Comments for Analysis knocks down theory on origin of cell structure - MIT News Office »
Posted By altnrg 8 months, 1 week ago in Science & TechnologyUnderstanding how living cells originated and evolved into their present forms remains a fundamental research area in biology, one boosted in recent years by the introduction of new tools for genomic analysis. Now, researchers at MIT and Boston University have used such tools to put what they say is "the last nail in the coffin" for one theory about the origin of a basic structure in the cell.
Read Full Story at web.mit.edu »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 18
-
33%
antibrainwasher8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One more nail in the coffin of superstition and Intelligent design and creationism.
Reply
Why do the religious morons oppose research? Because it destroys their beloved supersitition.
There is no afterlife, morons. Religion is a steaming pile of liquid crap. There is no evidence for your beloved creationism, where the earth was created 5000 years ago by the floating head of Charleton Heston.
As science peels away at the layers of evidence of how life began on this planet, evolving "by acquisition", the creation mytology you teach you ignorant inbred children looks kinda stupid, even to a bible thumping homeschooler.-
-
-
50%
Endoscopy8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
abw obviously did not read the story or if he did does not understand it. It is a blow against evolution not creationism. The more we learn about microbiology the more impossible evolution becomes. You need to get rid of your brainwashing.-
100%
cloud158 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo you made this claim in another thread that microbiology is disproving evolution and I asked for some examples of this claim. You never did respond.....so lets try again. Care to explain how microbiology is disproving evolution?
Reply-
50%
Endoscopy8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you look at the complexity of a single cell organism it is astounding. The DNA has in it the code to make the protein engines that it has. The process to create a protein engine is complex and has to be done in a specific sequence.
Reply
A unzip protein engine unzips a specific part of the DNA.
A template maker goes to the beginning of that opened sequence.
It is fed proteins by a mover protein engine.
It takes the correct protein to place as a match to the DNA.
When it finishes a mover takes the template to a protein sequence engine.
Movers push proteins to it while it uses the template to create the protein sequence needed.
When finished a mover takes the protein to a shaping engine.
The shaping engine makes the protein sequence be in the required shape.
A mover takes the shaped piece to where the new protein engine is being made.
Meanwhile the the unzipper has rezipped the DNA and unzipped the next sequence.
This sequence happens for each piece of the engine. Many of them have 30 or 40 pieces.
This is very complex engineering. The engines have to be put together in a specific sequence. Everything has to be done in the exact sequence or the process fails.
This is an example of what I am talking about. It blows my mind that these unintelligent pieces of protein act in this fashion. How do they know when to do this? How do they know the correct part of the DNA for a specific engine to be made? Etc. etc. etc.-
100%
vader828 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Although the origins of the first cellular life are somewhat of a mystery to modern science, the theory of evolution is the most valid explanation for the diversity of life that we see today. Science is not based on absolute truths, in that in light of compelling evidence old ideas may be altered or refuted. This article does not refute evolution, but is cause to rethink how cilia came to be in eukaryotic cells. Regarding the formation of DNA, scientists have been able to create self replicating RNA in the laboritory setting. As you probably know RNA is a single helix, essentially half of a DNA code, given that these RNA strands can emerge from the chemical reactions in this solution, it is not that far fetched that through enough trial and error that DNA would form the same way.
Reply -
100%
cloud158 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes DNA replication and protein synthesis are incredibly complex processes that require the precise action and timing of numerous proteins working in unison to create a final product.
Reply
The answer to all of your questions lie within the genes of DNA. DNA codes for all the proteins needed in these processes. When conditions inside or outside the cell are right (this is realized through receptors) certain genes inside the DNA are switched on. When these genes are turned on they are used to create certain proteins which have specific functions. When these proteins carry out their functions conditions have once again changed within the cell and genes are once again turned on and off.
They know the correct portion of DNA because certain sets of nucleic acids act as a code saying "start here" and this is where transcription begins. A protein binds to this set of DNA to act as a flag for Helicase to come over and start unzipping. And the process as you explained begins.
I agree with you that it is an incredible process of enormous complexity. But that in no way conflicts with evolution, it is a part of evolution. These processes began as simple things. But over billions of years they have evolved into the complex things we see today.
I just think crediting God with this just because it is so complex that you don't understand how it came to be is the lazy way out. Your questions all have answers, you just have to take the time to figure them out.-
0%
Endoscopy8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You and vader need to take off the anything is possible over time glasses that evolutionists wear. There are many protein engines in a cell. That makes this process of dividing incredibly complex. Everything has to be duplicated. Any mistake and that means a failed cell. This process does not fail unless there has been a change to the DNA. Changes to the DNA are destructive. This has been the facts that science has found. There are also other things inside cells that are as complex.
Reply
The concept that science is not based on absolute truths is a foolish one. Only in the area of evolution does that apply. Science is based on the absolute facts that always work. It is out of vogue these days to talk about scientific laws but the idea is still there.
What you ae asking people to believe is that somehow without the presence of oxygen a cell all of a sudden has all of the very complex inter related parts of a cell just came into being and at that very point in time oxygen is introduce. Not very likely. All of the very intricate workings of the simplest single cell organism just happen to exist. The probabilities of that approaches 0.-
Neutral
quackpot8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1) While most mutations are detrimental, Some mutations are highly beneficial because they allow the organism to adapt to a changing environment. This is demonstrated fact.
Reply
2) A failed cell is totally irrelevant to anything except, perhaps to that one cell.
3) Religion is based on the absolute truth that any observation can be interpreted as "God did it". This makes religion totally unacceptable as a means for elucidating the natural laws that govern our universe (whether God made them or not).
4) Hypotheses based on religious principles have no predictive value and hence contribute nothing to the advancement of human understanding of the world in which we live. -
Neutral
cloud158 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo for some reason you're confusing complexity with divinity. Just because something is complex does not mean that God made it so.
Reply
And no, changes to DNA are not always destructive. If that were the case, we would not be here.
Why is the probability 0? Because you don't understand how it happens? Please provide evidence of how it is a possibility of 0, and what exactly that possibility is.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
cloud158 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Very interesting article. We briefly discussed how cells came into existence recently in a biology class I'm taking. The idea of endosymbiosis seems to be a pretty solid means to eukaryote cell development.
Reply
I think an important thing to be discussed is how the organelles inside the eukaryotic cells came to be in the first place. We think we know how they merged to form one cell, but how did they themselves come into existence?-
-
100%
cloud158 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well yes, the article specifically talked about cilia and how its most likely cilia didn't come to be through endosymbiosis. Other organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts were not part of the experiment (from my understanding).
Reply
"But the new analysis by Hyman Hartman, visiting scientist in MIT's Center for Biomedical Engineering, and Temple Smith of Boston University, published in the April issue of the journal Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton, provides strong evidence that this idea cannot be true for the origin of cilia. They found that genes that produce the cilia have unique characteristics that are not present in the kinds of simple cells that would have led to the symbiotic union. That suggests that cilia may have originated earlier, within the evolving cell, through a process that remains to be understood."
-
-
-
100%
dailyblueberry8 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"believe" "thought" "might" - sounds like this science is simply taking on a form of faith.
Reply
Antibrainwasher...I feel for your point of view. I think its valid, because you're right, religion is a "steaming pile of liquid crap." Religion is a man-made institution, religion is how we try to describe God, religion is how we try to separate ourselves, religion is comforting because its easier than saying "I love you" to another human being after that human being just smacked you across the face.
But God, I "believe" is not. Don't discount his/hers existence and don't think for a second he/she didn't put here to be a selfless creature. Good luck.
ps. Floating head of Charleton Heston...loved it. Great imagery. -
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.