Why do we still have mitochondrial DNA?

February 18, 2016
A schematic film strip "winding back" the tape of evolutionary history, looking at the changes in location of a mitochondrial protein's constituent genes. Credit: Ben Williams, PhD and Iain Johnston, PhD

The mitochondrion isn't the bacterium it was in its prime, say two billion years ago. Since getting consumed by our common single-celled ancestor the "energy powerhouse" organelle has lost most of its 2,000+ genes, likely to the nucleus. There are still a handful left—depending on the organism—but the question is why. One explanation, say a mathematician and biologist who analyzed gene loss in mitochondria over evolutionary time, is that mitochondrial DNA is too important to encode inside the nucleus and has thus evolved to resist the damaging environment inside of the mitochondrion. Their study appears February 18 in Cell Systems.

"It's not that the 'lost' genes no longer exist in many cases, it's that the produces the proteins and the proteins go into the , but why bother having anything in the mitochondria when you could have it all in the nucleus?" says co-author Ben Williams, a postdoctoral fellow at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. "It's like saying you have a central library with all your books in it, but we're going to keep 10 of them off site in a leaky shed."

Despite our long-term relationship with mitochondria, a lot of how our cells and these commensal organelles work together is still mysterious and controversial. We know that acquiring mitochondria may have sparked one of the most important evolutionary events in history by giving the common ancestor of eukaryotes (our kingdom of life) the energy to go multicellular. And we know that each of our cells can possess dozens or hundreds of mitochondria, which are essential for powering everything from our muscles to our brain. But what's strange is that in nearly all multicellular organisms, mitochondria have stayed independent by holding on to a few vital genes—despite the fact it may be safer for the cell to store these genes in the nucleus.

Mitochondrial gene loss over time. The probability that a given gene is lost at a given time ordering in the process of mitochondrial gene loss. The flat surface in the main plot and black contour in the inset give the probability (1/L) associated with a null model in which all genes are equally likely to be lost at all times. Blue corresponds to a probability above that expected from this null model; red corresponds to a probability below this null model. Genes are ordered by mean inferred loss time. Credit: Ben Williams, PhD and Iain Johnston, PhD

To figure out what makes the few genes in mitochondria so essential, Williams and lead author Iain Johnston, a research fellow at the University of Birmingham, took all of the data generated about mitochondrial genes and threw them into a computer. After a few weeks, with the algorithm Johnston developed, the computer threw back a timeline for mitochondrial gene loss over evolutionary history.

"The hypotheses underlying potential reasons for mitochondria to keep their own genes have been debated for decades, and this is the first data-driven approach to address this question," says Johnston. "It's facilitated by the fact that there are thousands of mitochondrial genomes from across a very wide diverse set of taxa available so now we can harness the data and let it speak for itself."

The analysis revealed that the genes that are retained in the mitochondria are related to building the organelle's internal structure, are otherwise at risk of being misplaced by the cell, and the DNA in these use a very ancient pattern that allows the mitochondrial DNA to strongly bond together and resist breaking apart. Williams and Johnston believe this design, not typically found in our own DNA, is likely what keeps the from breaking apart during mitochondrial energy production.

As energy is produced within the mitochondria, in the form of ATP, free radicals are emitted—the same free radicals that are a common byproduct of radiation. In essence, the power produced by the mitochondria comes with a certain amount of destruction, and it could be that the mitochondria are capable of withstanding this damage. "You need specialists who can work in this ridiculously extreme environment because the nucleus is not necessary the best fit," says Williams.

The investigators also observed that the mitochondrial gene loss that's taken place across the eukaryote kingdom has followed the same pattern. This is a lesson that evolution may follow the same path many times over, and it's not always this entirely random process. In the cellular environment, the evolution of mitochondrial became nearly predictable between different organisms. "If we can harness data on what evolution has done in the past and make predictive statements about where it's going to go next, the possibility for exploring synthetic biology and disease are massive," says Johnston.

Using their algorithm, the duo next plans to explore the reasons for chloroplasts as well as where , which are often quite devastating, fit into this bigger picture. While this study doesn't close the door on why we still have mitochondrial DNA, the authors say it does find a middle ground for many different arguments in the debate.

Explore further: Do you share more genes with your mother or your father?

More information: Cell Systems, Johnston and Williams: "Evolutionary inference across eukaryotes identifies multiple pressures favoring mtDNA gene retention" dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.01.013

Related Stories

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 ...

Recommended for you

Even wild mammals have regional dialects

December 13, 2017

Researchers from Cardiff University's Otter Project have discovered that genetically distinct populations of wild otters from across the UK have their own regional odours for communicating vital information to each other. ...

Mosquito sex protein could provide key to controlling disease

December 13, 2017

If you thought the sex lives of humans were complicated, consider the case of the female Aedes aegypti mosquito, bringer of Zika, dengue, and yellow fever: She mates but once, in seconds and on the wing, with one lucky male; ...

Defence at almost any price

December 13, 2017

Even bacteria have enemies – in water, for example, single-celled ciliates preferably feed on microbes. The microbes protect themselves against predators by employing a variety of tricks, which the ciliates, in turn, attempt ...

69 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2016
Mitochondrial DNA conserved across eukaryotes serves a function of maintaining cellular extreme energy throughput. Nonrandom evolution.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
And.... what do you mean by non-random...?
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2016
The other theory is that individual mitochondria have individual needs and so require particular proteins to be synthesized. For those proteins that need differential transcription the genes are held in mitochondria, for those proteins that are required in equal amounts by all mitochondria the genes are held in the cell nucleus.

Also of note, it is said that mitochondria are exclusively passed down the female side. But most of the genes that produce mitochondria are passed down both sides, that is, the female AND male sides as most the mitochondria's genes are held in the cell nucleus. Thus mitochondrial diseases can be passed down by the female OR the male parent.
Shakescene21
4 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2016
An alternative explanation flows from the view that mitochondria are super-specialized bacteria living in a symbiotic relationship with the nuclear cell. Thus, the mitochondria are functionally organelles for the eukarote cell, but they are actually separate organisms inside the cell. As the living descendants of bacteria, they reproduce within the cell, and have evolved the ability to move into daughter cells during division of the eukarote cell.

Thus, it is almost mandatory that mitochondria retain some DNA in order to be able to reproduce. In addition, some other DNA would be maintained within the mitochondria if it could withstand the chemical reactions inside these tiny powerhouses.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
Because the energetic needs of the cells are with high priority that the needs for proteins in all living organisms. And Creator has put the important for the effective operation of mitochondria genetic code as close as passible to avoids latency, which exist in the synthesis of proteins.
Manufacturers of computer chips use the same approach and try to shorten the distance between the individual modules to be passible to reduce the delay of signals between individula moduls and to increase the overall performance of the system.
FredJose
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
The mitochondrion isn't the bacterium it was in its prime, say two billion years ago.

I assume someone was able to record the exact state of the mitochondrion two billion years ago and left us that record in pristine readable and comparable form?
No? Oh, then this is simply a made up story of what someone speculates mights have, could have or possibly must have happened two billion years ago. No one was there to do the requisite recording for us. Hence one can make the clear statement that this is NON-SCIENCE.
FredJose
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
nd have evolved the ability to move into daughter cells during division of the eukarote cell.

Have you considered what it entails or requires for something to move within the cell or from outside of one into another?
For any such movement to occur requires mechanisms that are NOT present or in any manner observable to be present in any mitochondrion at the moment. Hence this ¨ëvolving¨ that you talk about is purely rank speculation since there is no evidence for it.
FredJose
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2016
Williams and Johnston believe this design, not typically found in our own DNA, is likely what keeps the mitochondrial genes from breaking apart during mitochondrial energy production.

So the authors recognize design when they see it. ItĹ� just a pity that they then go on to ascribe the origin of the design to a random blind process which cannot design anything. Basically theyĹ�e saying that the cell or mitochondrion blundered and stumbled it´s way to the perfect arrangement of highly resilient DNA structures that are able to resist damage during the energy production process.
Somehow like our power statioins all assembled by the wild random blowing of the wind picking up pieces and assembling them in the right shapre, order and with specialized software thrown in to boot.
So how did it manage to survive the energy production process before it got to be resilient?
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
Somehow like our power statioins all assembled by the wild random blowing of the wind picking up pieces and assembling them in the right shapre, order and with specialized software thrown in to boot.


Um - Fred, our power stations EVOLVED. We started with camp fires, and then fireplaces and then smelters with forced air, and then steam engines and then turbines, and at first we just got heat and light, and then we got mechanical power and then electricity, etc., through an a accumulation of thousands of mostly-small improvements

Evolution is FAR from random - selection keeps and multiplies changes that are beneficial but not those that are harmful. Some of the changes that produce variety are close to random, and most of those are harmful, but even there life has evolved to evolve by encouraging changes that are more likely to be beneficial, and hence the changes have become less and less random.

- continued -
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2016
- continued -

as for
"So how did it manage to survive the energy production process before it got to be resilient?


Even before it bonded with a larger cell, the ancestor of a mitochondrion was the product of well over a billion years of evolution - probably over a hundred billion generations. That puts it farther beyond the simplest early life than a nuclear power plant is beyond a primitive campfire.

It also didn't need as much free radical resilience then because it wasn't just operating as a power plant, where as now it has evolved to pump out energy for a cell that is much larger than the total size of the mitochondria within it, so why would it have needed more resilience than free-roaming microbes?

You should try actually learning about evolution before you criticize it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2016
I believe this might be analogized by the discussion in another site thread about similar sized objects mixing together (Brazil Nut Effect). Put enough pieces of disparate matter (atoms) in a blender (on REALLY slow setting) and -eventually - patterns will coalesce.
All of the Universe is an assemblage of these patterns that "emerge" from the "blending" process. Life is just another sub pattern.
BTW, I like the term "emerge" as much as "evolve"...:-)
(Think - Halle Berry as she comes out of the water in that one James Bond movie...)
Spaced out Engineer
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2016
It may just be how they have their data displayed or paradolia, but that graph almost looks like a smooth fractal torus.

http://www2.cnrs....2027.htm
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
"Um - Fred, our power stations EVOLVED. We started with camp fires, and then fireplaces and then smelters with forced air, and then steam engines and then turbines, and at first we just got heat and light, and then we got mechanical power and then electricity, etc., through an a accumulation of thousands of mostly-small improvements"

This is right but you forget the most important. The reason for the evolution of the human technologies is the human intelect and the ideas of the Creator which people draw from the living environment. How you fail to notice this fact? I guess that your wishful thinking cause your sandblind.
Random events can not contribute to the order (information) in the system. Only to noice and you're not able to refute this fact.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
""Put enough pieces of disparate matter (atoms) in a blender (on REALLY slow setting) and -eventually - patterns will coalesce."

This sound like brushed from the dust ancient alchemy. How many eternities we must wait to happen this miracle? Will we accelerate the process if we dance shamanic dancing?
promile
Feb 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealScience
5 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2016
Random events can not contribute to the order (information) in the system. Only to noice And you're not able to refute this fact.


It is easy to refute:

Take a solution of sugar water and hang a string in it and let water evaporate. Although the molecules of water and sugar bounce around as randomly as molecules do, highly-ordered crystals form on the string.

Similarly highly-ordered snow flakes form from random movement of water molecules, and a snow-flakes symmetry contains information about the properties of water molecules. Do you admit that random* bouncing of molecules contributes to the emergence of an orderly snowflake. or do you claim that some entity consciously designs and assembles each snowflake? Even an intelligence at our level automates such a routine process.

(*Random in this context means "as random as the bouncing around of molecules", which is a level of randomness that biology says is a driver of variety in evolution.)

-continued-
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2016
-continued-

Your assumption that randomness cannot add information is completely wrong. Randomness PRODUCES information - a truly random array of anything eventually contains all information because it eventually contains all possibilities.

However randomness mixes helpful information with neutral information and even harmful information, so randomness alone is not sufficient producing order. It is randomness plus selection that can produce order - in a snowflake the more a water molecule happens to aligned with the growing crystal structure, the more likely it is to stick to the crystal and the less likely it is to be dislodged afterward, so although individual molecules go and go from the surface, the overall growth can be highly ordered.

Similarly in evolution of bacteria randomness ADDS information, neutral, harmful and useful. It is natural selection that is more likely to retain useful information and more likely to discard harmful information.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
There is an increasing evidence, that the mitochondria are domesticated yeast cells, which can breathe both with aerobic, both anaerobic mechanism - and that the cancer is caused with bewildered mitochondria, which somehow recollected how to live in acidic environment without citric acid cycle.

Source?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
"It is easy to refute:

Take a solution of sugar water and hang a string in it and let water evaporate. Although the molecules of water and sugar bounce around as randomly as molecules do, highly-ordered crystals form on the "

For sure will be useful for you to think again.

If you are repeаt this experiments again and again whole ethernety, the result will be always the same. Why? Because the molecules of substances obay the physical laws that are constant over time to maintain previously established order in the univers.
This experiment do not contrubute to the incresing the order (information) in the system.

The subatomic particles and atoms can react wiht each other in originaly defined way and they never will violate this patern. Тhey do not change their physical and chemical properties over time. So there is now new order (information) in the system and no evolution.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2016
""Put enough pieces of disparate matter (atoms) in a blender (on REALLY slow setting) and -eventually - patterns will coalesce."


This sound like brushed from the dust ancient alchemy. How many eternities we must wait to happen this miracle? Will we accelerate the process if we dance shamanic dancing?

Um, well... How bout 13 and 1/2 billion years? (roughly) You can shake and shimmy all you want - won't make it any faster...
Viko, we were all wizards once upon a time. Some of us got lazy and decided to accept the easy path and just believe in created (by man) fairy tales...
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2016
If you change the dimensions or shape of one part of some kind of machine what you must do next?
Еngineering improvements are connected and limited by the intellectual resources of man.

I am sure that you do not know how fictional evolution must work.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2016
"... -eventually - patterns will coalesce."
...
How many eternities we must wait to happen this miracle?


If you waited for a complex life-form to emerge fully formed, you would wait almost one eternity (longer than the current age of our universe, although in an infinite multiverse even that would happen all the time). But no scientist I know thinks that complex life emerged all at once, but rather that it evolved from far simpler patterns joining together and undergoing changes and selection.

Simple patterns coalesce QUICKLY on small scales and then grow. I have a deep 4"- square container for my 3.5" nails. If I throw in a big handful of nails, I get a jumble of nails and nothing improves no matter how I shake the container. But if I start with a small handful of nails and shake it gently for a few seconds, the nails line up nicely. I can then add mid-sized handfuls and shake and they align - I can fill the whole container with ordered nails in 30 seconds!
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
@Whydening Gyre

May be 10 ^ 1 000 000 will give more hope for you to happen the impassible?

In fact if it was the easiest way the majority would have caught it. But it's narrow path.
You want to have a real alternative to the Creator because of His law according to which eve man wil be judged and because every one your action openly before Him. But you can not have such an alternative because will contradict the established order and laws in th euniverse. Apparently this universe not correspond to your spiritual attitudes. You can surve to pride, but this i spointless. You can suggest only speculations that can not be confirmed by observations and experiments. Weak possition. It's really a burden that you can not rely on scientific facts. It remains to rely on mantras.
RealScience
4.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
There is an increasing evidence, that the mitochondria are domesticated yeast cells...


No.

Although yeasts are single-celled organism, they are eukaryotes (complex cells with a nucleus). Yeast cells are thus like our cells in that they CONTAIN mitochondria. See for example http://www.ncbi.n.../9872396

(However on the link between mitochondria and cancer, yes, this is an active research area.)
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
"If you waited for a complex life-form to emerge fully formed, you would wait almost one eternity"

How you know that. How old you are?

There is no sence to repeat general speculation. Explain how exactly should works the evolutionary process in the living organisms that can not contaradict the science knowledge today. Explain how can occur fromfictional primordial soup for a moment a bacterium with more than one million base pairs in its DNA that provide the minimum necessary functionality for the live oprganizm able to survive in the external environment?

Do you know the structure, organisation and biological proceses in the living cells?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
@Whydening Gyre

May be 10 ^ 1 000 000 will give more hope for you to happen the impassible?

You have a source for that number?

In fact if it was the easiest way the majority would have caught it.

The majority have. They call it a god that just happens to rationalize the same way they do.
You want to have a real alternative to the Creator because of His law according to which eve man wil be judged and because every one your action openly before Him.

Therein lies the rub. Someone or thing that will judge me. As if I'm not objective (read -SMART enough) to realize my own foibles.
(cont)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2016
(cont)
But you can not have such an alternative because will contradict the established order and laws in th euniverse.

The laws of organization in this universe apply to all in it. YOU are the one with the alternative.
Apparently this universe not correspond to your spiritual attitudes.

This Universe corresponds EXACTLY to my spirit. I am an integral part of it.
You can surve to pride, but this i spointless.

Pride has nothing to do with it. My logic has brought me here.
You can suggest only speculations that can not be confirmed by observations and experiments. Weak possition.

The weak position is one where you refuse to accept the observations and experiments provided to you. Like - you...
It's really a burden that you can not rely on scientific facts.

More of a burden to REFUSE them.
It remains to rely on mantras.

Like those written by man in a "Holy Scripture" ?
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
"If you waited for a complex life-form to emerge fully formed, you would wait almost one eternity"

How you know that...?


Let's use your calculation:
May be 10 ^ 1 000 000 will give more hope for you to happen the impassible?

There are three possibilities: 10 ^ 1 000 000 is less than "almost one eternity", it is "almost one eternity", or it is longer than "almost one eternity".

Let's consider each one
1) Surely you don't think that 10 ^ 1 000 000 is LESS than "almost one eternity"?
That would go against your "miracle" claim!

2) Regardless of whether the base unit is femtoseconds or years, 10 ^ 1 000 000 is a finite amount of time and thus less than "one eternity".

If 10 ^ 1 000 000 is not less than "almost one eternity" and it is not quite "one eternity", then "almost one eternity" seems like a pretty good description to me.

Do you disagree?
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2016
So there is now new order (information) in the system


Equating order to information is fundamentally incorrect. The more orderly a system is the LESS information it contains. This is why a repetitive (highly ordered) string of digits is easy to compress, while the less ordered a string is the harder it is to compress. This is why you gain very little by compressing an already compressed file.

Now back to the statement that I refuted:
Random events can not contribute to the order (information) in the system. Only to noice And you're not able to refute this fact.


Are you claiming that a sugar crystal and a snowflake are NOT more ordered than a sugar solution or cold moist air?

Or are you claiming that the motion of the molecules does NOT contribute to the crystal growth?

Or are you claiming that the interaction of these molecules are NOT 'random' in the same sense as the randomness you reject in evolution?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
Random events can not contribute to the order (information) in the system. Only to noice And you're not able to refute this fact.


Are you claiming that a sugar crystal and a snowflake are NOT more ordered than a sugar solution or cold moist air?

Or are you claiming that the motion of the molecules does NOT contribute to the crystal growth?

Or are you claiming that the interaction of these molecules are NOT 'random' in the same sense as the randomness you reject in evolution?

Looking on as an outside observer - I would have to call check & mate...:-)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
Well, it isn't about the science in question as no troll wants to take it on. But at least it is about some areas of science:

@FJ: "I assume someone was able to record the exact state of the mitochondrion two billion years ago and left us that record in pristine readable and comparable form?"

If you want to observe an "exact" length, say, you will have to wait an infinity of time. When you measure out 1 m of steel, do you know "exact" how many iron atoms is aligned?

The scientific question is if we have good enough records, and as you can see in the paper we have.

To turn it around, _you_ are making up a story that doesn't fit the evidence. But I think you know that, since you are trolling.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2016
[ctd]

But the magic peddler is just pitiful. (And rude, trying to insert his magic incantations in a discussion between grownups.)

The last comfort blanket of magic peddlers when their meaningless magic incantations ("no evolution", "information") fails - they don't even know what they are saying - is that they claim we don't know how life emerged.

As if not knowing that would somehow reject evolution, which is about change in already existing populations. It is like saying that gravity doesn't exist, because we don't know how all masses appears. Or like saying that tax collection doesn't exist, because we don't know all business transactions.

But now we do know that. ["The Drive for Life on Wet and Icy Worlds", Russell et al, Astrobiology, 2015; shows that Hadean geology and modern cells shares traits, i.e. that life emerged out of geology.]
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2016
Apologies on that last one, TL. Think I hit the 4 star by accident...
edmoran2
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2016
I subscribe to the intelligent design theory, personally, and I think this may be evidence of an IP acquisition during the early to mid-development phase.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
I have not got an answer to the question what must do an engineer after change some dimensions or shape of one or more parts in some kind of machine? With the increasing of structural and functional complexity of given machine or organism, is it easier to be made changes to it or is it harder?
Is the evolution passible if random changes cause more negative than possitive effects on the living organisms? What will happen if the nagative efects is mutch greater? What is the connection between fictional evoltion and the imune system of all living organizms? What are the possitive effects of random changes *(mutations) known to the scinetific comunity?
 How does the mechanism for proteins syntesis works in the cell and why this mechanism is the same in all living organisms despite of their complexity? Can this mechanism be simplified?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
If the love not prevail in the universe, what will happen with life in it? If there is no life in the universe or this life is not eternal, what is the point of existence of the universe? Who can guarantee that the universe will endure the love and truth that make life possible?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016
"The more orderly a system is the LESS information it contains"

Do you dare to publish this claim in the scientific press and to stand behind it with your truly name?

This is great nonsense. Have a measure. Calibrate your emotions.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2016
Do you dare to publish this claim in the scientific press and to stand behind it with your truly name?

This is great nonsense. Have a measure. Calibrate your emotions.
time to re-calibrate the bot, mr ham...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2016

So many questions, Viko...:-) Let's begin..:
I have not got an answer to the question what must do an engineer after change some dimensions or shape of one or more parts in some kind of machine?

Not sure that is the actual question you asked...
With the increasing of structural and functional complexity of given machine or organism, is it easier to be made changes to it or is it harder?

Depends on your point of view and the level at which you observe. The smaller and more numerous the changes you make, the longer and more labour intensive it is.
(cont)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2016
(cont)
Is the evolution passible if random changes cause more negative than possitive effects on the living organisms?

That's exactly what "evolution" means.
What will happen if the nagative efects is mutch greater?

More entities will be selected out. Survivors adapt.
What is the connection between fictional evoltion and the imune system of all living organizms?

The immune system is part of the "selection" process.
What are the possitive effects of random changes *(mutations) known to the scinetific comunity?

First - You are here -you survived - so far...:-)
(cont)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2016
(cont)
 How does the mechanism for proteins syntesis works in the cell

I don't ve the education to handle that one...
and why this mechanism is the same in all living organisms despite of their complexity?

I'm not so sure it is. Even so, it is a mechanism that has adapted successfully to random changes that has served as a basic mechanism that supports further change. Kinda like the internal combustion engine - used in a lot of different other "more complex" mechanisms.

can this mechanism be simplified?

Sure. But not so easily... You might even have start over...:-)
RealScience
5 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2016
"The more orderly a system is the LESS information it contains"

Do you dare to publish this claim in the scientific press and to stand behind it with your truly name?

This is great nonsense. Have a measure. Calibrate your emotions.


@viko_mx: It sounds like you are SURE that this is NOT TRUE.

If I can show you that it is true, will you open your mind to the possibility that your other assumptions on why evolution cannot be true are also wrong?
BEGINNING
1 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2016
If one forgets all the speculation about (unobserved and unobservable evolutionary deep time) and sticks to real observations about the genetics mitochondrial DNA, one would conclude these observations biblical ideas about (híper-) inteligente recent creation followed by corruption and genome decay.
BEGINNING
1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2016
If one forgets all the speculation about (unobserved and unobservable evolutionary deep time) and sticks to real observations about the genetics mitochondrial DNA, one would conclude these observations biblical ideas about (híper-) inteligente recent creation followed by corruption and genome decay.
BEGINNING
1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2016
If one forgets all the speculation about (unobserved and unobservable evolutionary deep time) and sticks to real observations about the genetics mitochondrial DNA, one would conclude these observations biblical ideas about (híper-) inteligente recent creation followed by corruption and genome decay.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2016
Your assumption that randomness cannot add information is completely wrong. Randomness PRODUCES information - a truly random array of anything eventually contains all information because it eventually contains all possibilities.

While I agree with most of what you say this one isn't true. Randomness does not create information. Information is conserved. It can merely be extracted by non-linear processes (e.g. your snowflake example). There is remarkably little information in something like a snowflake. That is why we are so good at pattern recognition: it takes very little effort (information) to characterize a pattern.

While a random jumble can eventually create all information (monkeys and typewriters and all that) it can also create the opposite. So while a truly random jumble already contains all information 'in potentia' the *average* information of such a jumble is zero (cf. information content of AWGN)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2016
By the above: evolution does not create new information. However it does extract the information that fits an environment from the random jumbling (of genes).

Just random mutation that is not exposed to an environment - including it's own products - does not lead to evolution.

The insert in the last sentence is important, here, because the introduction of a random product of evolution into an environment already changes that environment with respect to further random mutations (the hardest competition for an organism are individuals of the same species - because they compete for *all* the same resources).

Evolution is mutation AND selection. Without the latter it doesn't work. (Neither without the former)
promile
Feb 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2016
The creationist troll continues to be pitiful and rude, now under another handle:

"the speculation about (unobserved and unobservable evolutionary deep time)".

The paper under discussion has results based on evolutionary observations of deep time.

So you - a troll - admits you haven't read it, and even if you did you would go "lalala, I can't hear you"? How surprising. =D

'Nuff with Bozo the religious clown. It is a new week, and I just learned in a big way how the world is getting better despite religion. The earlier difference in violence between sexes in Sweden is almost wiped out by a dramatic drop in violence against men. (Mostly by other men, of course.) Now men doesn't risk violence at 4-5 times the women rate as it used to be.

That is what a secular nation can give you, and religion can't. Happy days!
BEGINNING
1 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2016
If one forgets all the speculation about (unobserved and unobservable evolutionary deep time) and sticks to real observations about the genetics mitochondrial DNA, one would conclude these observations biblical ideas about (híper-) inteligente recent creation followed by corruption and genome decay.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2016
one would conclude these observations biblical ideas about (híper-) inteligente recent creation followed by corruption and genome decay

However, biblical ideas are rather....dumb. So they're not really in the running.
BEGINNING
1 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2016
If you want to check if biblical ideas are really dumb, just read about what it says about what toult happen to Israel and Jerusalem, and then listen to CNN Today.

Then you will realize how dumb you are..
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
If you want to check if biblical ideas are really dumb, just read about what it says about what toult happen to Israel and Jerusalem, and then listen to CNN Today.

Then you will realize how dumb you are..

History repeats. ESPECIALLY if people have been indoctrinated to repeat it. Like, through a book masterfully PRed to be "The Answer".
Now. Stop diverting away from the topic.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2016
If you want to check if biblical ideas are really dumb, just read about what it says about what toult happen to Israel and Jerusalem, and then listen to CNN Today.

Ya kow, I've read the bible back to front. And it's just as dumb now as it was then. It's children's stories for people who can't make informed decisions (yes: that was it's intent in a time where education was hard/impossible to come by).

That people continually try to reintrepret it to shoehorn in similarities with current events is about as convincing as what astrologers or numerologists do (and for the exact same reason). So if you figure you can convince someone on a *science* site of the value of the bible - then you're just wasting your energy.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2016
Torbjorn - Did you modify your handle a bit? Looks like you dropped the OM....
johnhew
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2016
There is an increasing evidence, that the mitochondria are domesticated yeast cells, which can breathe both with aerobic, both anaerobic mechanism - and that the cancer is caused with bewildered mitochondria, which somehow recollected how to live in acidic environment without citric acid cycle.


But yeast have mitochondria!

There are at least three good reasons why there's mtDNA : 1) Mitochondria can quickly respond to local changes in energy demand by upregulating the key players; 2) The few retained proteins are just about as hydrophobic and as membrane-loving as a protein can get, can get, and therefore transferring them to the nucleus would likely make it extremely hard to eventually re-target the product back to the mitochondria where it is utilized; and 3) The secondary assembly of mitochondrial RNAs into ribosomes is tightly linked to their expression, and critically depends on their close sequential reading.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2016
Torbjorn - Did you modify your handle a bit? Looks like you dropped the OM....
@Whyde
I don't think it is the same person... the OM is still posting elsewhere, and the syntax and grammar are a mite different (at least, in the few posts i have seen)

viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2016
@Whydening Gyre

If individual organizms or whole species get more negative that positive effects from random changes, this is pure definition for degradation and these organism can not survive. In the physical reality there is no possitive efects from random changes. There is no such thing known to the scientific world and you can not point such. Even when people maintains their creations these creations still ruin with time due to entropy and if is not maintained quickly ruin.
You really did not answer to my questions because you do not like the answers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
The reason for the evolution of the human technologies is the human intelect and the ideas of the Creator which people draw from the living environment
-Riiiiiight.

"...Ben Williams, a postdoctoral fellow at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. "It's like saying you have a central library with all your books in it, but we're going to keep 10 of them off site in a leaky shed."

-One of my favorite 'divine engineering insights' is the flatfish. Did god really design a fish with 2 eyes on the same side of its head that has to swim on its side?
https://youtu.be/3p59fwOacn8

-Especially since we have examples of precursor species with the one eye in various stages of transition to the other side?

"What we found was an intermediate stage between living flatfishes and the arrangement found in other fishes," said Friedman, adding that these two fossil fishes "indicate that the evolution of the profound cranial asymmetry of extant flatfishes was gradual
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2016
If the love not prevail in the universe, what will happen with life in it?
Well I guess you're saying that god only loved the 1% of species that he didn't extinct?

You're actually saying that god did not love the overwhelming majority of lifeforms he created?

Then WHY did he create them? ??
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
"The more orderly a system is the LESS information it contains"

Do you dare to publish this claim in the scientific press and to stand behind it with your truly name?

This is great nonsense. Have a measure. Calibrate your emotions.


@viko_mx: It sounds like you are SURE that this is NOT TRUE.

If I can show you that it is true, will you open your mind to the possibility that your other assumptions on why evolution cannot be true are also wrong?


@viko_mx: you still have not responded. If I can show that the statement is true, will you open your mind to the possibility that your other assumptions on why evolution cannot be true are also wrong?
Phys1
5 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2016
@viko_mx
Your argument might perhaps hold if an organism is not under some form of stress, but they all are.
A random change may enable it is access more food or become less sensitive to parasites. The individual with that random change and its offspring will then more successfully replicate and that change becomes the norm.
This form of evolution has been demonstrated in the lab.
https://en.wikipe...volution
See also
http://evolutionf...volution
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2016
@Whydening Gyre

If individual organizms or whole species get more negative that positive effects from random changes, this is pure definition for degradation and these organism can not survive. In the physical reality there is no possitive efects from random changes Even There is no such thing known to the scientific world and you can not point such. Even when people maintains their creations these creations still ruin with time due to entropy and if is not maintained quickly ruin.

Viko, EVERYTHING degrades eventually... Rocks, people, stars, you name it. That's the real thing that exists forever - change.
You really did not answer to my questions because you do not like the answers.

You already have the answers you want, why bother asking?

RS@ I think you already know he won't...:-)
Phys1 - good example.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2016
RS@ I think you already know he won't...:-)


I figured Viko_mx was convinced enough that he would come back, and be engaged enough in challenging me the he would actual learn something.

Of course he may have tried Google and found that what I said is well known in mathematics - I did give him that hint on how data compression works... (but even then at least he learned something!).

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2016
RS@ I think you already know he won't...:-)


I figured Viko_mx was convinced enough that he would come back, and be engaged enough in challenging me the he would actual learn something.

Of course he may have tried Google and found that what I said is well known in mathematics - I did give him that hint on how data compression works... (but even then at least he learned something!).

He hasn't. His mission here is to prosthelytize. He sees himself as Daniel in the lions den.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2016
It is obvious. If religion is incompatible with evolution, religion is wrong. This is why religion keeps a low profile on evolution in Western Europe. However in large parts of the USA and the Middle East religion feels confident enough to attempt to _suppress_ the evolution theory by denial.
Christocracy and Salafism walk hand in hand here. They are allies.
http://blogs.natu...d_i.html
RealScience
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2016
@Phys1 - WHEN, not IF.

Religion in general is NOT incompatible with evolution (or with the rest science).

I would describe it as "narrow-mindedness is incompatible with good science" - look how the DNA-sequence--direct-descendant-ONLY dogma held back understanding of both lateral-gene-transfer and acquired trait inheritance through epigentics and even RNA.

With an open mind on both sides the conflict disappears. The adherents of Biblical christianity, for example, could be saying "see, science agrees - in the beginning there was a big flash of light, and then later life was created, starting with the lower life forms and ending most recently with humans". They could then see science as part of religion, filling in the details of HOW god works (while other parts of religion could deal with WHY).

In this case the conflict comes not from Viko believing in a god behind the universe, but from Viko's narrow-minded denial that his god uses evolution as a tool.

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.