New theory suggests alternate path led to rise of the eukaryotic cell

December 12, 2014 by Terry Devitt

As a fundamental unit of life, the cell is central to all of biology. Better understanding how complex cells evolved and work promises new revelations in areas as diverse as cancer research and developing new crop plants.

But deep thinking on how the eukaryotic cell came to be is astonishingly scant. Now, however, a bold new idea of how the eukaryotic cell and, by extension, all complex life came to be is giving scientists an opportunity to re-examine some of biology's key dogma.

All complex life—including plants, animals and fungi—is made up of , cells with a nucleus and other complex internal machinery used to perform the functions an organism needs to stay alive and healthy. Humans, for example, are composed of 220 different kinds of eukaryotic cells—which, working in groups, control everything from thinking and locomotion to reproduction and immune defense.

Thus, the origin of the eukaryotic cell is considered one of the most critical evolutionary events in the history of life on Earth. Had it not occurred sometime between 1.6 and 2 billion years ago, our planet would be a far different place, populated entirely by prokaryotes, single-celled organisms such as bacteria and archaea.

For the most part, scientists agree that eukaryotic cells arose from a symbiotic relationship between bacteria and archaea. Archaea—which are similar to bacteria but have many molecular differences—and bacteria represent two of life's three great domains. The third is represented by eukaryotes, organisms composed of the more complex eukaryotic cells.

Eukaryotic cells are characterized by an elaborate inner architecture. This includes, among other things, the cell nucleus, where genetic information in the form of DNA is housed within a double membrane; mitochondria, membrane-bound organelles, which provide the chemical energy a cell needs to function; and the endomembrane system, which is responsible for ferrying proteins and lipids about the cell.

Prevailing theory holds that eukaryotes came to be when a bacterium was swallowed by an archaeon. The engulfed bacterium, the theory holds, gave rise to mitochondria, whereas internalized pieces of the outer cell membrane of the archaeon formed the cell's other internal compartments, including the nucleus and endomembrane system.

"The current theory is widely accepted, but I would not say it is 'established' since nobody seems to have seriously considered alternative explanations," explains David Baum, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of botany and evolutionary biologist who, with his cousin, University College London Buzz Baum, has formulated a new theory for how eukaryotic cells evolved. Known as the "inside-out" theory of eukaryotic cell evolution, the alternative view of how complex life came to be was published recently (Oct. 28, 2014) in the open access journal BMC Biology.

The inside-out theory proposed by the Baums suggests that eukaryotes evolved gradually as cell protrusions, called blebs, reached out to trap free-living mitochondria-like bacteria. Drawing energy from the trapped bacteria and using bacterial lipids—insoluble organic fatty acids—as building material, the blebs grew larger, eventually engulfing the bacteria and creating the membrane structures that form the cell's internal compartment boundaries.

"The idea is tremendously simple," says David Baum, who first began thinking about an alternate theory to explain the rise of the eukaryotic cell as an Oxford University undergraduate 30 years ago. "It is a radical rethinking, taking what we thought we knew (about the cell) and turning it inside-out."

From time to time, David Baum dusted off his rudimentary idea and shared it with others, including the late Lynn Margulis, the American scientist who developed the theory of the origin of eukaryotic organelles. Over the past year, Buzz and David Baum refined and detailed their idea, which, like any good theory, makes predictions that are testable.

"First, the inside-out idea immediately suggested a steady stepwise path of evolution that required few cellular or molecular innovations. This is just what is required of an evolutionary model," argues Buzz Baum, an expert on cell shape and structure. "Second, the model suggested a new way of looking at modern cells."

Modern eukaryotic cells, says Buzz Baum, can be interrogated in the context of the new theory to answer many of their unexplained features, including why nuclear events appear to be inherited from archaea while other features seem to be derived from the bacteria.

"It is refreshing to see people thinking about the cell holistically and based on how cells and organisms evolved," says Ahna Skop, a UW-Madison professor of genetics and an expert on cell division. The idea is "logical and well thought out. I've already sent the paper to every cell biologist I know. It simply makes sense to be thinking about the cell and its contents in the context of where they may have come from."

The way cells work when they divide, she notes, requires the interplay of molecules that have evolved over many millions of years to cut cells in two in the process of cell division. The same molecular functions, she argues, could be repurposed in a way that conforms to the theory advanced by the Baums. "Why spend the energy to remake something that was made thousands of years ago to pinch in a cell? The functions of these proteins just evolve and change as the organism's structure and function change."

Knowing more about how the eukaryotic cell came to be promises to aid biologists studying the fundamental properties of the cell, which, in turn, could one day fuel a better understanding of things like cancer, diabetes and other cell-based diseases; aging; and the development of valuable new traits for important crop plants.

One catch for fleshing out the evolutionary history of the eukaryotic cell, however, is that unlike many other areas of biology, the fossil record is of little help. "When it comes to individual cells, the fossil record is rarely very helpful," explains David Baum. "It is even hard to tell a eukaryotic cell from a prokaryotic cell. I did look for evidence of microfossils with protrusions, but, not surprisingly, there were no good candidates."

A potentially more fruitful avenue to explore, he suggests, would be to look for intermediate forms of cells with some, but not all, of the features of a full-blown eukaryote. "The implication is that intermediates that did exist went extinct, most likely because of competition with fully-developed eukaryotes."

However, with a more granular understanding of how complex evolved, it may be possible to identify living intermediates, says David Baum: "I do hold out hope that once we figure out how the eukaryotic tree is rooted, we might find a few eukaryotes that have intermediate traits."

"This is a whole new take (on the eukaryotic cell), which I find fascinating," notes UW-Madison biochemistry Professor Judith Kimble. "I have no idea if it is right or wrong, but they've done a good job of pulling in detail and providing testable hypotheses. That, in itself, is incredibly useful."

Explore further: How did complex life evolve? The answer could be inside out

Related Stories

How did complex life evolve? The answer could be inside out

October 27, 2014

A new idea about the origin of complex life turns current theories inside out. In the open access journal BMC Biology, cousins Buzz and David Baum explain their 'inside-out' theory of how eukaryotic cells, which all multicellular ...

New study upends current theories of how mitochondria began

October 16, 2014

Parasitic bacteria were the first cousins of the mitochondria that power cells in animals and plants – and first acted as energy parasites in those cells before becoming beneficial, according to a new University of Virginia ...

Scientists study how complexity developed from simple cell

July 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Consider this a matter of scrambling down the family tree to its roots. Really old roots. Or perhaps it's more like blowing the dust off the family album—the human album—and opening to the first pages billions ...

Membrane-coat proteins: Bacteria have them too

January 20, 2010

Although they are present almost everywhere, on land and sea, a group of related bacteria in the superphylum Planctomycetes-Verrucomicrobia-Chlamydiae, or PVC, have remained in relative obscurity ever since they were first ...

Recommended for you

Tasmanian tiger doomed long before humans came along

December 12, 2017

The Tasmanian tiger was doomed long before humans began hunting the enigmatic marsupial, scientists said Tuesday, with DNA sequencing showing it was in poor genetic health for thousands of years before its extinction.

Searching for the CRISPR Swiss-army knife

December 12, 2017

Scientists at the University of Copenhagen, led by the Spanish Professor Guillermo Montoya, are investigating the molecular features of different molecular scissors of the CRISPR-Cas system to shed light on the so-called ...

56 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2014
We're getting close and closer.

An old Omni magazine had an interesting back page fiction regarding this.
JVK
1.2 / 5 (17) Dec 12, 2014
Excerpt: "One catch for fleshing out the evolutionary history of the eukaryotic cell, however, is that unlike many other areas of biology, the fossil record is of little help."

In the context of what is now perfectly clear about the importance of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and protein folding, anything placed into the context of the fossil record is pseudoscientific nonsense.

There is a vertebrate-wide link from one hormone and its receptors to nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in the coelacanth and in different species of birds. http://www.ncbi.n...4232701/

The vertebrate-wide link screams FRAUD at any supporter of the evolution industry. The dinosaur to bird evolution nonsense smells like a 3-day old dead extant 65 million year old fossil fish that ecologically adapted to ecological variation.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (18) Dec 12, 2014
@Anyone new here

Jvk is a creationist crank who delusionally believes he is scientist.
gkam
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 12, 2014
So, . . how did Human Beings arise, JVK??
Egleton
2 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2014
So, . . how did Human Beings arise, JVK??


Me! Me! Pick Me.
We are an Ape/pig hybrid!
http://www.macroe...ins.html

Also about Me- I cannot fathom what is so revolutionary about this idea. It seems particularly unadventurous.
We are not going to make any progress plowing the same furrow. We need to turn new sod.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (15) Dec 13, 2014
For JVK to accuse anyone of pseudoscience and fraud is sheer hypocrisy, He is a stated creationist who sells scent to gullible fools as love potions.
OZGuy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2014
For JVK to accuse anyone of pseudoscience and fraud is sheer hypocrisy, He is a stated creationist who sells scent to gullible fools as love potions.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2014
Me! Me! Pick Me.
We are an Ape/pig hybrid!
http://www.macroe...ins.html

Also about Me- I cannot fathom what is so revolutionary about this idea. It seems particularly unadventurous.
We are not going to make any progress plowing the same furrow. We need to turn new sod.

If you think closely about Mr. McCarthy's essay, you'll see he does not say what is actual, just what might be (way) remotely plausible.
Anyway. does that make eating bacon - cannibalism?
skeptichans
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2014
Maybe an ape/pig hybrid ancestor could explain, why some religious groups refuse to eat pig.
(More risk of dangerous disease)
skeptichans
5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2014
... but on-topic: I find their "inside-out" theory of eukaryotic cell evolution much more convincing than "outside-in" theories.
JVK
1.5 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2014
Jvk is a creationist crank who delusionally believes he is scientist.


Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
Kohl JV.
Socioaffect Neurosci Psychol. 2013 Jun 14;3:20553. doi: 10.3402/snp.v3i0.20553. eCollection 2013. Review.

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.
Kohl JV.
Socioaffect Neurosci Psychol. 2012 Mar 15;2:17338. doi: 10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338. eCollection 2012.

Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.
Kohl JV, Atzmueller M, Fink B, Grammer K.
Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2001 Oct;22(5):309-21. Review.

From fertilization to adult sexual behavior.
Diamond M, Binstock T, Kohl JV.
Horm Behav. 1996 Dec;30(4):333-53.
gkam
3.1 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2014
Show me one which proves a Creator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2014
A 30 year old "new" theory!?

I will say the same thing as when Baum last paraded around this erroneous idea, some but not all biologists recognize that the nuclear (and reticulated) membrane has the wrong topology to evolve from liposomes/protrusions. The outer membranes have non-contiguous pores (no membrane lining them) with rather simple, repetitive pore protein complexes. The nuclear membranes have contiguous pores out of a double layer of double membranes with very complex pores out of many hundreds of proteins. Trying to make the nuclear membranes out of outer membranes is topologically like trying to make a ball into a cup with handles, and evolutionary like trying to have a whale having a bacterial ancestor (re the nuclear pores). Where did the S-layer proteins go and why did the nuclear protein ancestors replace them?

That is why Baum et al has to handwave away an entire membrane that is facilely shown as part of their lost "S-layer".

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2014
[ctd]

Besides, phylogeny has left these ideas in the dust. The latest, most complete phylogeny of the mitochondrion which also includes the usually missed state of a pre-mitochondrion ancestor and not only the root proto-mitochondrion one, shows that the original alphaproteobacteria evolved from within the parasitic Rickettsiales. ["Phylogenetic Reconstruction Indicates Mitochondrial Ancestor was an Energy Parasite", Wang et al, PLOS ONE 2014]

Originally the bacteria was a low oxygen specialist with an ATP-importer, not the later horisontally acquired unrelated ATP-exporter, ideally suited to insert itself inside an archaea host. For an example, see how the virus-lifecycle like bdellovibrio bacteria can insert themselves inside cellular membranes and then seal them. [ http://en.wikiped...lovibrio ]

Often these parasites become symbionts under co-evolution. (E.g. the relative Wolbachia insect parasite has evolved to be a symbiont in some insects.)

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2014
[ctd]

So there is no need or problem to derive a mechanism for a symbiosis from the get go, which is the most cited problem in the consensus phylogeny.

Here is where contingent, rare symbiosis opportunities appears, such as Martin's Hydrogen Hypothesis. "The energy parasite evolved to be an energy donor" is a much simpler opportunity for co-evolution, and so the latest phylogeny is a much more likely pathway than the older ones.

***
Oops, re whales in the start (now not editable), obviously I meant _immediate_ bacterial ancestor. We all have a bacterial ancestor (some 4.4 billion years ago).
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2014
Note how the crank 'scientist' tries to pawn off psychology papers as biology, or reviews of earlier work (in medicine, not evolutionary biology) as new findings. That eminently proves the point, thanks for so clearly showing the folly for the rest of the site!
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2014
Thanks.

What does the OM mean?
imido
Dec 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Anakin
4.5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2014
@Anyone new here

Jvk is a creationist crank who delusionally believes he is scientist.


Life is so much funnier if you avoid the "Ignore user" here in the comments.
I had a real good laugh from he's post.
They are very stupid indeed. Don't even understand the concept of nothing.
One guy said:
"I hold nothing in my hand" in the meaning of before universe creation.
Good luck with that, dude
JVK
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2014
The latest from Weinberg on the state of fundamental physics predicts what should have happened to theories that include de Vries definition of "mutation" and attempt to explain cell type differentiation.

http://news.harva...physics/

The theories touted by social scientists have no future in the realm of serious science. For example, evolutionary theorists started with an assumption about quantum level randomness and a "jump" that led from the first random "mutation" to all extant biodiversity.

It is very difficult for serious scientists to stop laughing when additional claims are made, like the one at the conclusion of Nei's 2013 book. http://www.amazon...99661731

"...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world."

The science idiots here actually believe that pseudoscientific nonsense!
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2014
What action gave rise to the Creator?

Was it the "Big Bang"?
JVK
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2014
Note how the crank 'scientist' tries to pawn off psychology papers as biology, or reviews of earlier work (in medicine, not evolutionary biology) as new findings.


I look forward to what Torbjorn_Larsson_OM would like to tell us about links from physics to chemistry and biology that I have not included in my model of bio-physically constrained cell type differentiation in species from microbes to man. http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524

http://discoverma...tum-life
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2014
What action gave rise to the Creator?

Was it the "Big Bang"?
Gkam continues to drop myriad hocker posts in every thread ptui. Whatsamatter gkam is that the limit of your concentration span? Why not buy a spitoon? How many empty posts today - 60? 70?
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2014
Gosh, otto, . . I understand how I am interesting, but your fascination with me borders on psychosis.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2014
Ha, troll knows only trolling. That I have already commented on the actual science at hand he attempts to handwave away.

@gkam: Oh, um... it's a confusing andenken after I got a popularity award ("Order of Molly") over at Pharyngula. It's old, and I will attempt to simply use my name here. [And it seems it still applies the "nick" of the site. :-/]
fourinfinities
5 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2014
"Prevailing theory holds that eukaryotes came to be when a bacterium was swallowed by an archaeon...
"The inside-out theory suggests...that eukaryotes reached out to trap bacteria."

Trapped not swallowed...that's the new theory?
God bless it. I fell for the headline again!

JVK
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2014
I have already commented on the actual science at hand he attempts to handwave away.


No, I have detailed the actual science of cell type differentiation and you have no idea how to link biologically-based cause and effect.

You're a science idiot. Try not to keep forgetting that fact!

http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524 (my model)
http://youtu.be/dES-ozV65u4 (protein folding)
http://youtu.be/x7oPLsJI3GM (mutations)
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2014
I have already commented on the actual science at hand he attempts to handwave away.


No, I have detailed the actual science of cell type differentiation and you have no idea how to link biologically-based cause and effect.

You're a science idiot. Try not to keep forgetting that fact!

http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524 (mutations)


The fact that counts is you're a creationist crank with no understanding of genetics.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2014
Quantum physics, quantum chemistry, quantum biology, quantum smell, and quantum consciousness - but no understanding of genetics? How could that be possible?

Perhaps you simply do not understand the Laws of Biology.
http://www.ncbi.n...2816229/

"...due to complex nature of biological organization it is difficult to think of a universal law or a theory in biology connecting all the levels, from atoms to ecosystems."

I included the video on mutations to show how ridiculous it is to use such a biologically uninformed term after learning what is known about protein folding in the context of thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation.

In my model, atoms to ecosystems are linked via nutrient uptake and metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction. I think Darwin would agree: his 'conditions of life' appear to include the fact that all organisms must eat (not mutate).
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2014
Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model
Causes mutations so is a small part of Evolution Theory by your own admission
remember? I asked
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
also, for those who don't know kohlslaw
http://freethough...s-place/
a GREAT refute to kohlslaw is also HERE: http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/
or read ANONYMOUS9001 comments destroying the idiot jk here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Frosted Flake
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2014
It doesn't seem this 'theory' explains anything. Though it seems to think it does. Theory 1 says A captured B. Theory 2 says A captured B. Gee. If that is all it takes to kick out a theory, I have one of my own.

A Mitochondria and a Bactria got to like one another so much, they decided to get married, and have kids.

Yeah, I know. It's a stupid theory. But it's as good as any other on the topic. I used to think I was a moron. But now, I don't know.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2014
If organisms don't mutate, then there would be only one organism.

Besides how is it that human beings could eat anything at all if they existed (without mutation) prior to when there was air they could BREATHE?
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 16, 2014
MM, I gave you a 1 by mistake
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2014
MM, I gave you a 1 by mistake


NP, s'all good my man :)
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2014
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered


Serious scientists do not include definitions in their models; they include biological facts about cell type differentiation and examples, which is what I did.

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact." http://www.huffin...211.html

STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT MY MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS, YOU IDIOT!

http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524 (my model)
http://youtu.be/dES-ozV65u4 (protein folding)
http://youtu.be/x7oPLsJI3GM (mutations)

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2014
My model details the biological basis of communication across species.

It's about communication, not mutations.

Communicating Across Kingdoms?
http://www.the-sc...ngdoms-/

Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2014
My model details the biological basis of communication across species.

It's about communication, not mutations.

Communicating Across Kingdoms?
http://www.the-sc...ngdoms-/



How do species communicate if they're asphyxiated?

Unless by communicate you mean change, in which case you mean mutate...even if you don't get it.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2014
If organisms don't mutate, then there would be only one organism.


What kind of science idiot says things like that?

http://dx.doi.org.../nrg3859

"Adaptive immune systems in prokaryotes and animals give rise to long-term memory through modification of specific genomic loci, such as by insertion of foreign (viral or plasmid) DNA fragments into clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) loci in prokaryotes and by V(D)J recombination of immunoglobulin genes in vertebrates. Strikingly, recombinases derived from unrelated mobile genetic elements have essential roles in both prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Mobile elements, which are ubiquitous in cellular life forms, provide the only known, naturally evolved tools for genome engineering that are successfully adopted by both innate immune systems and genome-editing technologies."
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2014
A bidirectional circuit switch reroutes pheromone signals in male and female brains
J Kohl, AD Ostrovsky, S Frechter, GS Jefferis

http://www.cell.c...901476-1

"This bidirectional switch, analogous to an electrical changeover switch, provides a simple circuit logic to activate different behaviors in males and females."
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2014
Serious scientists do not include definitions in their models
you have made this claim before... but this is a blatant lie
a "serious" scientist:
-would be well versed in the nomenclature/lexicon of the work chosen as a specialty field
-would not ignore empirical evidence because it proved their religious beliefs wrong
-would not ignore reality and one minute cite a person as supporting their religious position regarding a subject, but when said person refutes this under direct inquiry, then malign said person as being an idiot, among the other derogatory claims made (like you did with Dr. Extavour when she specifically denied your claims about her supporting your belief in no mutation- found in these arguments here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt )
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2014
STOP TELLING PEOPLE THAT MY MODEL CAUSES MUTATIONS, YOU IDIOT!
but kohlslaw, I AM NOT TELLING THEM ANYTHING!

YOU ARE!

after all, i asked a simple question:
DOES your model make any changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal genetic element?
This is a yes or no answer
(this is the DEFINITION of mutation) to which you answered
YES!
--Thanks for asking
this is NOT my reply, and this is a direct quote OF YOURS
NOT MINE

therefore, IT IS YOU WHO IS TELLING EVERYONE HERE THAT YOUR MODEL MAKES MUTATIONS, not i

this also points out to everyone that, despite your "Mensa" claims, you epically FAIL at basic reading and comprehension, likely a major reason you self-admitted failing out of college (because you didn't want to learn SCIENCE, you wanted to prove your RELIGION)

your words, jk
not mine

and i will share them to EVERYONE
every chance i get
to show them proof that YOU are the only idiot here
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2014
It's about communication, not mutations
it doesn't matter if you say it is about the Fish Slapping Dance of Upper Asgard with Dancing Faeries...
it causes mutations which is a direct refute to your own claims that mutations are never beneficial
What kind of science idiot says things like that?
what kind of (any) idiot doesn't realize that their own model causes mutations and proves beneficial mutations while simultaneously proselytizing that mutations are never beneficial?
And what kind of idiot pronounces their model makes mutations, then turns around and tries to cry to posters who use his own words that it doesn't make mutations?
http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524
youtube is NOT a science citation, it is a video citation
stick to the studies... otherwise i could claim https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s as relevant evidence against your stupidity
(even if it does remind people that your arguments are equally ridiculous)
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2014
http://www.scienc...4419.htm
"More and more, we're realizing that folding is regulation," said study co-first author Suhas Rao, a researcher at Baylor's Center for Genome Architecture and a 2012 graduate of Harvard College. "When you see genes turn on or off, what lies behind that is a change in folding. It's a different way of thinking about how cells work."

"[W]hat Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg et al. did was invent.... Evolution was defined as "changes in gene frequencies in natural populations." The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another.... Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."
http://www.huffin...211.html
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2014
quantum smell,


Now Cher, you tell the truth. You just make that up to make your stinky love potions sound like science, eh? What the heck is quantum smell, is that the way those big particle bumping machines smell when you turn them on?

Skippy, that's not quantum smell, that's just the ozone coming from the high voltage electricity. I bet you thought you made the discovery of something good you. We discovered that smell down here in Louisiana years ago during the thunderstorm.

and quantum consciousness


That's what we call a pea-brain, yup, we discovered that down here too when the Texan got stranded in St. Tammany Parish, his name was Returnering-Skippy.

but no understanding of genetics?


What does genetics got to do with some couyon pushing stinky love potions?

How could that be possible?


Don't ask me, ask your momma, she's the one who picked out your daddy.
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2014
"Adaptive immune systems in prokaryotes and animals give rise to long-term memory through modification of specific genomic loci, such as by insertion of foreign (viral or plasmid) DNA fragments into clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) loci in prokaryotes and by V(D)J recombination of immunoglobulin genes in vertebrates. Strikingly, recombinases derived from unrelated mobile genetic elements have essential roles in both prokaryotic and vertebrate adaptive immune systems. Mobile elements, which are ubiquitous in cellular life forms, provide the only known, naturally evolved tools for genome engineering that are successfully adopted by both innate immune systems and genome-editing technologies."


Which is mutation. ANYTHING that edits, changes, engineers, modifies, (how many synonyms do I need to use) the genome is mutating it, and it's doing it via completely natural processes.

Go fish.
Modernmystic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2014
The accumulation of genetic mutations was touted to be enough to change one species to another


So, it's your position that it's not our genetic code...the blueprint for an organism...that is responsible for speciation, but the FOOD it eats? Really? So If I ate a lot of bananas I'd turn into a gorilla...my DNA be damned? If I sniffed enough ozone I might sprout wings? What the HELL is it you're saying EXACTLY and in simple terms. Just spit it out...because honestly you're about as clear as a lake of tar. I don't think you even know what the hell you think.

This is like saying you could give an aeronautical engineer the blueprints for an ice cream maker and he'd build you an F-22.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2014
ANYTHING that edits, changes, engineers, modifies, (how many synonyms do I need to use) the genome is mutating it, and it's doing it via completely natural processes.


Thanks for another display of biological ignorance. You seem to prefer de Vries definition of a mutation to everything currently known about how energy levels and thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation cause of cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in species from microbes to man.

So, it's your position that it's not our genetic code..


No, that's the position of all serious scientists who understand the physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation. Your position is one shared by the biologically uninformed who are very vocal but also incredibly ignorant. Thank you for stating your position so well in simple terms that express your inability to think about anything you were not taught to believe in.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2014
that's not quantum smell, that's just the ozone coming from the high voltage electricity.


That's not an intelligent comment. It's another one that displays your ignorance, like every other comment you have ever made.

http://www.econom...e-nature

"Subatomic particles tunnelling across gaps in the nose when aroma molecules are around may be the first step in how animals sense scent. This same tunnelling is presumed to be at work in the action of enzymes, those proteins that shuffle chemical reactions along in living things..."

See also: Are we ready for quantum biology? http://www.newsci...FBXv-sU1
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2014
Thanks for another display of biological ignorance
it is NOT ignorance to use accepted terminology that is also used by the ENTIRE field of biology/genetics etc, li'l jimmy
it is IGNORANCE to IGNORE it (Actually, it is STUPIDITY, especially since MM and I both have told you, over and over, the definition)
You seem to prefer de Vries definition of a mutation
NOT just MM or i, but EVERYONE in the field, kohlslaw!
No, that's the position of all serious scientists who understand the physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation
except that even HERE you've been proven wrong!
from Dr. Extavour
So Kohl is mistaken if he is claiming that my study (or Rich Lenski's work) provide evidence AGAINST the role of mutations in evolution
and so many OTHER published authors are saying the same thing

which means THEY accept the definition

YOU do not because you are trying to force the data to fit your RELIGION
EPIC FAIL
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2014
So, it's your position that it's not our genetic code..


No, that's the position of all serious scientists who understand the physics, chemistry, and conserved molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation. Your position is one shared by the biologically uninformed who are very vocal but also incredibly ignorant. Thank you for stating your position so well in simple terms that express your inability to think about anything you were not taught to believe in.
Thanks for posting this part, kohlslaw

this, more than ANYTHING ELSE you have ever posted, proves that you are pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE and not real science

it also shows your Dunning-Kruger as well as demonstrates your conceit, narcissism and overall stupidity thinking you cannot learn from anyone else

you continually denigrate those who point out your fallacious beliefs while pushing a CON and re-interpreting empirical data that you don't like (IOW - you lie)

you're a CON MAN of the worst sort
Modernmystic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2014
Thank you for stating your position so well in simple terms that express your inability to think about anything you were not taught to believe in.


No worries. I take pride in demonstrating consistency of thought, sound reasoning, and critical thinking

Thank you for again NOT clearly stating your position and basically just using ad hom to attack mine. Do you actually have a theory or do you just yell and stamp your feet a lot?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2014
that's not quantum smell, that's just the ozone coming from the high voltage electricity.


That's not an intelligent comment. It's another one that displays your ignorance, like every other comment you have ever made.


Well that maybe is true or maybe is not true. At least I am not so the ignorant that I go to an economy magazine to learn about biology.

"Subatomic particles tunnelling across gaps in the nose when aroma molecules are around may be the first step in how animals sense scent. This same tunnelling is presumed to be at work in the action of enzymes, those proteins that shuffle chemical reactions along in living things..."


Well I am not ignorant as that Skippy. I know that quantum stuffs is different than big stuffs like enzymes and proteins. That sounds like some crankpot mumbo jumbo to me.

That silly looking pointy cap you wear while peddling your stinky love potions is starting to look sort of tattered, you want the new one?

JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2014
Do you actually have a theory or do you just yell and stamp your feet a lot?


I have a model, with a series of published works that established it?

http://youtu.be/DbH_Rj9U524 (my model)
http://youtu.be/dES-ozV65u4 (protein folding)
http://youtu.be/x7oPLsJI3GM (mutations)
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2014
At least I am not so the ignorant that I go to an economy magazine to learn about biology.


Agreed. You are too ignorant to go anywhere to learn about anything. Were you selected to be the Queen of the Trolls at the last meeting in your basement, after the King's address by Captain Stumpy? I'm certain that you would make an great couple (of science idiots).

'Quantum smell' idea gains ground
http://www.bbc.co...21150046

Electron spin changes during general anesthesia in Drosophila
http://www.ncbi.n...4151765/

Dose-Dependent Effects of the Clinical Anesthetic Isoflurane on Octopus vulgaris: A Contribution to Cephalopod Welfare
http://www.tandfo...uMckXI6I

Molecular Vibration-Sensing Component in Human Olfaction
http://dx.doi.org....0055780
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2014
At least I am not so the ignorant that I go to an economy magazine to learn about biology.


Agreed. You are too ignorant to go anywhere to learn about anything.


Hoooyeei, well you sure tell me good, eh Cher? Laissez les bons temps rouler Bioque-Skippy. (That's coonass for I am going to have the big fun with this couyon.)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2014
and we can see now that kohlslaw is backed into his religious corner slinging ad hominems and linking youtube because he can't argue science with science to science advocates who actually research the subject and learn about WHY li'l jimmy is WRONG

Agreed. You are too ignorant to go anywhere to learn about anything.
what's next, li'l jimmy? going to start quoting scriptures?

You've already been proven wrong with regard to SCIENCE
(see Anonymous9001 arguments here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt )

You've already been proven to not be able to comprehend the studies you THINK support your religious beliefs (see above link: Dr. Extavour, Lenski et. at. prove jk wrong, so he gets mad and calls them idiots )

your lack of education prevents you from comprehending the nomenclature/lexicon of the field (See above: Mutation )

Epic Fail for religion, kohlslaw and his anti-mutation tirade

jk=RELIGIOUS TROLL

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.