Evolution: A Powerful New Study

[RogueScholar]

A new paper was recently published in Nature. It discusses the implications stemming from the discovery of a new deep sea organism. This organism is a link between the more ancient and "basic" cell types and the more contemporary and "complex" cell types. This is yet another prediction of modern evolutionary theory that has come to fruition.

 

Link to the abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14447.html

Full access requires paying or accessing through a college network.

 

The authors describe this cell as providing other cell lines or descendants the basic genetic "tool kit" in order to make the transition to proper eukaryotic cell types. The cell type seen in complex organisms such as mammals like humans.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi RS!  

 

Thanks for the post and the link.

Am I right in thinking that this finding is BIG news for evolutionary science? I ask because my grasp of evolution could best be described as, 'sketchy'.    

 

If you would also be so kind as to illuminate this topic a little more with a brief layman's explanation, I'm sure this would be appreciated by those members  from Christian Fundamentalist / Creationist backgrounds, who've been fed a diet of nothing but anti-evolution propaganda.   

 

Thanks,   BAA.

[Guest Furball]

 

 

If you would also be so kind as to illuminate this topic a little more with a brief layman's explanation, I'm sure this would be appreciated by those members  from Christian Fundamentalist / Creationist backgrounds, who've been fed a diet of nothing but anti-evolution propaganda.   

 

 

I second this. I was fed a steady diet of anti-evolution/anti-science propaganda for my 13 years in puritanical/evangelical christianity. If you wouldn't mind offering a brief, but free education for me, a layman, i would gratefully appreciate it. 

 

BAA - You are one of the smartest people on here, if your grasp on evolution is 'sketchy', then i am still in the monkey embryo stage. Anyone got a banana? -Cat

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

If you would also be so kind as to illuminate this topic a little more with a brief layman's explanation, I'm sure this would be appreciated by those members  from Christian Fundamentalist / Creationist backgrounds, who've been fed a diet of nothing but anti-evolution propaganda.   

 

 

I second this. I was fed a steady diet of anti-evolution/anti-science propaganda for my 13 years in puritanical/evangelical christianity. If you wouldn't mind offering a brief, but free education for me, a layman, i would gratefully appreciate it. 

 

BAA - You are one of the smartest people on here, if your grasp on evolution is 'sketchy', then i am still in the monkey embryo stage. Anyone got a banana? -Cat

 

 

Well thanks for the vote of confidence Cat!

 

But don't be fooled.

Beyond astronomy and cosmology I'm no great shakes at anything (else) much.  Hence the request to RS.  Hopefully he can help out.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[sdelsolray]

Here's a NPR link on the topic:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/05/06/404199792/missing-link-microbes-may-help-explain-how-single-cells-became-us

[Ravenstar]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150506134851.htm

[Jeff]

But if someone could just show some kind of proof to believers. Any proof at all. I mean, where's the missing link if we all came from monkeys.

 

This will be roundly ignored. But I'm pretty damn stoked about this!

[RogueScholar]

I'll see about a follow up. I'm currently in transit back home from doing some work...and play in Georgia and Florida. Hopefully, I'll be back with consistent service by the beginning of next week.

[bornagainathiest]

I'll see about a follow up. I'm currently in transit back home from doing some work...and play in Georgia and Florida. Hopefully, I'll be back with consistent service by the beginning of next week.

 

Thanks very much, RS!  

.

.

.

Btw, I think I've figured out the hard-core Fundy denialist response to this news.

They'll pick up on these two points.  First, the Loki organism was found where...?  Near a hydrothermal vent!  Well, then isn't it obvious that it's a foul work of Satan, sent up from his hellish underworld to confuse us?  Secondly, the name Loki is a dead giveaway.  Loki was the Nordic god of evil, mischief and chaos.  What more do you need to know?  This microbe is just another ploy by Satan (like fossils and billion year old stars) to fool us into not giving glory to the one true God!  Praise the lard!

 

 

[Joshpantera]

[RogueScholar]

I wanted to follow up on this a bit.  I will attempt to distill some of the big ideas that have resulted from a contemporary application of evoluational biology.  There are basically three domains of life. Domains are the broadest ways separating life forms with shared characteristics. These domains include Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryota. Bacteria and Archaea are massive domains that consist of unicellular life forms that have a rather "simple" genetic makeup and as such, have "simple" cellular "machinery." Eukaryota contains both unicellular and multicellular organisms that have more "complex" cellular machinery. Eukaryota consist of eukaryotic cells. These cells contain a double layered phospholipid cell membrane, genetic material that is contined within a nucleus that has it's own membrane or envelope and discrete areas of "machinery" known as organelles where complex processes such as energy production, protein manufacturing and so on occur. However, bacteria and Archaea consist of prokaryotic cells.  These cells do not have organelles and they do not have a well defined and enveloped nucleus. Additionally, the structure of their cell membranes are very different from eukaryotic cells.

 

Many current evolutionary hypotheses posit that Archaea are more "related" to the eukaryotes than bacteria. If this is the case, we would expect to have evidence for a common ancestor and we should have evidence that more "transitional" forms of Archaea exist that have additional genes that code for more eukaryote like proteins. This is what makes the paper so powerful. Over 170 genes in this newly discovered organism are more closely related to eukaryotic genes than what are found in bacteria. This is strong evidence that favours the first hypothesis. Additionally, a technique known as a phylogenetic analysis was performed and the results support the presence of a common ancestor between this Archaea and more contemporary eukaryotes.

 

Finally, what I find particularly exciting is that this paper only looked at the genes of these organisms. However, we do not know what these genes actually did or do, if anything in these new organisms. Actually growing them in a lab and looking at their phenotype could very well be quite exciting.

 

Hopefully, that made sense and helped illuminate the questions posed earlier?

[AndrewTomlinson]

 

I'll see about a follow up. I'm currently in transit back home from doing some work...and play in Georgia and Florida. Hopefully, I'll be back with consistent service by the beginning of next week.

 

Thanks very much, RS!  

.

.

.

Btw, I think I've figured out the hard-core Fundy denialist response to this news.

They'll pick up on these two points.  First, the Loki organism was found where...?  Near a hydrothermal vent!  Well, then isn't it obvious that it's a foul work of Satan, sent up from his hellish underworld to confuse us?  Secondly, the name Loki is a dead giveaway.  Loki was the Nordic god of evil, mischief and chaos.  What more do you need to know?  This microbe is just another ploy by Satan (like fossils and billion year old stars) to fool us into not giving glory to the one true God!  Praise the lard!

 

 

 

 

First, if I were to worship a god... there he is.

 

Second, I'm not even going to try presenting evidence to the Creationists I know. Their responses so far have been a resounding, "that evidence that you have seen and told me about doesn't exist".