A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evolve

[Rumraket]

http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/...mutation-helped-multicellular-animals-evolve/

In the history of life on Earth, few events were as significant as the evolution of multicellular animals from single-celled ancestors. This was no simple feat. To successfully function as a unified organism, every cell must play a specialized role and be in constant communication with other cells. If there are failures in cooperation, outcomes include cancer, developmental abnormalities or death.

The complex interactions necessary for multicellularity are accomplished through intricate and coordinated molecular signaling. But almost nothing is known about how these molecular functions first evolved. It turns out, for one specific function at least, it most likely came down to dumb luck.

Taking a deep look into the distant, distant past, Joe Thornton, PhD, professor of ecology and evolution, and his colleagues focused on one particular protein that plays a key role in the formation of organized tissues in animals. Through “molecular time travel” experiments, they not only deciphered the sequence of the ancestral gene for this protein, they resurrected it in the laboratory to study how it functioned roughly one billion years ago. They found a single chance mutation was enough to cause the ancestor of the protein to evolve an entirely new function–one that became essential for multicellular organization.

...

One mutation, ONE mutation totally and radically altered the function of an enzyme into a kind of structural protein. That's simply astonishing.

Oh, and Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction is an amazing tool. It is almost like being able to literally look into the past and replay evolution at the molecular level, mutation by mutation.

 

[Rhed]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/...mutation-helped-multicellular-animals-evolve/

In the history of life on Earth, few events were as significant as the evolution of multicellular animals from single-celled ancestors. This was no simple feat. To successfully function as a unified organism, every cell must play a specialized role and be in constant communication with other cells. If there are failures in cooperation, outcomes include cancer, developmental abnormalities or death.

The complex interactions necessary for multicellularity are accomplished through intricate and coordinated molecular signaling. But almost nothing is known about how these molecular functions first evolved. It turns out, for one specific function at least, it most likely came down to dumb luck.

Taking a deep look into the distant, distant past, Joe Thornton, PhD, professor of ecology and evolution, and his colleagues focused on one particular protein that plays a key role in the formation of organized tissues in animals. Through “molecular time travel” experiments, they not only deciphered the sequence of the ancestral gene for this protein, they resurrected it in the laboratory to study how it functioned roughly one billion years ago. They found a single chance mutation was enough to cause the ancestor of the protein to evolve an entirely new function–one that became essential for multicellular organization.

...

One mutation, ONE mutation totally and radically altered the function of an enzyme into a kind of structural protein. That's simply astonishing.

Oh, and Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction is an amazing tool. It is almost like being able to literally look into the past and replay evolution at the molecular level, mutation by mutation.

Thanks for the bedtime story.

Once upon a time GK-PID gained its ability to bind to the anchor long before the anchor itself evolved. Why would a protein evolve the ability to bind to something that wouldn’t appear for millions of years you ask? Well a deeper analysis of the proteins’ structural biology suggested that the answer lies in a process called molecular exploitation, in which a new molecule (in this case the anchor) fortuitously binds an old protein (GK-PID) because it just happens to be structurally similar to the protein’s original molecular partner.

And we all lived happily ever after.

THE END.

:lol:

 

[DutchLiam84]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Write a rebuttal paper, get it published in the same journal and I'll give you my life savings. No joke!

 

[Rhed]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Write a rebuttal paper, get it published in the same journal and I'll give you my life savings. No joke!

I can't, it would be against evolution. No joke!

 

[Rumraket]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/...mutation-helped-multicellular-animals-evolve/
Thanks for the bedtime story.

Once upon a time GK-PID gained its ability to bind to the anchor long before the anchor itself evolved. Why would a protein evolve the ability to bind to something that wouldn’t appear for millions of years you ask? Well a deeper analysis of the proteins’ structural biology suggested that the answer lies in a process called molecular exploitation, in which a new molecule (in this case the anchor) fortuitously binds an old protein (GK-PID) because it just happens to be structurally similar to the protein’s original molecular partner.

And we all lived happily ever after.

THE END.

:lol:

Ancestral Sequence Reconstructon. You have no idea what it is it seems.

 

[Rumraket]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Write a rebuttal paper, get it published in the same journal and I'll give you my life savings. No joke!

I can't, it would be against evolution. No joke!

Michael Behe and Douglas Axe of Intelligent Desig fame have successfully published papers that argue against evolution in molecular evolution journals. You have no excuse. In fact you're making shit up because you've probably never even tried to get one published.

 

[Rumraket]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/...mutation-helped-multicellular-animals-evolve/
One mutation, ONE mutation totally and radically altered the function of an enzyme into a kind of structural protein. That's simply astonishing.

Oh, and Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction is an amazing tool. It is almost like being able to literally look into the past and replay evolution at the molecular level, mutation by mutation.

Thanks for the bedtime story.

Once upon a time GK-PID gained its ability to bind to the anchor long before the anchor itself evolved. Why would a protein evolve the ability to bind to something that wouldn’t appear for millions of years you ask? Well a deeper analysis of the proteins’ structural biology suggested that the answer lies in a process called molecular exploitation, in which a new molecule (in this case the anchor) fortuitously binds an old protein (GK-PID) because it just happens to be structurally similar to the protein’s original molecular partner.

And we all lived happily ever after.

THE END.

:lol:

If it were really the case that they just sat there and made shit up in ad-hoc fashion, I'd be right here arguing with (instead of against) you. I'm deadly serious. I really think you should take some time to look into what they actually did that make them able to describe the sequence of events as they do. The paper is freely available.

I recommend, if you have questions, you take a look at this thread over on The Sceptical Zone, which is a discussion forum frequented by some of the "higher-ups" in the ID movement, and some people with degrees in biology. You might be able to catch someone like Joseph Felsenstein, John Harshman or Nick Matzke if you want to know something about acenstral sequence reconstruction, population genetics or phylogenetic inferences.

I'm by no means a specialist, but I still know at least at a superficial level what ancestral sequence reconstruction is and why work done using it isn't just some ad-hoc storytelling. I will just reproduce what little I wrote over on the skeptical zone:

Did they actually evolve a protein? I think I recall reading something about cultures and choanoflagellates and flies.

No, they didn’t actually evolve a protein. They reconstructed an ancestral protein from which extant proteins evolved. This is what ancestral sequence reconstructionis. The math is quite complicated and I can’t tell you in detail how it works (maybe somebody like John Harshman or Joe Felsenstein is your best bet around here), but at a basic level they compare the sequences of extant proteins and use statistics to try to infer what the most probable ancestral state of the protein must have been, using maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees.

In this way, they can reconstruct the evolutionary history of the protein further and further back in time, mutation by mutation. When they have reconstructed these sequences in software, they then go into a lab and synthesize them biochemically, and then do various chemical assays to see if they actually work and how they work. When they do this, they are actually empirically testing the evolutionary postulate, that the extant proteins even DO have an evolutionary history, that they DID have ancestors and that those ancestral proteins had modified or different functions.
If they find that their reconstructed protein actually functions at all, and if they find that the further back in time the reconstructed state, the more altered the function, that is a good indication that these proteins really did actually evolve in the way they have reconstructed, because there’d be no a priori expectation you can use a statistical method to determine historical mutational states through sequence comparisons and just so happen to produce a functional protein with gradually more altered functions, using basic assumptions about how evolution proceeds at the molecular level (least character state changes).

The part I highlight in green here is the important part about why the method highly probably is correctly reproducing an evolutionary history that actually happened.

At my own basic level of understanding, you need at least three DNA / RNA / Amino Acid-sequences, in order to do ancestral sequence reconstruction. And for the result to be at all meaningful, they have to have a degree of similarity that allows you to do a statistical inference about what kinds of changes that were most likely to lead to the three sequences you have.
Once you have that, you can then reproduce the ancestral sequences at the nodes. Sequences that no longer exist, sequences that are inferred to have existed which the extant ones would have evolved from. (Notice how, evolution is false and didn't happen, there'd be no particular expectation that a statistically inferred ancestral state would correspond to a functional protein with altered functionality).

This is all fine and dandy of course, but why should we believe these statistically inferred sequences ever really existed? By testing them in the laboratory and in living organisms and seeing what they do, if anything. Some general criteria testify to the inference that evolution really happened in history, as reconstructed:

1. First of all, the sequence must be functional. It is unlikely that an organism would carry around a nonfunctional piece of DNA for extremely long time unless there's some reason to think the DNA is being retained for other reasons.
2. Second, the function should be related the more closely related the sequence. Evolution is supposed to be gradual, incremental, and happen mutation by mutation, accumulating in sequences and altering function over time.
3. Third, there should be a gradual shift, or a gradual diminution/increase in function over time, as you reconstruct older and older nodes.

Taken together, if all these criteria are satisfied, it becomes extremely unlikely to sweep away the results as some kind of fluke or ad-hoc story, if your statistically inferred protein sequences all happen to constitute functional molecules with a gradual shift in functionality. This is overwhelming evidence that the reconstructed functional progression actually took place in history.

Notice how the phylogenetic algorithm used in ancestral sequence reconstruction does not assume or has "built into" the reconstructed sequences, anything about what is likely or not to produce functional proteins.

It merely uses the most basic and most parsimonious, observed understanding of what kinds of mutations are most likely to happen at the molecular level. There is no assumptions about what kinds of amino acid sequences are likely to produce functional proteins, the algorithm is neutral with respect to protein folding and function.

As such, it is remarkable it is at all possible to use the basic evolutionary assumptions to even reproduce functional ancestral states at all. The very fact that when the method is used, multiple sequential ancestral states are resurrected, and that they show gradual shifts in function as evolutionary theory would predict, is therefore a test and pass of the basic evolutionary postulate. It is hard empirical science as it is supposed to be done and it confirms evolution.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Write a rebuttal paper, get it published in the same journal and I'll give you my life savings. No joke!

I can't, it would be against evolution. No joke!

So not only are you a creationist, you now believe in conspiracy theories too. Seriously, finding definitive evidence against the Theory of Evolution would change the way scientists think and would probably get you a Nobel prize. There is nothing more that I or my colleagues hate than being wrong. Write the damn rebuttal!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Greetings,

http://sciencelife.uchospitals.edu/...mutation-helped-multicellular-animals-evolve/



Thanks for the bedtime story.

Once upon a time GK-PID gained its ability to bind to the anchor long before the anchor itself evolved. Why would a protein evolve the ability to bind to something that wouldn’t appear for millions of years you ask? Well a deeper analysis of the proteins’ structural biology suggested that the answer lies in a process called molecular exploitation, in which a new molecule (in this case the anchor) fortuitously binds an old protein (GK-PID) because it just happens to be structurally similar to the protein’s original molecular partner.

And we all lived happily ever after.

THE END.

:lol:

So, you point out that it came about by accident - which is evidence of evolution - yet still maintain creationism/ID is true.

What am I missing here?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Greetings,

Thanks for the bedtime story.

Once upon a time GK-PID gained its ability to bind to the anchor long before the anchor itself evolved. Why would a protein evolve the ability to bind to something that wouldn’t appear for millions of years you ask? Well a deeper analysis of the proteins’ structural biology suggested that the answer lies in a process called molecular exploitation, in which a new molecule (in this case the anchor) fortuitously binds an old protein (GK-PID) because it just happens to be structurally similar to the protein’s original molecular partner.

And we all lived happily ever after.

THE END.

:lol:

So, you point out that it came about by accident - which is evidence of evolution - yet still maintain creationism/ID is true.

What am I missing here?

Kindest regards,

James

What you are missing is Rhed’s sarcasm. He does not believe this paper proves anything, but is an ad hoc explanation for this discovery. Thus, he is mocking what he does not understand instead of arguing against it (ad hominem). However, Rumraket demonstrated just above you how this is not an ad hoc explanation for this discovery.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Greetings,

Greetings,

So, you point out that it came about by accident - which is evidence of evolution - yet still maintain creationism/ID is true.

What am I missing here?

Kindest regards,

James

What you are missing is Rhed’s sarcasm. He does not believe this paper proves anything, but is an ad hoc explanation for this discovery. Thus, he is mocking what he does not understand instead of arguing against it (ad hominem). However, Rumraket demonstrated just above you how this is not an ad hoc explanation for this discovery.

Sarcasm or not, his explanation contradicts his beliefs and claims - of which I'm sure you're aware.

Rumraket's explanations are sadly falling on deaf ears.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Greetings,

What you are missing is Rhed’s sarcasm. He does not believe this paper proves anything, but is an ad hoc explanation for this discovery. Thus, he is mocking what he does not understand instead of arguing against it (ad hominem). However, Rumraket demonstrated just above you how this is not an ad hoc explanation for this discovery.

Sarcasm or not, his explanation contradicts his beliefs and claims - of which I'm sure you're aware.

Rumraket's explanations are sadly falling on deaf ears.

Kindest regards,

James

Yes, but Rhed’s post is just a sarcastic attempt to make fun of the paper. Thus, I would not read too much into what he actually said in that post, except for how he believes we are reading it. Rhed has an idea of what evolution is in his head and his post is an attempt to mock the paper while explaining it how he believes an evolutionary proponent would. Rumraket’s post explaining it demonstrates just how far off Rhed is about this paper. Essentially, even though Rhed agreed it happened in his post, he is only agreeing in an attempt to lampoon it.

In addition, none of Rumraket’s post fall on deaf ears. I read all of them (several times in some cases).

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Greetings,

The deaf ears to which I was referring are Rhed's - but you more than likely already know that.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

The complex interactions necessary for multicellularity are accomplished through intricate and coordinated molecular signaling. But almost nothing is known about how these molecular functions first evolved. It turns out, for one specific function at least, it most likely came down to dumb luck.

Does "dumb luck" mean the same thing as "random chance?"

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

The complex interactions necessary for multicellularity are accomplished through intricate and coordinated molecular signaling. But almost nothing is known about how these molecular functions first evolved. It turns out, for one specific function at least, it most likely came down to dumb luck.

Does "dumb luck" mean the same thing as "random chance?"

Are you actually asking if mutations are random?

:docpalm:

 

[Rhed]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Yes, but Rhed’s post is just a sarcastic attempt to make fun of the paper. Thus, I would not read too much into what he actually said in that post, except for how he believes we are reading it. Rhed has an idea of what evolution is in his head and his post is an attempt to mock the paper while explaining it how he believes an evolutionary proponent would. Rumraket’s post explaining it demonstrates just how far off Rhed is about this paper. Essentially, even though Rhed agreed it happened in his post, he is only agreeing in an attempt to lampoon it.

In addition, none of Rumraket’s post fall on deaf ears. I read all of them (several times in some cases).

I don't mean to mock. It is not scientific to me, but I'm bias and see with my Creationist's glasses. Carry on.

 

[Rhed]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Greetings,

The deaf ears to which I was referring are Rhed's - but you more than likely already know that.

Kindest regards,

James

You so funny

 

[Laurens]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Yes, but Rhed’s post is just a sarcastic attempt to make fun of the paper. Thus, I would not read too much into what he actually said in that post, except for how he believes we are reading it. Rhed has an idea of what evolution is in his head and his post is an attempt to mock the paper while explaining it how he believes an evolutionary proponent would. Rumraket’s post explaining it demonstrates just how far off Rhed is about this paper. Essentially, even though Rhed agreed it happened in his post, he is only agreeing in an attempt to lampoon it.

In addition, none of Rumraket’s post fall on deaf ears. I read all of them (several times in some cases).

I don't mean to mock. It is not scientific to me, but I'm bias and see with my Creationist's glasses. Carry on.

Just curious what is science to you?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[SpecialFrog]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

It is not scientific to me, but I'm bias and see with my Creationist's glasses. Carry on.

Are you still pretending that "wearing Creationist glasses" and "not wearing Creationist glasses" are equivalent biases?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: A single, bya-old mutation helped multicell animals evol

Yes, but Rhed’s post is just a sarcastic attempt to make fun of the paper. Thus, I would not read too much into what he actually said in that post, except for how he believes we are reading it. Rhed has an idea of what evolution is in his head and his post is an attempt to mock the paper while explaining it how he believes an evolutionary proponent would. Rumraket’s post explaining it demonstrates just how far off Rhed is about this paper. Essentially, even though Rhed agreed it happened in his post, he is only agreeing in an attempt to lampoon it.

In addition, none of Rumraket’s post fall on deaf ears. I read all of them (several times in some cases).

I don't mean to mock. It is not scientific to me, but I'm bias and see with my Creationist's glasses. Carry on.

Rhed[/url]"]Thanks for the bedtime story.

Once upon a time GK-PID gained its ability to bind to the anchor long before the anchor itself evolved. Why would a protein evolve the ability to bind to something that wouldn’t appear for millions of years you ask? Well a deeper analysis of the proteins’ structural biology suggested that the answer lies in a process called molecular exploitation, in which a new molecule (in this case the anchor) fortuitously binds an old protein (GK-PID) because it just happens to be structurally similar to the protein’s original molecular partner.

And we all lived happily ever after.

THE END.

:lol:

[Emphasis added]

I hope to never see you deliberately mock something if this is you not intending to mock something.