molecular evolution."

Cheng said that even before the gene for the secreted antifreeze protein was formed, the original SAS protein appears to have had both the enzymatic and ice-binding functions. This suggests that somehow the SAS protein (which is not secreted) acted within the cell to disrupt the growth of ice.

This could have occurred "in the early developmental stages of the fish," Cheng said, since the eggs are spawned into a cold environment and would benefit from even the modest antifreeze capabilities of the SAS protein.

Later, after the SAS gene was duplicated and the AFP gene went on its own evolutionary path, Cheng said, the antifreeze protein appears to have evolved into a secreted protein, allowing it to disrupt ice formation in the bloodstream and extracellular fluid, where it would be of most benefit to the adult fish.

Explore further: Search for better biofuels microbes leads to the human gut

More information: The paper, "Evolution of an Antifreeze Protein by Neofunctionalization Under Escape From Adaptive Conflict," is available online.

Related Stories

Antifreeze fish make sense out of junk DNA

Apr 04, 2006

Scientists at the University of Illinois have discovered an antifreeze-protein gene in cod that has evolved from non-coding or 'junk' DNA. Since the creation of these antifreeze proteins is directly driven by polar glaciation, ...

SAS®9 Available For Intel® Itanium® 2-based Systems

May 05, 2004

CARY, N.C. and SANTA CLARA, Calif., May 4, 2004 - SAS and Intel Corporation today announced the immediate availability of SAS®9 on Intel-based servers and clients. Intel's joint effort with SAS expands on years ...

Parallel evolution: proteins do it, too

Jun 12, 2006

Wings, spines, saber-like teeth—nature and the fossil record abound with examples of structures so useful they've evolved independently in a variety of animals. But scientists have debated whether examples of so-called ...

Antifreeze proteins can stop ice melt, new study finds

Mar 01, 2010

The same antifreeze proteins that keep organisms from freezing in cold environments also can prevent ice from melting at warmer temperatures, according to a new Ohio University and Queen's University study ...

Recommended for you

Turning winery waste into biofuels

9 hours ago

Researchers at Swinburne University of Technology have developed a technique for converting winery waste into compounds that could have potential value as biofuels or medicines.

User comments : 79

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2011
Lots of really tough issues that has to be answered here. First off, is the whole issue to show that molecules-to-man kind of evolution is possible or is it to show how already existing information might have been, could have been, appeared to have been, is thought to have been used to develop an anti-freeze solution?

There are just too many maybes in the equation, although the actual attempt to find out how the anti-freeze part could have evolved is commendable.

The overall big picture remains the same: information was already contained within the cell and it's very clear that if there wasn't any anti-freeze protein capabilities available already, the species wouldn't have survived. It would not have had the time to "evolve" such new information by trial and error. Any error would have been fatal.

Just what are the "few modifications" that were required in translation? It's always a challenge to find out exactly how those few modifications came about since nobody was there2C.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2011
actually @kevintrs, you presume that the species was living in freezing waters when you say "it couldn't have lived to begin with." The whole idea was that a fish living near cold waters has a gene that produces SAS. That gene gets modified and it begins producing AFP and SAS. Now fish with AFP, as they swim around, begin to inhabit freezing waters that were previously uninhabited, and take advantage of that region. Since these fish have access to new food supplies, they pass their modified AFP genes along and eventually AFP gets duplicated to another part of the genome so it no longer competes with SAS production.
gvgoebel
2.4 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2011
Hey Shavera, no offense meant but you, like, are talking to a concrete block. If the biosci folks could trace in detail all the genetic changes involved in the origin of a species, the answer would still be: "BUT THERE'S NO NEW INFORMATION!" ("Microevolution not macroevolution! There are no transitional fossils! The FORCE gives me power over the weak-minded!")
shavera
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2011
look I understand completely kevintrs' status here. But there may be people who honestly wonder the same thing (even if it's because he brought it up) and I want to respond to those people. Just because he raises the question doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be answered.

Furthermore, I grew up as a Young-Earth Creationist. I know that there must be some portion of them who are open to actually hearing the evidence play out and maybe change their minds like I did.
gvgoebel
3 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Possibly so, but I doubt very much that anyone would be interested in this article unless they were interested in the subject matter, and that to me spells out an audience of creobots on one side and us science geeks on the other. For uninitiated and the curious who may stray across this item, I would recommend Sean Carroll's THE MAKING OF THE FITTEST. (I outlined it for my blog:
www dot vectorsite dot net/g2007m04.html#m16)
Argon
1.5 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2011
It is the salt content of their bodies that keep them from freezing; Protein or not, without the proper body salt content they would soon become "fish sticks". So the question in my mind is not "where these antifreeze proteins come from" but rather how did these extreme stenohaline fish "evolve" to begin with?
soulman
3.5 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2011
Furthermore, I grew up as a Young-Earth Creationist. I know that there must be some portion of them who are open to actually hearing the evidence play out and maybe change their minds like I did.

Sure (and congratulations), but not nut-bars like kevin. He's been set straight countless times but continues to revel in moronic ignorance, unperturbed. Which means, he's just trolling.
kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2011
@gvgoebel , soulman,

Thanks for the name-calling. Just a lot of water of the duck's back.
Perhaps you guys need to seriously reconsider just what it is you DO believe.
If one for instance takes all the vicious circles that arise for life to start spontaneously from dirt then the improbability rapidly points to a required intelligent outside interference.

Take for instance the repair mechanisms [ leaving off the chiral and other requirements]: The code for creating the repair mechanism[s] is contained in the DNA itself, yet without that repair system in place the DNA would rapidly be destroyed because it's so reactive in itself. The code for the translating enzymes are contained in the DNA, yet without the translation mechs existence, nothing will work. And so it goes on and on.
What it boils down to is that there simply HAS to have been an intelligent designer and builder of life - and since none of you know how life arrived here, it could just as well have been in forms we know now.
soulman
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2011
Thanks for the name-calling. Just a lot of water of the duck's back.

As is reason and science.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2011
Just a lot of water of the duck's back.
Knowledge to a closed mind.
seriously reconsider just what it is you DO believe.
Actually it is YOU that need to reconsider. For instance your inability to even begin to answer the question - When was the flood and what happened to the Egyptians that were building pyramids - is a clear sign that you KNOW your beliefs are based on ignorance.
If one for instance takes all the vicious circles
How about the false circles claimed by ignorant Fundies. Evolution is not dependent on how life got started in any case Kevin. It doesn't go away just because we don't know everything.
he code for creating the repair mechanism[s] is contained in the DNA itself,
Now yes.
yet without that repair system in place the DNA would rapidly be destroyed
No. It would CHANGE faster. As can be seen in RNA viruses that beat the hell out of OUR immune system. They don't have repair mechanisms yet they keep reproducing.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2011
The code for the translating enzymes are contained in the DNA
Yes. NOW.
without the translation mechs existence, nothing will work
NOW. Not in the past. RNA doesn't need translation. RNA can both store information and act as an enzyme.
And so it goes on and on
Yes your ignorance does go on and on.
there simply HAS to have been an intelligent designer
Only for your religious beliefs. There is no need in biology.
and since none of you know how life arrived here
No one does. BUT you think it arrived 6000 years ago and that is PROVED wrong. My not knowing everything is much superior to YOUR knowing things that are just plain wrong.
it could just as well have been in forms we know now.
Plain wrong as that. We already know that statement is utterly false. There are NO human fossils billions of years ago but there are fossils. There aren't even human fossils at the time of dinosaurs despite Ray Harryhausen's great stop motion work and Ham's lies.

Ethelred
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (11) Jan 13, 2011
@Ethelred:
Evolution is not dependent on how life got started in any case Kevin. It doesn't go away just because we don't know everything.


For someone that doesn't know everything you sound extremely sure that evolution [molecules-to-man] is the way current lifeforms got here.

From the sounds of it, I think you are doing the usual bait-and-switch - talking about adaptations and then meaning the whole bang shoot from a single cell to man.
If life got started here in the fully formed way we know of it currently, then there would be no need for a reptile to change into a bird or a chimp to change into a human being.
This doesn't mean there wouldn't be any adaptations e.g. the formation of all the different dogs from just one fully supplied with all the required gene information for different looking dogs.
As for the evidence, it can be interpreted in a number of ways. One could be as if things made themselves[evolution] and another that God made them.
Which fits best?
kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 13, 2011
Not in the past. RNA doesn't need translation. RNA can both store information and act as an enzyme.

So where did your first RNA molecule come from? From basic chemistry principles, it is basically impossible to get there via random physical processes. There's not enough time or energy in the whole universe to get to the formation of that substance thru random processes. Then on top of it all, even if by some miracle[which you'll need plenty of] you managed to get all the contents for a single cell together in one place, you still need to kick-start the whole thing into life.
Since it happened in the past, it's all too easy for you to just go about happy-go-luckily waving hands about saying that because we are here it must have happened.
You cannot rule out the possibility that lifeforms did NOT evolve from a single cell to all the complex forms we have now. You cannot even reduce it's probability to lower than evolution. On the contrary reason eliminates evolution quite fast.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2011
For someone that doesn't know everything you sound extremely sure that evolution [molecules-to-man] is the way current lifeforms got here.
Not knowing everything doesn't mean he doesn't know more than you do, that is unless you're assuming to tell us that you do know everything.
From the sounds of it, I think you are doing the usual bait-and-switch - talking about adaptations and then meaning the whole bang shoot from a single cell to man.
That would be what you're doing, not Ethelred.
If life got started here in the fully formed way we know of it currently, then there would be no need for a reptile to change into a bird or a chimp to change into a human being.
But they did, so your stance is thusly invalidated.
This doesn't mean there wouldn't be any adaptations e.g. the formation of all the different dogs from just one fully supplied with all the required gene information for different looking dogs.
Then show me one from the pre-cambrian. Exactly...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011
As for the evidence, it can be interpreted in a number of ways. One could be as if things made themselves[evolution] and another that God made them.
Which fits best?
Evolution.
So where did your first RNA molecule come from? From basic chemistry principles, it is basically impossible to get there via random physical processes.
Tell us why it is impossible based on chemistry and natural chemical affinity. Don't try to use percentages or probability because that would be lying. Give us the rule that makes it impossible, otherwise retract that statement.
There's not enough time or energy in the whole universe to get to the formation of that substance thru random processes
Yet a woman can build a child in a mere nine months. Amazing that they can do that if it would in fact take more energy than there is in the universe and be done in only 9 months. It appears that it doesn't require an infinite supply of energy or time. To be continued again...
soulman
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2011
You cannot rule out the possibility that lifeforms did NOT evolve from a single cell to all the complex forms we have now.

Yup, we can.
You cannot even reduce it's probability to lower than evolution.

I have no idea what that means, but it's "its".
On the contrary reason eliminates evolution quite fast.

No, what does it is stupidity and an unwillingness to learn.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2011
Then on top of it all, even if by some miracle[which you'll need plenty of]
Miracles are suspension of the natural laws. We don't believe in them, you do.
you managed to get all the contents for a single cell together in one place,
All 8 atomic elements which are rather prevalent on the planet in total.
you still need to kick-start the whole thing into life.
The atoms need to self arrange, you know, like we see them doing everywhere, all the time.
Since it happened in the past, it's all too easy for you to just go about happy-go-luckily waving hands about saying that because we are here it must have happened.
As opposed to your thought process which is that we were wished into existence? I'm sorry, who's engaging in magic hand waving?
On the contrary reason eliminates evolution quite fast.
Is "On the contrary" a euphemism for "In fantasy land"?
Physmet
5 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2011
Which fits best?


Well, on one hand we have evolution which is far from complete in understanding and yet produces many observable facts. On the other, we have an invisible being that nobody sees and that had no beginning but always existed without start and then spoke and created everything. The main proof of the second option is, "I don't UNDERSTAND how this could have come about otherwise because it's too complicated for me, therefore I'll pick the invisible guy." Gosh, it's so hard to choose!

One approach to a political campaign is to spend time picking out faults in the opponent rather than building up a case for why they're the better candidate. It seems that most arguments from the creationism side do this. They don't produce their own evidence, but spend a lot of time trying to say how their opponent is wrong. Evolution at least comes up with their own support in addition to the mudslinging. It's hard to choose a side that doesn't produce evidence.
Donutz
5 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011

Furthermore, I grew up as a Young-Earth Creationist. I know that there must be some portion of them who are open to actually hearing the evidence play out and maybe change their minds like I did.


I also grew up believing in creationism. My childhood was heavily theistic. I agree with you on all points, and yes we can overcome a theisic upbringing to become rational thinking human beings.
jjoensuu
1.4 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2011
Miracles are suspension of the natural laws.


Just because an event is termed a miracle does not mean that any natural law was suspended. It just means that the event was sufficiently stupendous in the observers eyes.

Funnily these discussions often seem to fluctuate between the "young earth" creation theory (earth/universe was created in 6-7 literal 24hour periods) and the evolution (there is no creator) theory. As if those are the only two alternatives there are.

And validity of the evolution theory cannot prove that God does not exist, as God *could have* created the environment/conditions for evolution. Besides that no single celled organisms (or even prions for that matter) have been observed as appearing spontaneously from their fundamental building blocks. For this reason whether a person chooses to believe in evolution as in "no god" or in some alternative requiring a god, the choice is a faith based belief issue either way.
gvgoebel
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2011
"Just because an event is termed a miracle does not mean that any natural law was suspended. It just means that the event was sufficiently stupendous in the observers eyes."

Aw c'mon, jjoe, the argument is that "it was a miracle and so science will never be able to explain it." The sciences don't have any problem with "sufficiently stupendous" -- they deal with that all the time.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2011
Just because an event is termed a miracle does not mean that any natural law was suspended.
Except that by definition, it does. For something to be a miracle it must be not possible. For something to be not possible, it must violate the laws of nature.
Funnily these discussions often seem to fluctuate between the "young earth" creation theory (earth/universe was created in 6-7 literal 24hour periods) and the evolution (there is no creator) theory. As if those are the only two alternatives there are.
Those are the two being discussed, but the reality is there is no other explanation aside from evolution to explain the divergence of species according to all observations and evidence.
Besides that no single celled organisms (or even prions for that matter) have been observed as appearing spontaneously from their fundamental building blocks.
And that's wrong. Lipid proteins, the most primodial of cell building blocks spontaneously form vesicles in water.
Physmet
5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2011
Except that by definition, it does. For something to be a miracle it must be not possible. For something to be not possible, it must violate the laws of nature.


I agree with you, but then we get back to something resembling a P vs NP problem. "Look, a miracle!" "Well, we just haven't found how science can explain it yet."

Note that I'm more on the viewpoint of evolution than creationism. I just see miracles as another of those unresolvable issues within an issue.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2011
I agree with you, but then we get back to something resembling a P vs NP problem. "Look, a miracle!" "Well, we just haven't found how science can explain it yet."
Which wouldn't rule out possibility. Again, there's no such things as miracles because miracles cannot happen. If it happens, it must conform to the laws of nature, whether we understand them or not. If it happens, there's an explanation, if there is an explanation, it is not divine or miraculous.
Argon
1 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2011
Evolution denies the Truth of God's Word!:

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is". Exodus 20:11

Evolution calls Jesus a liar!:

"From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

Evolution is blasphemy!
Evolution is a damn lie!
Why do people believe evolution? Don't they fear God's coming Judgement?:

"11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

"15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:11,12,and 15

"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:44
Terrible_Bohr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2011
Evolution is blasphemy!
Evolution is a damn lie!
Why do people believe evolution? Don't they fear God's coming Judgement?:

I don't fear it. Mostly because I'm not in the practice of accepting extrordinary claims on mere hearsay. Especially so when there's a good alternative that presents physical evidence.

Whom would you call a liar - the side that presents a well-though argument that, while admittedly not the whole picture, can have some basis in daily experience. Or would you suspect the liar to be the side that makes an outrageous claim and just expects you to take it as fact. (and your eternal salvation depends on it, too)
trekgeek1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2011
Evolution calls Jesus a liar!:


Your mother and I feel that you're old enough to hear this; Jesus isn't real. The bible isn't real. It's all just stories to make people feel safe. Now go play with your friends slugger.

By the way, quoting the bible does nothing except make people laugh, especially on this site. Stop referencing it like it contains facts and knowledge. You don't see me quoting The Three Bears.
soulman
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2011
You don't see me quoting The Three Bears.

Actually, I'd like to see that used as debating tactic with god fanciers!
trekgeek1
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
You don't see me quoting The Three Bears.

Actually, I'd like to see that used as debating tactic with god fanciers!


I do it with the lord of the rings all the time. The passages are much more obscure and metaphorical. This is great for refuting Biblical predictions of the future.
dtxx
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Evolution calls Jesus a liar!:


Your mother and I feel that you're old enough to hear this; Jesus isn't real. The bible isn't real. It's all just stories to make people feel safe. Now go play with your friends slugger.

By the way, quoting the bible does nothing except make people laugh, especially on this site. Stop referencing it like it contains facts and knowledge. You don't see me quoting The Three Bears.


It isn't just evolution calling jesus a liar. Pretty much every other holy book in the world does that too. I'm sure you think your bible passages trump everything, but what will you do when hindus or buddhists or anyone else shows up with an even more ancient book of fairytales?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
For someone that doesn't know everything you sound extremely sure that evolution [molecules-to-man] is the way current lifeforms got here.
No one knows everything Kevin but that doesn't mean I know NOTHING. Knowing things that are wrong is much worse than not knowing everything.

We have vast evidence for evolution. We know many of the processes that are involved. We know that mutations happen. We know that mutations that are a bad match for the environment will be selected OUT.

We know the planet is billions of years old. We also know that there was no Great Flood. We know that mankind was NOT just 8 people 4400 years ago. You aren't going to make those fantasies become real by pointing out that we don't know everything. You aren't going to make the Egyptian pyramids disappear by saying don't know how life started. Your constant efforts to overturn reality by pointing out the obvious fact that we don't know everything is just plain silly, at best.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
think you are doing the usual bait-and-switch - talking about adaptations and then meaning the whole bang shoot from a single cell to man.
Oh that is utter rubbish. We have evidence for evolution from single cell to man or horse. We don't have every step but we don't need every step to show that evolution occurred.
If life got started here in the fully formed way we know of it currently
Then world would look different than it does. There would be no fossils of Eohippus or Australopithecus Afarensis or armored fishes or pretty most of the fossils that really do exist.
then there would be no need for a reptile to change into a bird or a chimp to change into a human being.
Need no but we have fossils that show that they did that. Heck we have flying squirrels RIGHT NOW that are the modern analog of the transition from primate to Fruit Bat. Except if they continue along that line I guess they would be Nut Bats.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
This doesn't mean there wouldn't be any adaptations e.g. the formation of all the different dogs from just one fully supplied with all the required gene information for different looking dogs.
Which isn't what we have or ever had. What we had was a WOLF that has been modified into many kinds of dogs by using MUTATIONS that have occurred since some wolves decided it would be easier to hang around with the top predator. Wolves do NOT have all the genes of the many dog strains that exist.

You can't fix the Bible by making up stuff that doesn't fit reality.

One could be as if things made themselves[evolution] and another that God made them.
Well the evidence is clearly for Evolution and ANYTHING that is older than 7000 years old is evidence that Genesis is wrong. There are buildings older than 7000 years and then there is pretty much ALL of the Earth, the Solar system and most everything we can see outside the Earth's atmosphere.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
Which fits best?
Evolution. Your YEC world is not ours. We don't live in that world. There is not a SHRED of evidence to support you beliefs. Just one book written long ago, with many contradictions, both internal and external, by men that clearly were ignorant of pretty much anything scientific.
So where did your first RNA molecule come from?
Sorry we don't know yet. We don't even know if life got started that way. We do KNOW that it started billions of years ago and then ate the evidence. Early life just had no respect for history.
From basic chemistry principles, it is basically impossible to get there via random physical processes.
No. Not unless you claim bogus numbers for RNA.
to the formation of that substance thru random processes.
Nonsense. RNA is a simple molecule. We already have found amino acids in space and in asteroids. They aren't that much different from RNA units. Some simple sugar rings are the base of both RNA, DNA and amino acids.

More
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Evolution denies the Truth of God's Word!:
Kind of a cop out. There's no truth in your God's word.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
you managed to get all the contents for a single cell together in one place,
Don't need a cell. That can come later.
you still need to kick-start the whole thing into life.
Life is just chemical reactions. There is nothing to kick-start. All that is needed is a self replicating molecule or perhaps a pair of molecules that can copy each other. If they make mistakes that can still make copies then there will be evolution.

No one yet knows what is the shortest self or co replicating molecule but there is no reason to claim it must have been a 100 or 200 or whatever very large number Creationists feel like making up based on their needs to make the world change into one without Egyptian pyramids or any buildings 8000 years old.

More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
it's all too easy for you to just go about happy-go-luckily waving hands about saying that because we are here it must have happened.
Kevin, it isn't handwaving. People have done research and so far it looks possible. We are not likely to ever know how it really happened. BUT we have evidence the life started billions of years ago. We have NO evidence that the world is 7000 years old.
You cannot rule out the possibility that lifeforms did NOT evolve from a single cell to all the complex forms we have now
Yes I can. The fossil and genetic evidence show that to be very likely and basic structure of life shows it very UNLIKELY to have had more than one source. Still if we found that life started from more than one kind of unrelated cell that would not make the billions of years of evolution that came after go away.

More
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
On the contrary reason eliminates evolution quite fast.
Wishful thinking does not constitute reason. You have posted all kinds of crap you insist prove that evolution did not happen. It has ALL been utter crap that had no reason at all behind it. You have posted NOTHING supporting your own beliefs. You won't even address the Pyramid Problem.

I have tried to address most every crappy post you have written with reason and evidence. You have never been willing to address anything difficult that you have been asked. NOTHING of reason or evidentiary supports you. You have one book written by ignorant men a long time ago that describes a world we do not live in.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
Evolution denies the Truth of God's Word!:
Yes except it ISN'T the word of Jehovah much less the only possible god. Unlike you Jehovah, according to the Bible, believed in other gods. So why don't you?
or in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
And why am I supposed to believe that after you pointed that evolution disproves Jehovah. After all we have evidence for evolution none for Jehovah. Just YOU and others claiming the Bible is the word of Jehovah. No actual evidence just you ranting.
Evolution calls Jesus a liar!:
Which is too bad for Jesus as evolution has evidence and Jesus has two books and both were written after his death. Nothing from his own time. The big book doesn't even manage to be consistent despite your claim that it is the word of Jehovah.
Evolution is blasphemy!
No. It is simply real.

More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
Evolution is a damn lie!
The evidence supports evolution and not you. So I will have to go on YOU lying. Or least being out of touch with reality.
Don't they fear God's coming Judgement?:
Why should anyone? You just proved that there is no judgement coming since there is evidence for evolution. Megatons. And nothing for a judgment that was supposed to have occur ed long ago. I bet you were waiting for the End of the World in 2000 which is WAY later then the Bible predicted.

So anyway, do you have ANY evidence that the Bible is the word of Jehovah and not simply the word of ignorant men. Something physical for instance as men lie all the time. Especially religious writers. Look at Joseph Smith and Muhammad for instance. Purest bullshit.

Ethelred
soulman
1.6 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
Jesus Ethel! Either Kev's mind just exploded from all that juicy info or it just sounded like cuckoo clock noises to him. I suspect the latter.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
"From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6
Except for all the creatures that he didn't make male and female, including humans who are born hermaphroditic.
Why do people believe evolution? Don't they fear God's coming Judgement?
Because evolution can be seen, your god's judgement cannot.
" And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Ah yes, but where did you get these fine biblical passages from? Looks like the Bible, smells like revelations, but lookie here, almost the exact same passages show up in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which predates christianity by over 3,500 years. :)
Quack
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2011
@kevinrtrs,
"So where did your first RNA molecule come from? From basic chemistry principles, it is basically impossible to get there via random physical processes. There's not enough time or energy in the whole universe to get to the formation of that substance thru random processes."

I believe you are bluffing. You sound so certain, but how, how do you KNOW that what you are saying there is true? Got any data to show? Done any research? Show your cards!
Javinator
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
And validity of the evolution theory cannot prove that God does not exist, as God *could have* created the environment/conditions for evolution.


Depends on which God you're talking about. If you go by the Bible then evolution most definitely contradicts the story of Genesis where everything was just created.

That being said, evolution does not rule out the possibility of some supernatural being or other "god(s)" that
"*could have* created the environment/conditions for evolution"
as you've stated. That starts getting into the unfalsifiable though and isn't really worth debating.
TabulaMentis
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2011
That being said, evolution does not rule out the possibility of some supernatural being or other "god(s)."
Very well said.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2011
It doesn't make it probable either. Or falsifiable or even testable in any way.

If you can't find a way to a distinguish a godless universe from a universe that was created by a god why assume there is a god? It adds nothing and it often subtracts from the limited time available.

The above statements are not to confused with a specified god like Kevin's Jehovah which IS distinguishable, testable and falsifiable. And is falsified by the entire Universe.

Ethelred
TabulaMentis
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2011
It doesn't make it probable either. Or falsifiable or even testable in any way.

If you can't find a way to a distinguish a godless universe from a universe that was created by a god why assume there is a god? It adds nothing and it often subtracts from the limited time available.

The above statements are not to confused with a specified god like Kevin's Jehovah which IS distinguishable, testable and falsifiable. And is falsified by the entire Universe.

Ethelred
It is the math that makes the difference.
Terrible_Bohr
3 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2011
It is the math that makes the difference.

Ah, yes! You have all the answers, but you don't like to present those because it would be frowned upon by some higher authority. You should get together with Dr Tom and... do... whatever mind-warping processes that get people to believe in such insanity. Robitussin, maybe?
TabulaMentis
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
Ah, yes! You have all the answers, but you don't like to present those because it would be frowned upon by some higher authority. You should get together with Dr Tom and... do... whatever mind-warping processes that get people to believe in such insanity. Robitussin, maybe?
I will present the details when I am ready and when it will be profitable. You must be one of those trolls who work for free, but not me.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
I will present the details when I am ready and it will be profitable. You must be one of those people who work for free, but not me.
Except when you present your figures, I'll walk on stage and prove you wrong.

That is, unless you want to present them now and see if they can weather the storm.
TabulaMentis
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Except when you present your figures, I'll walk on stage and prove you wrong.

That is, unless you want to present them now and see if they can weather the storm.
LOL. You are too simple minded.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2011
Except when you present your figures, I'll walk on stage and prove you wrong.

That is, unless you want to present them now and see if they can weather the storm.
LOL

Well? Got the satchel to take on someone who won't have mercy? Or are you afraid that you're completely full of crap?
TabulaMentis
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2011
Well? Got the satchel to take on someone who won't have mercy? Or are you afraid that you're completely full of crap?
If you are so tuff, then why do you hide behind all of those different names. You are the worst of trolls.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2011
Well? Got the satchel to take on someone who won't have mercy? Or are you afraid that you're completely full of crap?
If you are so tuff, then why do you hide behind all of those different names. You are the worst of trolls.

I'm sorry Zephyr, what names?
Dr_GS_Hurd
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2011
So where did your first RNA molecule come from? From basic chemistry principles, it is basically impossible to get there via random physical processes.


Start Here:

Ekland, EH, JW Szostak, and DP Bartel
1995 "Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences" Science 21 July 1995: Vol. 269:5222, pp 364-370

Reader, J. S. and G. F. Joyce
2002 "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides." Nature vol 420, pp 841-844

Saladino R, Crestini C, Ciambecchini U, Ciciriello F, Costanzo G, Di Mauro E.
2004 "Synthesis and degradation of nucleobases and nucleic acids by formamide in the presence of montmorillonites" Chembiochem. Nov 5:5(11)pp 1558-66

Ferris, J. P.
2005 “Mineral Catalysis and Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalyzed Formation of RNA” Elements v. 1:3, pp 145-149, DOI: 10.2113/gselements.1.3.145

Lincoln et al.
2009 "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme." Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1167856

Terrible_Bohr
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2011
I will present the details when I am ready and when it will be profitable. You must be one of those trolls who work for free, but not me.

It's not worth your time to give us your answers, but you make damn sure that we know you have them. Sounds like someone is bluffing.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Well I see that Argon and Kevin are still unwilling to back up there claims. Won't answer questions won't deal with the hard stuff.

TabulaMentis that goes for you as well. Yes I suppose you can make money from a book of silly claims. Dr. Behe is making money on his books of unsupported and often disproved crap. So you too should be able to make a dubious buck pushing nonsense.

Ethelred
Mira_Musiclab
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Hum, now wouldn't holding out on some kind of information that proves the greater glory of god. And would (im guessing) potentially save countless souls from judgement and hellfire, in order to make a personal profit, be a 'sin'?

Or am I missing something here?
gmh1206
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2011
An antifreeze protein is hardly a specified structure. To create antifreeze, you only need to disrupt the crystalline pattern that will result when red blood cells drop below zero degrees. Antifreeze is just protein remnants and not a specified complex structure making it a good example of devolution not evolution
Ethelred
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
Antifreeze is just protein remnants and not a specified complex structure making it a good example of devolution not evolution
The only specification for life is survival. If it is a change that enhances survival it IS evolution. Specified complexity is a nonsense phrase from a man that neither understands nor wants to understand how evolution works. Dembski just wants to make it all go away because it disturbs his religious beliefs. I suspect it disturbs yours as well.

There is no 'devolution'. There is only Devo.

Ethelred
gmh1206
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Antifreeze proteins are about as specific as sand in a gear box. Basically any shape of particle will interfere with the gear change mechanism. As Behe describes, they have no secondary structure (aka Hemoglobin) and no interaction with any other proteins. Yes it is beneficial, but is a degradation of existing information
soulman
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2011
There is no 'devolution'. There is only Devo.

You sure whipped him good!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Antifreeze proteins are about as specific as sand in a gear box.
Information still increased.
As Behe describes, they have no secondary structure (aka Hemoglobin) and no interaction with any other proteins
Like Dembski Dr. Behe also does not understand evolution. Hemoglobin does have multiple parts it too has evolved and has no signs of a designer. If there was a designer is seems more than a little unlikely that the human genome would code for over half a dozen variants of hemoglobin in EVERY SINGLE PERSON. Only one version is active after birth.
Yes it is beneficial, but is a degradation of existing information
Its a CHANGE of existing information. Just like hemoglobin.

As far as I can tell this is the first time you have posted twice in any discussion. Found you on youtube and many other places. A RUSSIAN site for instance. An article about cosmetics. You should already be aware that Dr. Behe got his ass kicked at the Dover Trial.

Ethelred
gmh1206
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Other than in sickle cell, there are only two variants of hemoglobin, infant and adult. Infant hemoglobin has a different affinity for oxygen and is a perfect example of necessary design, otherwise how else would you develop in the womb with the adult type only?

Sand in a gear box can be ANY size, the gears on the other hand must be SPECIFIED. Likewise antifreeze only has to disrupt the freezing process yet hemoglobin must have a precise affinity to oxygen so as to bind and release it.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Other than in sickle cell, there are only two variants of hemoglobin, infant and adult.
There are multiple non-adult. And there multiple adult forms as well. Not just the well known sickle cell trait.

Plus there all those other animals all the way down to bacteria with scads of variants of globin molecules. They can be seen on the same wiki page. And you can see many other human molecules that are clearly related to the same precursor molecules that adult human hemoglobin evolved from.

httpDELETE-ME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Types_in_humans
necessary design
Advantageous mutation that the environment selected for.
otherwise how else would you develop in the womb with the adult type only?
Probably not as well but there is no reason to think that you could not develop. Probably was just fine before we evolved the large brain.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
he gears on the other hand must be SPECIFIED.
We don't have gears and neither do fish. There was an increase in information. Something Dembski claims can't happen.
yet hemoglobin must have a precise affinity to oxygen so as to bind and release it.
It does NOW. This is Dr. Behe's error in every bloody chapter. Hemoglobin wasn't needed in small animals. Oxygen spread through diffusion just as it does in insects today. A simple molecule with a small ability to attract oxygen would have been a major advantage vs. animals that had nothing but diffusion. There is nothing stopping that hypothetical molecule from gaining in complexity and efficiency just as this fish did.

The lack of understanding that things can evolve in parallel both within a species and vs. other species is Dr. Behe's failure. Yours too.

Ethelred
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
It doesn't make it probable either. Or falsifiable or even testable in any way.


Never said it was probable or falsifiable. I even said:

That starts getting into the unfalsifiable though and isn't really worth debating.


It also doesn't rule out the possibility that there are no supernaturals either. As for probabilities... well given the fact that there is an infinite number of potential unfalsifiable possibilities for 'higher beings' talking about probabilities is as pointless as discussing the possibilities themselves.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2011
@Javinator:

Some people do not understand that a ToE will never be complete without religion.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
@Javinator:

Some people do not understand that a ToE will never be complete without religion


Count me as one. I do not see how the two would have to be connected.
gmh1206
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Can you count how many unsupported evolutinary "just so" stories you have quoted?

Even though bactera have hemoglobin-like proteins which look nothing like vertebrate hemoglobin, have you questioned why animals in the lineage between us and bacteria having no hemoglobin at all? Did it disappear only to reappear?

If animals are small they don't need hemoglobin?!? Yes there are many types of oxygen transport proteins, but none are anything like hemoglobin and all are optimised for the target creatures metabolism, circulatory system etc. So what?

I can't find what happens if a foetus developes adult only hemoglobin.
Given that A) fetal hemoglobin exists in all vertebrates B) when something goes wrong with the pregnancy it will not reach full term, it is a safer bet to say that fetal hemoglobin is essential.
gmh1206
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Behe's error in every chapter??? Unlike you, I have read his book, "The edge of Evolution", in which he speaks nothing about hemoglobins affinity to oxygen and everything about hemoglobins relationship with malaria.

At the end of the day, you can deflect the argument towards hemoglobin, but the central claim is that development of antifreeze protein can explain how complex machinery like hemoglobin arose. Even the article suggests these proteins are smaller byproducts of larger ancestral protein complexes, plus there are numerous other antifreeze proteins which are also fragments of other larger proteins. This is downwards evolution at best.

Good luck with the internet snooping in CAPITAL letters also. Let me know what you find.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
@Javinator:
Count me as one. I do not see how the two would have to be connected.
That is why the atheists and agnostics have not figured out the origin of the Big Bang. They are putting limitations on their theories/research.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
That is why the atheists and agnostics have not figured out the origin of the Big Bang.


Atheists, agnostics, and the other 6 something billion people on the Earth. Having ideas about the origin of the universe is not the same as figuring it out.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Having ideas about the origin of the universe is not the same as figuring it out.
I think it makes more sense to figure something out from the outside in (from the beginning). I much more prefer the front door approach than the backdoor approach. If a person does that then they can double check their hypotheses/equations. I have always related this technique to a double-entry bookkeeping system to make sure there are no errors.
Ethelred
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
Can you count how many unsupported evolutinary "just so" stories you have quoted?
Yes. Zero.

Just so stories violate the laws of the Universe. My statements did no such thing.
Even though bactera have hemoglobin-like proteins which look nothing like vertebrate hemoglobin
Except that they sometimes DO look like hemoglobin.
, have you questioned why animals in the lineage between us and bacteria having no hemoglobin at all?
No. They DO have globin and even hemoglobin so there is nothing to question. I see you did not read the link I posted. Read it. I read Behe and Dembski how about you read something that is actually relevant to YOUR claims that I have shown wrong.
If animals are small they don't need hemoglobin?!?
If they are small enough for diffusion to supply the oxygen. Nevertheless some do have have globin molecules of various types to deal with oxygen.

More
Ethelred
not rated yet Jan 18, 2011
but none are anything like hemoglobin
Wrong. Read the bloody link. Here it is again

httpDELETE-ME://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Types_in_humans
So what?
So they show chemicals that aren't exactly the same working just fine. Which means hemoglobin can evolve without failing.
I can't find what happens if a foetus developes adult only hemoglobin.
I can guess. It grows up just fine.
Given that A) fetal hemoglobin exists in all vertebrates
Yes. With many different variants all working just fine.
B) when something goes wrong with the pregnancy it will not reach full term,
Sometimes. Lots of infants are born with problems despite things going wrong.
it is a safer bet to say that fetal hemoglobin is essential.
Safety doesn't enter into evolution. Its about change and selection by death or failure to reproduce.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2011
Behe's error in every chapter???
Yes. Same error. He doesn't understand that the evolution of new advantageous chemicals don't have to be perfect to start off do to the lack of competitive chemicals.
Unlike you, I have read his book, "The edge of Evolution",
I read Darwin's Black Box. Its crap. There isn't anything to learn from someone that simply doesn't understand what he is talking about.
, in which he speaks nothing about hemoglobins affinity to oxygen and everything about hemoglobins relationship with malaria.
Interesting since Sickle Cell anemia is a single point mutation. There really isn't enough there for a full book.

At the end of the day, you can deflect the argument towards hemoglobin,
I did more than deflect. I showed that it is NOT irreducibly complex.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2011
al claim is that development of antifreeze protein can explain how complex machinery like hemoglobin arose
No. Not even close. This article is about a fish protein that is not related to hemoglobin. What the article shows is that duplication of DNA allows one copy to do the original job and the other copy to do a new job. That does of course allow complex proteins to be re-purposed and even gain complexity over time without ever losing the original version.
Even the article suggests these proteins are smaller byproducts of larger ancestral protein complexes,
No, YOU claim that. The article doesn't.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2011
This is downwards evolution at best.
Rubbish. There is an increase in complexity of the animal. They have all that they had before and now they have more as well. Something that disproves Dembski. Not that he needs disproving since his basic idea violates the rules for statistical analysis. Not one single mathematician in his field has agreed with his idea of post specification. Then again Dembski hasn't actually tested it against evolution in any case.
Good luck with the internet snooping in CAPITAL letters also.
Capitals are used for emphasis since we can't use the normal techniques such as ITALICS. Not snooping. Investigating your tendencies. You can read all my old posts here so I like to level the field a bit.

Now how about you read that link? Learn something besides what Behe tells you. He got embarrassed at the Dover trial because he simply didn't know what OTHER people had to say. Like you he doesn't like to see where he went wrong.

Ethelred