ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Welcome to my library—a curated collection of research and original arguments exploring why I believe Christianity, creationism, and Intelligent Design offer the most compelling explanations for our origins. Otangelo Grasso


You are not connected. Please login or register

Perguntas ....

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 15 ... 19  Next

Go down  Message [Page 11 of 19]

251Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:14 pm

Otangelo


Admin

34. Oocyte Maturation and Fertilization

Oocyte maturation and fertilization represent core events in the continuity of life, highlighting the exquisite precision and regulation of biological systems.

Oocyte Maturation: This is the process by which primary oocytes, which are arrested in prophase of meiosis I during fetal life, resume meiosis. In response to hormonal cues, the oocyte completes its first meiotic division and begins the second, halting again at metaphase II. This maturation process prepares the oocyte for fertilization.
Fertilization: This is the fusion of a mature oocyte and sperm, resulting in the formation of a diploid zygote. Beyond mere fusion, fertilization activates the oocyte, initiating a series of events that prepare it for subsequent stages of embryonic development.

The synchronized dance of oocyte maturation and fertilization ensures the formation of a viable zygote, representing the convergence of paternal and maternal genetic information. The precision required for these processes signifies the importance of these events in the preservation of species and underscores the intricate design of biological systems.

Developmental Processes Shaping Organismal Form and Function

The developmental processes that shape the form and function of an organism are myriad, highlighting the orchestrated effort required to transform a single cell into a complex multicellular entity.

Cell Differentiation: Stem cells differentiate into specialized cell types, driven by genetic and environmental cues, defining specific functions within the organism.
Morphogenesis: The physical processes that give an organism its shape, involving coordinated movements of cells and tissues. Mechanisms like cell migration, adhesion, and folding play pivotal roles here.
Pattern Formation: Refers to the processes that create spatial arrangements of cells, often initiated by gradients of morphogens – substances that determine the fate and position of cells.
Growth: The increase in size of an organism, achieved by both cell division and cell expansion. It’s regulated by both genetic factors and environmental inputs.
Organogenesis: The formation and development of an organism's organs. It involves the integration of various cellular processes like differentiation, morphogenesis, and growth.

From the intricate progression of a single fertilized egg to a fully functional organism, developmental processes provide a profound example of the precision and coordination present in biological systems. This orchestration ensures that every organism is equipped to thrive in its environment, performing its role in the larger web of life.

How do the mechanisms underlying oocyte maturation ensure the readiness of the oocyte for fertilization?

The intricate process of oocyte maturation encompasses a series of mechanisms, each fine-tuned to ensure that the oocyte is primed and ready for fertilization. Here's how various aspects of oocyte maturation contribute to this readiness:

Completion of Meiosis I: Initially arrested in prophase of meiosis I, a maturing oocyte completes this phase to reduce its chromosome number by half. This ensures that upon fertilization, the resulting zygote will have the correct diploid chromosome number.
Arrest in Metaphase II: After completing meiosis I, the oocyte immediately enters meiosis II but halts in metaphase II. This arrest is crucial as it waits for a signal from the fertilizing sperm to complete this phase, ensuring that the oocyte and sperm nuclei can merge at just the right moment.
Zona Pellucida Formation: The oocyte secretes glycoproteins that form the zona pellucida, a protective barrier around the oocyte. This layer plays a dual role: it aids sperm binding and prevents polyspermy, ensuring only one sperm fertilizes the oocyte.
Cytoplasmic Maturation: The oocyte’s cytoplasm undergoes changes, accumulating necessary nutrients, mRNA, and proteins. These reserves are crucial for supporting the zygote during the initial stages post-fertilization before embryonic genome activation.
Formation of Cortical Granules: These are vesicles that move to the periphery of the oocyte during its maturation. Upon sperm entry, these granules release their contents to prevent any additional sperm from penetrating, ensuring monospermy.
Gap Junction Communication: Gap junctions between the oocyte and surrounding granulosa cells allow exchange of ions, nutrients, and signaling molecules. This communication is pivotal for maintaining oocyte health and responding to hormonal cues that drive maturation.
Redistribution of Organelles: As the oocyte matures, its organelles, like mitochondria, get redistributed. This ensures that post-fertilization, the zygote has the energy resources it requires for early embryonic divisions.

Each of these steps in oocyte maturation is a testament to the meticulous orchestration inherent in biological systems. The readiness of the oocyte post-maturation guarantees not only successful fertilization but also sets the stage for the development of a healthy embryo.

What is the significance of the interplay between the oocyte and surrounding cumulus cells during maturation?

The oocyte-cumulus cell relationship is one of the most crucial and intricate symbiotic interactions in the mammalian reproductive system. The dialogue between these two entities is pivotal for the oocyte's successful maturation and readiness for fertilization. Here's why this interaction is of immense significance:

Supply of Essential Nutrients: Cumulus cells actively supply the oocyte with amino acids, sugars, and other necessary nutrients. Given that the oocyte's metabolic activity is distinct from that of somatic cells, this cooperative metabolic function is vital for oocyte health and competence.
Gap Junction Mediated Communication: The oocyte and cumulus cells are interconnected through gap junctions, which are channels that allow the transfer of small molecules. This intercellular communication system facilitates the exchange of ions, second messengers, and other small molecules, ensuring the oocyte's proper response to external signals.
Regulation by Oocyte-secreted Factors: The oocyte secretes factors that regulate the proliferation and differentiation of cumulus cells. In return, cumulus cells provide the oocyte with cyclic AMP (cAMP) to maintain meiotic arrest until the appropriate signals initiate meiosis resumption.
Protection and Support during Ovulation: The cumulus cells expand and form a protective layer around the oocyte during its journey through the fallopian tube, safeguarding it against potential mechanical damages and ensuring its successful encounter with the sperm.
Support in Fertilization: The matrix formed by cumulus cells around the oocyte, called the cumulus matrix, plays a role during fertilization. It helps in sperm capacitation, ensuring only capacitated sperms reach the oocyte.
Redox Regulation: Cumulus cells assist in maintaining the redox balance around the oocyte, ensuring that harmful oxidative stresses don't impair the oocyte's quality.
Hormonal Sensing and Response: Cumulus cells possess receptors for hormones like FSH and LH. When these hormones surge, cumulus cells sense them and relay the information to the oocyte, initiating processes that lead to final oocyte maturation and ovulation.

Through these synchronized interactions, the oocyte and cumulus cells showcase a remarkable example of cellular cooperation, ensuring that the oocyte reaches its optimal state of maturation and is primed for successful fertilization.

Where in the evolutionary timeline might we position the emergence of oocyte maturation and fertilization processes?

The emergence of oocyte maturation and fertilization processes is intrinsically tied to the evolution of sexual reproduction. These processes are crucial components in ensuring genetic diversity among offspring and subsequently contributing to the evolutionary fitness of species. To understand where these processes fit within the evolutionary timeline, one must consider the progression of sexual reproduction as a whole:

Initial Forms of Reproduction: The earliest life forms on Earth, primarily prokaryotes like bacteria, would have reproduced asexually. This means that there was no mixing of genetic material between two individuals, and offspring were nearly identical to their parent.
Evolution of Eukaryotes: The emergence of eukaryotic cells, which contain a nucleus and other specialized organelles, is hypothesized to have paved the way for more complex reproductive mechanisms. With this evolutionary leap, cellular structures capable of meiotic division would have started to appear.
Emergence of Simple Sexual Reproduction: In early eukaryotes, sexual reproduction would have evolved as a means of combining genetic material from two individuals, promoting genetic diversity. This step would have been foundational for the eventual emergence of specialized reproductive cells or gametes.
Specialization of Reproductive Cells: As multicellular organisms would have evolved, specialized reproductive cells, such as oocytes and sperm, would have begun to appear. These cells would undergo meiosis to halve their chromosome number, ensuring that fertilization restores the diploid state.
Maturation and Fertilization: With the establishment of specialized reproductive cells, the processes of oocyte maturation and fertilization would have become critical. Oocyte maturation ensures that the oocyte is competent for fertilization, while fertilization merges the genetic material of two gametes. These processes would have been crucial for the successful propagation of genetic material and the continuation of species.
Evolution of Complex Reproductive Systems: In advanced multicellular organisms, intricate reproductive systems would have developed, requiring finely-tuned mechanisms for oocyte maturation and fertilization. These systems would have provided advantages in ensuring the viability and survival of offspring in various ecological niches.
Adaptation and Specialization: As species continued to evolve, the processes of oocyte maturation and fertilization would have adapted to suit specific environmental challenges and reproductive strategies. For example, in some species, environmental cues would trigger oocyte maturation, while in others, internal hormonal signals would play this role.

The processes of oocyte maturation and fertilization are hypothesized to have emerged as multicellular life evolved and sexual reproduction became more specialized. They are vital components in the continuation of species and the promotion of genetic diversity, both of which are central themes in the grand narrative of evolution.

Which de novo genetic information would be necessary to instantiate the multifaceted pathways associated with oocyte maturation and its readiness for fertilization?

Oocyte maturation and its readiness for fertilization are complex processes governed by a myriad of genes and signaling pathways. If one were to imagine a scenario where these processes had to evolve de novo or from scratch, several essential genetic components would need to be instantiated to allow for these sophisticated mechanisms. Here's a brief overview of some of the key genetic elements that would be indispensable:

Meiotic Division Regulation: Genes that regulate the initiation and completion of meiosis in the oocyte are paramount. This would include genes responsible for the progression through the various meiotic stages and halting at metaphase II until fertilization.
Cytoskeleton Reorganization: Dynamic changes in the oocyte's cytoskeleton are essential for its maturation. Genes responsible for the synthesis and remodeling of microtubules and actin filaments, which guide chromosome and organelle positioning, would be vital.
Cumulus Cell Interaction: As previously mentioned, cumulus cells play a significant role in oocyte maturation. Genes that enable the communication and signaling between the oocyte and surrounding cumulus cells would be crucial.
Hormonal Responsiveness: The maturation process is tightly controlled by hormonal cues. Therefore, genes encoding for receptors sensitive to hormones such as luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), as well as the intracellular signaling mechanisms they activate, would be essential.
Zona Pellucida Formation: The oocyte is surrounded by a specialized extracellular matrix called the zona pellucida. Genes responsible for synthesizing the proteins of this matrix, which plays a role in sperm binding and preventing polyspermy, would be vital.
Maternal mRNA and Protein Stores: The early embryo relies on maternal mRNAs and proteins stored in the oocyte for initial development before embryonic genome activation. Genes involved in the synthesis and storage of these crucial materials would be necessary.
Calcium Signaling: Upon sperm entry, a surge of calcium within the oocyte is a pivotal event that triggers oocyte activation and further embryonic development. Genes related to calcium channels, reservoirs, and signaling pathways would be indispensable.
Metabolic Pathways: Proper energy metabolism is crucial for oocyte maturation. Therefore, genes involved in glycolysis, mitochondrial ATP production, and other metabolic pathways would be key for the oocyte's energy needs.

In essence, the genetic framework needed to instantiate oocyte maturation and readiness for fertilization is vast and intricate. This overview provides just a glimpse into the diverse genetic components and regulatory mechanisms that would be necessary to facilitate these critical reproductive processes.

What are the vital manufacturing codes and languages required for the progression of oocyte maturation and the subsequent fertilization events?

Oocyte maturation and the subsequent events leading up to fertilization can be conceptualized as processes orchestrated by intricate biological "codes" and "languages." These codes and languages dictate how cells interpret and respond to various signals, ensuring proper oocyte development and successful fertilization. Here are some of the vital manufacturing codes and languages pivotal for these events:

Genetic Code: At the heart of all cellular processes is DNA, which provides the essential blueprints for protein synthesis. Genes associated with oocyte maturation and fertilization would be transcribed and translated following the rules of the genetic code.
Epigenetic Language: Epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications, play a role in regulating gene expression during oocyte maturation. These modifications act as a "language" that modifies how the genetic code is read, without changing the underlying DNA sequence.
Signal Transduction Pathways: Cells communicate using signaling molecules. In the context of oocyte maturation, hormones like LH and FSH trigger signal transduction pathways within the oocyte and surrounding granulosa cells. This cellular "language" translates external cues into appropriate intracellular responses.
Calcium Signaling: Calcium oscillations in the oocyte post-fertilization represent another critical cellular language. This signaling is essential for oocyte activation and the prevention of multiple sperm entries.
Post-Transcriptional Regulation: Small RNA molecules, like microRNAs, play a role in controlling gene expression at the post-transcriptional level. They act as a regulatory "code," ensuring the right proteins are produced at the right time.
Protein-Protein Interaction Language: The interactions between different proteins orchestrate many cellular processes. For instance, during oocyte maturation and meiosis, complexes like the anaphase-promoting complex (APC) and proteins like cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases interact to ensure proper cell cycle progression.
Zona Pellucida Recognition: The zona pellucida surrounding the oocyte has specific proteins that interact with sperm surface proteins. This interaction language ensures that only specific sperm from the same species can bind and penetrate the oocyte.
Metabolic Communication: Metabolites and their associated pathways communicate the oocyte's energy status, ensuring it has the necessary resources to support maturation, fertilization, and the initial stages of embryonic development.
Extracellular Matrix Interactions: The oocyte is embedded within a matrix and communicates with its surrounding cumulus cells. This interaction is facilitated by molecules like integrins and is essential for oocyte maturation.

These diverse codes and languages underline the complexity of oocyte maturation and fertilization. They work in concert to ensure the precise coordination and timing of events, leading to the creation of a viable zygote capable of developing into an embryo.

Which epigenetic regulatory mechanisms might be responsible for overseeing oocyte maturation and ensuring successful fertilization?

Epigenetic mechanisms play a pivotal role in regulating oocyte maturation and ensuring successful fertilization. They modulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Here are some of the prominent epigenetic regulatory mechanisms involved in these processes:

DNA Methylation: This process involves the addition of a methyl group to cytosine bases in DNA. In oocytes, genome-wide demethylation and subsequent remethylation events are observed. DNA methylation patterns established during oocyte maturation are crucial for embryonic development post-fertilization.
Histone Modifications: Histones, around which DNA is wound, can undergo various post-translational modifications such as acetylation, methylation, and phosphorylation. These modifications can either activate or repress gene transcription. For instance, histone H3 lysine 9 methylation (H3K9me2) is a mark of transcriptional repression and is essential for the establishment of oocyte-specific gene expression profiles.
Histone Replacement: Oocytes undergo a unique process where some canonical histones are replaced by variants, such as the replacement of histone H3 with its variant H3.3. This replacement can influence chromatin structure and gene expression patterns, making it conducive for subsequent fertilization and embryonic development.
Non-coding RNAs: Various non-coding RNAs, especially small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and PIWI-interacting RNAs (piRNAs), are active in oocytes. They play crucial roles in suppressing transposable elements, thus maintaining genomic integrity.
Chromatin Remodeling: Chromatin remodeling complexes reposition nucleosomes, influencing DNA accessibility. During oocyte maturation, chromatin undergoes restructuring, transitioning from a less condensed (euchromatic) state to a more condensed (heterochromatic) state, ensuring the proper orchestration of meiotic divisions.
RNA Methylation: Modifications on RNA molecules, like N6-methyladenosine (m6A), can affect RNA stability, translation, and other RNA processing events. In oocytes, m6A modification has been linked to regulating the stability of specific transcripts essential for oocyte maturation.
X-chromosome Inactivation: In female mammals, one of the two X chromosomes in each cell is inactivated to ensure dosage compensation. This process is regulated by epigenetic modifications and non-coding RNAs, like Xist, and begins in the oocyte.
Imprinting: Genomic imprinting results in genes being expressed in a parent-of-origin-specific manner. Imprints are established in developing oocytes and sperm and are maintained post-fertilization. These imprints are crucial for embryonic development, ensuring the appropriate monoallelic expression of specific genes.

These epigenetic mechanisms collectively ensure that oocytes mature appropriately and are poised for successful fertilization and subsequent embryonic development. Their disruptions can lead to infertility, developmental abnormalities, or imprinting disorders.

Which signaling pathways are believed to play a pivotal role in oocyte maturation, cumulus expansion, and eventual fertilization?

Several signaling pathways have been identified as key regulators of oocyte maturation, cumulus expansion, and fertilization. Here's an overview of these pathways:

Cyclic AMP (cAMP) Signaling: The oocyte maintains meiotic arrest through high intra-oocyte cAMP levels. The decrease in cAMP in the oocyte triggers meiotic resumption. Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) can increase cAMP in the surrounding cumulus cells, which can then help maintain oocyte meiotic arrest indirectly via gap junctions.
Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Signaling: LH surge is a primary trigger for oocyte maturation in vivo. Upon LH stimulation, a cascade of events is initiated, leading to meiosis resumption, cumulus expansion, and ovulation.
Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) Pathway: Activated in response to the LH surge, the MAPK pathway, particularly the extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) subgroup, is crucial for oocyte maturation and cumulus cell expansion.
Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) Network: EGF-like growth factors, such as amphiregulin, are produced by granulosa cells in response to LH signaling. These factors play a pivotal role in cumulus expansion and oocyte maturation.
Transforming Growth Factor-beta (TGF-β) Superfamily Signaling: This family includes growth differentiation factors (GDFs) and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). In the ovary, these factors are involved in various processes, including folliculogenesis, oocyte maturation, and cumulus expansion.
Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase (PI3K) Pathway: Active in early stages of oocyte development, the PI3K pathway, along with its downstream effector Akt, is essential for oocyte growth and survival.
Calcium Signaling: Upon sperm entry, there's a rapid increase in cytosolic calcium in the oocyte, driving oocyte activation and subsequent events leading to fertilization.
cGMP (Cyclic guanosine monophosphate) Signaling: Produced by granulosa cells, cGMP plays a role in maintaining meiotic arrest in the oocyte by preventing the decline of intra-oocyte cAMP.
Gap Junction Communication: Gap junctions allow communication between the oocyte and surrounding cumulus cells, facilitating the transfer of crucial metabolites, cAMP, and cGMP.
Prostaglandin Signaling: Prostaglandins, produced in response to the LH surge, are involved in various reproductive processes, including ovulation, cumulus expansion, and modulation of the immune response post-fertilization.

These pathways work in a coordinated manner to ensure successful oocyte maturation, cumulus expansion, and fertilization. Dysregulation in any of these pathways can lead to issues related to fertility and reproductive health.

What regulatory codes are crucial for the proper coordination of meiotic resumption, metaphase II arrest, and subsequent activation upon fertilization?

The process of oocyte maturation and fertilization is governed by intricate regulatory mechanisms to ensure proper coordination of meiotic resumption, metaphase II arrest, and subsequent activation upon fertilization. Here are the primary regulatory codes:

Cyclic AMP (cAMP) Signaling: Elevated levels of cAMP in the oocyte are responsible for maintaining meiotic arrest. Any decrease in cAMP levels triggers meiotic resumption. A phosphodiesterase (PDE3A) can degrade cAMP in the oocyte, leading to meiotic progression.
Maturation-Promoting Factor (MPF): Comprising Cyclin B and Cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1), MPF is crucial for the progression of the oocyte through meiosis. It is activated at the time of meiotic resumption and remains active until metaphase II arrest.
Cytostatic Factor (CSF): Responsible for maintaining the oocyte in metaphase II arrest after meiotic resumption, CSF activity ensures that the oocyte doesn't prematurely complete meiosis before fertilization.
Calcium Oscillations: The entry of sperm into the oocyte triggers calcium oscillations, which play a pivotal role in oocyte activation. This release of calcium from intracellular stores leads to the activation of various downstream pathways essential for the completion of meiosis and the initiation of embryonic development.
Protein Kinases and Phosphatases: Both kinases (like CDK1) and phosphatases play critical roles in the regulation of meiotic processes. They modulate the phosphorylation status of numerous proteins, ensuring proper cell cycle progression and metaphase II arrest.
Anaphase-Promoting Complex/Cyclosome (APC/C): The APC/C is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that targets specific proteins, such as Cyclin B, for degradation. It's instrumental in controlling the progression of the cell cycle and the exit from metaphase II following fertilization.
Mos-MEK-MAPK Pathway: This pathway is vital for the activation of MPF and the maintenance of metaphase II arrest. The Mos protein kinase gets activated during oocyte maturation and subsequently activates a cascade involving MEK and MAPK.
Polar Body Extrusion: The successful extrusion of the first polar body after meiotic resumption and a second polar body post-fertilization ensures the oocyte retains a haploid chromosome set, which is essential for proper embryonic development post-fertilization.
Sperm-Induced Pathways: Sperm entry introduces factors that stimulate the oocyte to complete meiosis. One such factor is phospholipase C zeta (PLCζ) introduced by the sperm, which induces calcium oscillations.
Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Store: The ER of the oocyte acts as a store for calcium ions. Upon fertilization, the ER releases these calcium ions in a series of oscillations, driving oocyte activation.

These regulatory codes and pathways ensure the precise coordination of the complex events surrounding oocyte maturation and fertilization, laying the foundation for successful embryonic development.

Is there conclusive scientific evidence that points to the evolutionary development of the oocyte maturation and fertilization mechanisms?

Oocyte maturation and fertilization are quintessential processes for sexual reproduction, vital for the continuation of many species. The complexity and interdependence of the systems responsible for these events raise profound questions regarding their evolutionary origins.
Complexity and Requirements for Functionality: The entire process of oocyte maturation and fertilization relies on an intricate dance of genetic codes, signaling pathways, and protein interactions. Each component must be precisely calibrated and timed to ensure successful reproduction. The assembly and coordination of these components are essential, without which the process would fail.
Issues with Stepwise Evolution: A significant challenge to the traditional evolutionary paradigm, in this context, is understanding how such a multifaceted system could have evolved step by step. The mechanistic interdependence is so tightly woven that intermediate or partial systems seem non-functional. Without a functional intermediate, there would be nothing for natural selection to act upon, making the gradual build-up of these systems difficult to fathom.
Interdependent Systems: Many elements of the oocyte maturation and fertilization process are co-dependent. For instance, the cyclic AMP (cAMP) signaling that maintains meiotic arrest is meaningless without the subsequent decrease in cAMP levels to trigger meiotic resumption. Similarly, the anaphase-promoting complex, which targets specific proteins for degradation, requires those proteins to be present and functional for their role to be meaningful.
Requirement of Multiple Elements for Basic Functionality: There's no reproductive advantage to having only a portion of the fertilization mechanism in place. Without the entirety of the process, from oocyte maturation to fertilization, there would be no successful reproduction. Hence, having a partial system or one without the others would render it non-functional, challenging the idea of gradual evolutionary steps leading to the full system.
Proteins and Molecular Machines: The protein structures involved in these processes are often likened to molecular machines, with each part essential for the machine's function. Missing or malfunctioning parts would make these molecular machines ineffective.
Irreducible Complexity: This concept posits that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection. The interdependence of the elements in oocyte maturation and fertilization fits this concept, as removing one piece often renders the system non-functional.

In light of the above, it's compelling to consider that such intricacy, precision, and interdependence observed in oocyte maturation and fertilization mechanisms point to a design, that's deliberate and intelligent. The emergence of these mechanisms all at once, fully operational from their inception, underscores the limitations of traditional evolutionary explanations and favors the perspective of intelligent design.

Considering the intricacies of oocyte maturation and fertilization, are these processes viewed as irreducibly complex and interdependent?

The sophisticated orchestration of oocyte maturation and fertilization stands as a testament to the marvels of biological systems. The myriad manufacturing, signaling, and regulatory codes intricately intertwined in these processes demonstrate a complexity that transcends mere chance or stepwise evolution.

Interdependent Manufacturing, Signaling, and Regulatory Codes: The genetic and epigenetic codes responsible for protein synthesis, cellular communication, and regulatory processes within the oocyte are all interconnected. A change or malfunction in one system could spell disaster for the entire process. The cyclic AMP (cAMP) signaling that maintains meiotic arrest is dependent on various enzymes and regulators, and without its subsequent decrease, meiotic resumption would not occur. This exemplifies the intricate balance and dependency of each element on the other.
Communication and Crosstalk: Within the cellular environment, various codes and languages communicate seamlessly to ensure the maturation and readiness of the oocyte for fertilization. For instance, the surge in luteinizing hormone (LH) initiates the resumption of meiosis, and this requires a complex interplay of signaling pathways. The MAPK and PI3K pathways, among others, exhibit crosstalk to regulate the final stages of oocyte maturation and cumulus expansion. These communication networks, essential for normal cell function, are so tightly integrated that if one were absent or malfunctioning, the overall process would fail.
Irreducible Complexity: The concept of irreducible complexity posits that some biological systems cannot function without all their components being present and fully operational. This idea fits the processes of oocyte maturation and fertilization, where each step, each signal, and each regulator is critical. For instance, without the proper signaling from surrounding cumulus cells, the oocyte would not undergo the necessary changes to become receptive to sperm.
Challenges with Stepwise Evolution: Given this backdrop of intricate interdependence, the emergence of these processes through a gradual, stepwise evolutionary mechanism appears implausible. If only one part of this system were to develop without its complementary counterparts, there would be no reproductive advantage, as the process would remain incomplete and non-functional. Such a half-formed system wouldn't be selected for in evolutionary terms.
Fully Operational from the Start: Considering the necessity for all components to be present for the system to function, it is compelling to suggest that the mechanisms governing oocyte maturation and fertilization emerged fully formed. They would need to be operational from the get-go, a scenario that resonates with the perspective of intelligent design.

In light of the profound interconnectedness and precision observed in these biological processes, it becomes increasingly evident that such systems, rather than arising from mere happenstance, bear the hallmarks of design – deliberate, intentional, and intelligent.

After oocyte maturation is complete and fertilization ensues, which other intra- and extracellular systems does it collaborate or interlink with?

Following oocyte maturation and fertilization, the resulting zygote sets forth on a developmental journey that involves numerous intricate processes. This voyage requires the coordinated efforts of both intracellular and extracellular systems. Here's an overview of these interconnected systems:

Intracellular Systems:

Cytoskeleton Dynamics: Post-fertilization, the cytoskeleton plays a pivotal role in processes like pronuclear migration and the initial cell divisions of the zygote.
Cell Cycle Regulation: Ensures that the zygote undergoes timely and regulated cell divisions, transitioning through the G1, S, G2, and M phases.
DNA Replication and Repair Mechanisms: These systems ensure that the genomic material of the newly formed zygote is faithfully replicated and maintained.
Transcriptional and Translational Machinery: They drive the expression of early embryonic genes, marking the transition from maternal to zygotic control of development.

Extracellular Systems

Zona Pellucida Modifications: After fertilization, the zona pellucida undergoes changes to prevent polyspermy, ensuring that only one sperm fertilizes the oocyte.
Cell-Cell Communication: As the zygote divides, cells communicate through gap junctions and other signaling mechanisms to coordinate developmental processes.
Implantation Signaling: The embryo communicates with the maternal endometrium to facilitate implantation. This involves both paracrine signaling and physical interactions between the embryo and the uterine lining.
Nutrient and Waste Exchange: As the embryo implants and begins to grow, systems are established for nutrient uptake from the maternal blood supply and waste removal.
Endocrine Interactions: The embryo, and later the placenta, produces hormones like human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) that signal to the mother's body to support the pregnancy.
Immune Tolerance Mechanisms: The maternal immune system must recognize and tolerate the semi-allogenic embryo. This is facilitated by complex interactions at the maternal-fetal interface, involving trophoblasts and maternal immune cells.

These systems, both intra- and extracellular, collaborate seamlessly to ensure the successful progression from a single zygote to a multi-cellular embryo. Their intricate coordination emphasizes the complexity and precision inherent in reproductive and developmental processes.

1. Systems that are based on semiotic codes, languages, and exhibit interdependence, often requiring their components to emerge simultaneously, are indicative of a coordinated and purposeful setup.
2. The processes following oocyte maturation and fertilization, including both intracellular and extracellular systems, are based on semiotic codes and languages, show intricate interdependence, and often appear to require simultaneous emergence for optimal functionality.
3. Therefore, the processes following oocyte maturation and fertilization are indicative of a coordinated and purposeful setup.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

252Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Aug 31, 2023 3:17 pm

Otangelo


Admin

37. Photoreceptor Development

How do photoreceptors differentiate and become specialized to detect light stimuli?
How does photoreceptor development ensure the accurate transduction of light signals into neural messages?
What is the supposed appearance of photoreceptor development mechanisms in the evolutionary timeline?
What specific de novo genetic information is crucial for the origination and maturation of photoreceptors?
Which manufacturing codes and languages are pivotal in crafting the specialized proteins and structures required for photoreceptor function?
What are the epigenetic regulatory strategies at play that ensure the synchronized development of photoreceptors within the retina?
How do signaling pathways steer the trajectory of photoreceptor development and maintain their functional status?
What regulatory codes are instrumental in maintaining the intricate balance and functionality of photoreceptors post-development?
Is there compelling scientific evidence indicating that the evolutionary processes paved the way for the complex nature of photoreceptor development?
Can the multifaceted nature of photoreceptor development and function be viewed as exhibiting characteristics of irreducibility and interdependence?
Once photoreceptor development is well-established, which other intra- and extracellular systems does it interface with for efficient light perception and signal relay?


38. Regional Specification

How does regional specification demarcate distinct areas of an organism to facilitate specialized functionalities?
How do cells within specific regions acquire unique identities, and how does this influence the organism's overall structure and function?
What is the proposed appearance of regional specification mechanisms in the evolutionary timeline?
What distinct de novo genetic information is necessary for the initiation and maintenance of regional specification?
Which manufacturing codes and languages are essential for the differentiation processes associated with regional specification?
What are the epigenetic regulatory strategies that ensure the accuracy and precision of regional specification during development?
How do signaling pathways modulate and guide the trajectory of regional specification throughout developmental stages?
What are the key regulatory codes that safeguard the robustness of regional specification processes and their subsequent maintenance?
Is there robust scientific evidence suggesting that evolutionary processes were responsible for the emergence of regional specification mechanisms?
Is the complexity and precision seen in regional specification indicative of attributes of irreducibility and interdependence?
Once regional specification is achieved, which intra- and extracellular systems does it coordinate with to manifest a cohesive and functional organismal structure?


39. Segmentation and Somitogenesis

How do segmentation and somitogenesis contribute to the periodic structure in embryonic development, especially in the vertebrate body plan?
What mechanisms drive the rhythmic segmentation of somites, and how does this segmentation ensure the proper formation of skeletal muscle, vertebrae, and dermis?
What is the proposed appearance of segmentation and somitogenesis mechanisms in the evolutionary timeline?
What distinct de novo genetic information is necessary for the initiation and maintenance of segmentation and somitogenesis?
Which manufacturing codes and languages are essential for the iterative processes associated with segmentation and somitogenesis?
What are the epigenetic regulatory strategies that ensure the accuracy and precision of segmentation during development?
How do signaling pathways modulate and guide the trajectory of somite formation and segmentation throughout developmental stages?
What are the key regulatory codes that safeguard the robustness of segmentation and somitogenesis processes and their subsequent maintenance?
Is there robust scientific evidence suggesting that evolutionary processes were responsible for the emergence of segmentation and somitogenesis mechanisms?
Is the complexity and precision seen in segmentation and somitogenesis indicative of attributes of irreducibility and interdependence?
Once segmentation and somitogenesis are achieved, which intra- and extracellular systems do they coordinate with to manifest a cohesive and functional organismal structure?


40. Signaling Pathways

How do signaling pathways function as molecular relay systems to transduce and amplify intracellular and extracellular signals, modulating cellular decisions?
What roles do different signaling pathways play in determining cell fate, proliferation, differentiation, and other cellular responses?
What is the proposed appearance of these intricate signaling pathways in the evolutionary timeline?
What unique de novo genetic information is required to instantiate complex signaling pathways in a cell or organism?
Which manufacturing codes and languages are essential for the synthesis, regulation, and function of proteins and molecules involved in signaling pathways?
What are the epigenetic regulatory controls that ensure signaling pathways are activated or silenced at appropriate times and locations?
Which cross-talk mechanisms and feedback loops are crucial in signaling pathways to maintain homeostasis and prevent aberrant signaling?
What are the specific regulatory codes that oversee the accuracy and specificity of signaling cascades, ensuring proper cellular responses?
Is there compelling scientific evidence to support the idea that signaling pathways arose through evolutionary processes?
Given the complexity and integration of signaling pathways, are there elements of irreducibility and interdependence that challenge a gradualist evolutionary narrative?
Upon the establishment and operation of signaling pathways, which other intra- and extracellular systems do they interact with to achieve coordinated cellular and physiological outcomes?


41. Spatiotemporal Gene Expression

How do cells coordinate the timing and spatial localization of gene expression to orchestrate complex developmental and physiological processes?
What mechanisms ensure the precise spatiotemporal patterns of gene expression during embryogenesis, tissue regeneration, and organ function?
What are the hypothesized appearances of intricate mechanisms for spatiotemporal gene expression control in the evolutionary timeline?
What distinct de novo genetic information would be necessary to instantiate complex regulatory systems for spatiotemporal control of gene expression?
Which manufacturing codes and languages are required for the synthesis, regulation, and function of factors governing spatiotemporal gene expression?
What are the epigenetic regulatory systems that control the temporal and spatial activation or silencing of genes in response to developmental or environmental cues?
How do cellular signaling pathways intersect with and modulate spatiotemporal gene expression patterns?
What specific regulatory codes ensure the precision of spatiotemporal gene expression, integrating genetic and epigenetic information for context-specific outcomes?
Is there robust scientific evidence to suggest that spatiotemporal gene expression controls arose through evolutionary processes?
Given the multi-layered regulation of spatiotemporal gene expression, are there aspects of its mechanism that appear irreducible or interdependent, making a piecemeal evolutionary approach problematic?
Once systems for spatiotemporal gene expression are instantiated and operational, with which other intra- and extracellular systems do they interlink for coordinated developmental and physiological responses?


42. Stem Cell Regulation and Differentiation

How do stem cells maintain their pluripotency while retaining the capacity to differentiate into a variety of specialized cell types?
In what ways do the intrinsic and extrinsic signals govern the delicate balance between stem cell self-renewal and differentiation?
When considering the evolutionary timeline, at what juncture are the mechanisms governing stem cell regulation and differentiation postulated to have appeared?
What novel genetic information would need to emerge to instantiate a cell type with the remarkable abilities of stem cells?
Which manufacturing codes and languages would be imperative for the establishment, maintenance, and regulation of stem cell populations and their progeny?
How do epigenetic regulatory systems, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications, influence stem cell fate decisions?
What signaling pathways play pivotal roles in guiding stem cell differentiation and ensuring appropriate responses to environmental and developmental cues?
What specific regulatory codes ensure the precision of stem cell self-renewal versus differentiation, harmonizing both processes for organismal development and homeostasis?
Is there compelling scientific evidence that suggests the emergence of stem cell regulatory mechanisms through evolutionary processes?
Given the complex web of factors and signals governing stem cell behavior, are there elements that appear irreducible or interdependent, posing challenges for a gradual evolutionary development?
Once systems for stem cell regulation and differentiation are operational, how do they interface with other intra- and extracellular systems to ensure coordinated tissue and organ development?


43. Symbiotic Relationships and Microbiota Influence

How do symbiotic relationships and microbiota interactions impact the host organism at the cellular and physiological levels?
What processes underpin the establishment and maintenance of symbiotic relationships, ensuring mutual benefit and avoiding detrimental interactions?
In the evolutionary timeline, when are symbiotic relationships and the influence of microbiota hypothesized to have first emerged?
To establish and sustain such intricate symbiotic associations, what de novo genetic information might be necessary?
Which manufacturing codes and languages are central to the establishment and regulation of symbiotic relationships and interactions with the microbiota?
How might epigenetic regulatory mechanisms be employed to facilitate adaptive responses to changing microbiota landscapes or to modulate symbiotic interactions?
Are there specific signaling pathways pivotal in mediating interactions between host organisms and their associated microbiota or symbiotic partners?
Which regulatory codes ensure the stability of symbiotic associations and prevent overgrowth or harmful interactions between the host and its microbiota?
Does current scientific evidence support the idea that complex symbiotic systems and microbiota-host interactions evolved gradually?
Considering the intricacies of symbiotic relationships and microbiota influences, are there systems or mechanisms that appear irreducibly interdependent, making their stepwise evolutionary emergence challenging to explain?
Once established, how do systems governing symbiotic relationships and microbiota interactions interplay with other cellular and extracellular systems within the host?


44. Syncytium formation

What are the primary cellular and molecular processes involved in syncytium formation?
How does syncytium formation contribute to tissue integrity and specific physiological functions?
When is syncytium formation proposed to have first appeared in the evolutionary timeline?
What de novo genetic information might be necessary to instantiate the process of syncytium formation?
Which manufacturing codes and languages would be integral to initiating and guiding the process of cells merging into a syncytium?
What role might epigenetic regulatory mechanisms play in the orchestration or inhibition of syncytium formation, especially in tissues where it's crucial, such as in certain muscle tissues?
Are there dedicated signaling pathways that either promote or inhibit syncytium formation based on cellular needs?
What regulatory codes are in place to ensure that syncytium formation occurs only when and where needed, preventing unintended cellular fusions?
Does the current scientific literature provide robust evidence supporting the idea that syncytium formation evolved in a stepwise manner?
Given the precise regulation required for syncytium formation, are there aspects of this process that seem irreducibly complex or interdependent, suggesting challenges for a gradual evolutionary origin?
Once syncytium formation processes are instantiated and operational, with which other intra and extracellular systems might they be interdependent?


45. Transposons and Retrotransposons

How do transposons and retrotransposons influence genome structure and function?
What roles do these elements play in genetic variability and evolution?
When in the evolutionary timeline are transposons and retrotransposons believed to have first appeared?
What de novo genetic information would be necessary to initiate and control the activity of transposons and retrotransposons?
What manufacturing codes and languages would be required for the mobilization, insertion, and suppression of transposon and retrotransposon activity?
Which epigenetic regulatory mechanisms may govern the activity and suppression of transposons and retrotransposons within the genome?
Are there specific signaling pathways that modulate the behavior of these mobile genetic elements in response to cellular or environmental triggers?
Which regulatory codes ensure the controlled mobilization and insertion of transposons and retrotransposons, to minimize deleterious effects while possibly benefiting the host organism?
Is there compelling scientific evidence that suggests a stepwise evolutionary origin for these mobile genetic elements, given their potential for genomic disruption?
Given their capability to induce significant genetic change, do transposons and retrotransposons present cases of irreducibility or interdependence that challenge a fragmented evolutionary genesis?
Once the mechanisms governing transposons and retrotransposons are established and active, which other cellular systems might they interact with or depend on for their regulation and integration?


46. Tissue Induction and Organogenesis

How do tissue induction and organogenesis processes coordinate the formation of differentiated tissues and organs?
What mechanisms govern the communication between different cell types during these processes?
At what point in the evolutionary timeline are tissue induction and organogenesis hypothesized to have appeared?
Which de novo genetic information would be indispensable for initiating and overseeing tissue differentiation and organ formation?
What are the manufacturing codes and languages needed to drive the myriad processes involved in tissue induction and organogenesis?
What epigenetic regulatory mechanisms would be essential for controlling the spatial and temporal aspects of these developmental events?
Which signaling pathways are integral to the orchestration of tissue induction and organogenesis, ensuring cells acquire their proper fates and positions?
What regulatory codes govern the sequences and timings of events in organogenesis, ensuring functional outcomes for the organism?
Is there robust scientific evidence supporting an evolutionary emergence of these complex processes, considering their inherent coordinated nature?
Do tissue induction and organogenesis present irreducibility challenges, given the myriad coordinated processes and factors required for functional outcomes?
Once tissue induction and organogenesis are operational, how do they interface with other cellular and extracellular systems, such as vascularization or innervation, to ensure holistic organ functionality?







43. Stem Cell Regulation and Differentiation: From Pluripotency to Specialization

The marvel of stem cell pluripotency and differentiation dynamics.
Cellular mechanisms driving the balance between stem cell renewal and maturation.
Delving into the evolutionary beginnings of stem cell regulations.
Genetic bedrock enabling stem cell diversity and flexibility.
Master codes orchestrating stem cell behavior and lineage decisions.
Harnessing epigenetic nuances for precision in stem cell fate determinations.
The linchpin signaling pathways choreographing stem cell differentiation.
Safeguarding mechanisms that maintain stem cell integrity and purpose.
Analyzing evolutionary narratives behind stem cell regulatory emergence.
Probing stem cells for hints of irreducibility and interdependence.
Integrating stem cell dynamics into the broader tapestry of organismal development.

44. Symbiotic Relationships and Microbiota: A Delicate Dance of Mutualism

The profound influence of microbiota on host cellular and physiological landscapes.
Cellular orchestration fostering mutualistic partnerships and warding off parasitism.
Journeying through time to pinpoint microbiota's evolutionary debut.
Genetic innovations fostering the intricate dance of symbiotic relationships.
Decoding the genomic lexicon guiding symbiotic interplay.
Exploiting epigenetic landscapes for adaptability in shifting symbiotic scenarios.
Key signaling conduits mediating the dialogues between host and microbiota.
Guardrails in place to maintain the equilibrium of symbiotic partnerships.
Weighing the evolutionary tales of symbiotic relationship genesis.
Investigating symbiotic systems for layers of irreducibility and synergy.
Fitting the symbiotic jigsaw into the grand puzzle of cellular systems.

45. Syncytium Formation: The Fusion of Cellular Frontiers

The art and science of cellular unification in syncytium formation.
Cellular directives compelling the merger into a syncytial entity.
Tracking the evolutionary footsteps leading to syncytium advent.
The genetic codes enabling the ballet of syncytium formation.
Deciphering the language guiding cells towards syncytial unity.
Epigenetic maestros fine-tuning the symphony of syncytial formation.
Signaling sentinels dictating when and where cells should fuse.
Safeguards ensuring syncytium formation remains a coordinated spectacle.
Dissecting the evolutionary script of syncytium's origination.
Evaluating syncytium for complexities that challenge its piecemeal emergence.
Intertwining syncytium processes with the broader cellular narrative.

46. Transposons and Retrotransposons: Genome's Mobile Storytellers

Understanding the dynamics of these mobile genetic elements within genomes.
Mechanisms enabling the dance of transposition without genomic chaos.
Tracing the evolutionary tales of transposons and retrotransposons.
Decoding the genetic innovations powering the transpositional journeys.
Master scripts governing the mobilization and integration of these genetic wanderers.
Epigenetic curators moderating the stories told by transposons and retrotransposons.
Signaling hubs orchestrating the harmonious activity of these mobile elements.
Regulatory checkpoints ensuring genomic narratives remain coherent amidst mobility.
Assessing evolutionary chronicles explaining the birth of transpositional elements.
Probing for elements of irreducibility and synergy within these genetic nomads.
Envisaging the interactions between mobile elements and the genomic theater at large.

47. Tissue Induction and Organogenesis: Crafting the Organismal Masterpiece

Unraveling the intricacies of tissue differentiation and organ formation.
Cellular conversations forging the paths of tissue induction and organ genesis.
Embarking on the evolutionary voyage of organogenesis and tissue induction.
Decoding the genetic innovations sculpting tissues and crafting organs.
Unearthing the scripts guiding the magnum opus of organ formation.
Epigenetic architects designing the spatiotemporal tableau of organogenesis.
Signaling luminaries illuminating the paths of tissue induction.
Safety nets ensuring the orchestrated elegance of organ and tissue formation.
Pondering the evolutionary tales explaining the mastery of organogenesis.
Investigating organogenesis for elements of irreducibility and symbiosis.
Weaving organogenesis processes into the grand tapestry of organismal design.



Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Aug 31, 2023 6:19 pm; edited 2 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

253Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:51 pm

Otangelo


Admin

//// i want the response to appear like this. Example:

After oocyte maturation is complete and fertilization ensues, which other intra- and extracellular systems does it collaborate or interlink with?

This voyage requires the coordinated efforts of both intracellular and extracellular systems. Here's an overview of these interconnected systems:

Intracellular Systems

Haptista: Comprising haptophyte algae and centrohelids, the Haptista likely emerged around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
CRuMs: As a recently proposed supergroup, the exact divergence timing for CRuMs is less well-defined. Tentative estimates suggest a divergence around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
Orphan Taxa: The evolutionary timeline for orphan taxa remains uncertain due to the lack of clear phylogenomic placement. Some might have ancient origins similar to Hemimastigophora, while others might have emerged more recently.


/////// do not use words like likely, could, probably, but use the words:  would, it is hypothesized, would have.  here an example: Neuronal pruning and synaptogenesis are complex processes that are intimately linked to the development and functionality of the nervous system. While the exact point in the evolutionary timeline when these processes first appeared is not definitively known, it's supposed that they emerged gradually as nervous systems became more sophisticated.

1 Haptista: Comprising haptophyte algae and centrohelids, the Haptista likely emerged around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
2 CRuMs: As a recently proposed supergroup, the exact divergence timing for CRuMs is less well-defined. Tentative estimates suggest a divergence around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
3 Orphan Taxa: The evolutionary timeline for orphan taxa remains uncertain due to the lack of clear phylogenomic placement. Some might have ancient origins similar to Hemimastigophora, while others might have emerged more recently.


The evolution of nervous systems would have been a gradual process that spans millions of years, making it challenging to pinpoint precise stages in which specific mechanisms like neuronal pruning and synaptogenesis emerged.

Early Nervous System Evolution: In the earliest multicellular organisms, nerve cells (neurons) would have started to form basic networks, allowing for simple sensory and motor responses. These early networks would have lacked the complex pruning and refinement mechanisms seen in more advanced nervous systems.
Emergence of Synaptic Connections: As nervous systems would have become more complex, the formation of synaptic connections would have became more important. Synapses, the junctions between neurons, would have allowed for communication and signal transmission between nerve cells. Over time, mechanisms that promoted the strengthening or weakening of synapses would have emerged to enhance the efficiency of signal transmission.
Refinement and Pruning: As nervous systems would have continued to evolve, mechanisms of neuronal pruning probably would have developed as a way to fine-tune neural connections. This would have been driven by the need for more efficient neural circuits, as well as the optimization of limited resources in the developing organisms.
Adaptation and Plasticity: The ability to form new synapses and adapt existing ones, which is a hallmark of synaptogenesis, would have provided significant evolutionary advantages. Organisms with the ability to adjust their neural circuits based on experiences and environmental changes would have been better equipped to survive and thrive in changing conditions.


Point out, why an evolutionary set-up, step by step, is extremely unlikely, faced on the complexity, the requirements to instantiate various codes, languages, signaling, and proteins that had to be operational right from the beginning, and intermediate stages would bear no function, and would not be selected. Explain how this interdependence could and would not have evolved in a stepwise fashion, because one mechanism, language, or code system, without the other, would bear no function, and therefore, they had to be instantiated and created all at once, fully operational, from scratch. write  from the perspective of a proponent of intelligent design. Do not write: " From an intelligent design standpoint ". Just say it.Do not put enumeration numbers at the beginning of the sentences. 


irreducibility and Interdependence of the systems to instantiate and operate . explain which of the manufacturing, signaling, and regulatory codes and languages in the process of creating, developing, and operating      are irreducible, and interdependent within each other, and how one would not bear function without the other. Explain which code and languages communicate with each other, crosstalk, and what communication systems are essential to have functional normal cell operation. Explain how this interdependence could and would not have evolved in a stepwise fashion, because one mechanism, language, or code system, without the other, would bear no function, and therefore, they had to be instantiated and created all at once, fully operational, from scratch. write from the perspective of a proponent of intelligent design. Do not write: " From an intelligent design standpoint ". Just say it. Do not put enumeration numbers at the beginning of the sentences. 


Once it is instantiated and operational, what other intra and extracellular systems is it interdependent with?
Do not put enumeration numbers at the beginning of the sentences. 

/// write a syllogism, poiting to a designed set up, since these systems are based on semiotic code, languages, are interdependent, and had to emerge together, interlocked

give a short overview, describe it, and point out the importance in biological systems, and  Developmental Processes Shaping Organismal Form and Function



=========================================

////  provide me with  BBCode formatted references on the topics mentioned above. I'd like them in chronological order, in the following format: 

McLaren, A. (2003). Primordial germ cells in the mouse. Developmental Biology, 262(1), 1-15. Link. (This seminal paper provides an overview of germ cell development in mice, a common model organism.)
Raz, E. (2003). Primordial germ-cell development: the zebrafish perspective. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4(9), 690-700. Link. (Offers a comparative look using zebrafish, highlighting the conserved and unique mechanisms across species.)


=============================================


take the above list, subdivide and list them in the below topics and categories, and if one category does not have a paper in the provided list, add up to 5 papers related to the category and topic to the list. do formatting exactly the same in this format:  "Please provide me with  BBCode formatted references on the topics mentioned above. I'd like them in chronological order, in the following format: standard citation format for academic papers, typically resembling the APA format.

"Please provide me with  BBCode formatted references on the topics mentioned above. I'd like them in chronological order, in the following format: standard citation format for academic papers, typically resembling the APA format.

Genetic Components
Epigenetic Components of
Signaling Pathways
Regulatory Codes
Evolution
Interdependency

1. Brown, J. R. & Doolittle, W. F. (1995). Root of the Universal Tree of Life Based on Ancient Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase Gene Duplications. PNAS, 92(7). Link.
2. Woese, Carl. (1998). The universal ancestor. PNAS, 95(12), 6854–6859. Link.
3. Forterre, P. (2002). The origin of DNA genomes and DNA replication proteins. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 5(5), 525-532. Link.



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:08 pm; edited 10 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

254Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sun Sep 03, 2023 7:10 am

Otangelo


Admin

Slide 1:  This presentation will deal with the complex biosynthesis pathways of ribonucleotides and deoxyribonucleotides, the monomers, that make up RNA, and DNA, which stores genetic information

Slide 2:
Lynn Margulis American biologist, best known for her contributions to the fields of evolutionary biology, stated:

Slide 3:
To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.

Slide 4:
She addressed the significant challenges involved in bridging the gap between a mixture of basic building blocks and the complexity of living cells. She did highlight several key reasons why this transition is highly difficult to conceptualize by natural, unguided means.

Slide 5:
The idea of a child building the Large Hadron Collider out of LEGO bricks is playfully audacious! However, even this pales in comparison to the staggering complexity of creating the first living cell from scratch, prebiotically, without any guidance.

Slide 6:
We will show this today through the fascinating journey of nucleotide formation, offering a glimpse into the marvels of molecular coordination and showcasing the beauty of biological precision.

Slide 7:
DNA, famously known as the blueprint of life, and RNA, its messenger, are not just spontaneously existing molecules. They arise from highly coordinated biochemical pathways, synthesized by the cell.

Slide 8:
In the 1950s, and the dynamic duo, Watson and Crick, unveiled the iconic double helix structure of DNA. Meanwhile, the intricacies of RNA were slowly unraveling, showcasing its vital role in protein synthesis.

Slide 9
Nucleotides are not just tiny molecules, but the very alphabets of life's code! On the left, you can see the nucleotide molecule composed of three parts:  a sugar in blue, a phosphate group in light grey, and a nitrogenous base, in dark grey.
 
Slide 10
They are composed of purine and pyrimidine nucleotides

Slide 11
Robert Shapiro, Quimico conhecido, escreveu: Até hoje, nenhuma evidência de nucleotídeos, os fundamentais componentes do RNA e DNA, foi identificada em fontes naturais fora da vida terrestre. Se formos ainda mais específicos e removermos o fosfato - um dos três componentes cruciais - notaremos que nenhum nucleosídeo foi encontrado isoladamente. Aparentemente, a natureza não demonstra uma propensão natural para formar nucleosídeos ou nucleotídeos de forma que possamos identificar.

Slide 12
Living cells possess intricate metabolic pathways that allow them to create molecules and execute diverse functions. Explaining the emergence of such complexity solely through slow, unplanned processes is indeed a formidable task.

Slide 13
Only living cells biosynthesize nucleotides for information storage from scratch, using very complex biosynthesis pathways.

Slide 14
When we see circuit boards, we know immediately, they were designed by intelligence. They exhibit intricate arrangements of components. These configurations are tailored for specific functions. They combine materials like copper and fiberglass. Such combinations don't naturally occur together. The Solder points and sockets on circuit boards indicate intentional connections. They link components or external devices. They have defined functions when powered. Their operational capabilities hint at deliberate design.

Slide 15
Just as circuit boards have intricate arrangements tailored for specific functions, nucleotide metabolic pathways in cells showcase complex sequences of enzyme-catalyzed reactions optimized for nucleotide synthesis or degradation. The unique combinations of enzymes and molecules in these pathways mirror the specialized materials in circuit boards, both indicating purposeful design. Each connection in these pathways, like solder points on a board, ensures precise functionality, underpinning the essential operations of life. Lets have a look at the fascinating journey of nucleotide formation, offering a glimpse into the marvels of molecular coordination and showcasing the beauty of biological precision, fine-tuning, and design. The synthesis of these nucleotides is no random event. It's a meticulously orchestrated process. In the image, you can have an idea of the complexity to synthesize pyrimidine nucleobases, that are part or RNA and DNA.

Slide 16
Metabolism has always been considered as one of the most conserved cellular processes that remains invariable from Bacteria to Eucarya. That means, it had to be fully operational, when life started, to synthesize all the building blocks of life, and every part that a cell needs.

Slide 17
The formation of life's foundational building blocks, even within the earliest cell, demanded intricate metabolic routes. These routes required an exact orchestration of countless enzymes and the fine-tuning of specific chemical reactions. The thought of such sophisticated pathways, each with its distinct role, emerging purely by chance from a basic brew of prebiotic molecules is inconceivable.

Slide 18
Let me give an analogy, an illustration. Imagine a factory bustling with state-of-the-art robots. Raw materials begin their transformative journey, smoothly entering Robot 1's domain. Here, the initial magic unfolds. After its task is concluded, the advancing product moves on to Robot 2 for another layer of finesse. This intricate dance continues from one robot to the next, each responsible for a unique step in the choreography. When this mechanical ballet ends, the result is a masterfully designed component, much like a car door.

Slide 19
In a factory's assembly line, every machine is strategically positioned with a grand purpose in mind. These machines are intricately connected; if one falters, it can bring the whole production to a standstill, jeopardizing the assembly of the final product. Even a slight hiccup could stall the creation of vital parts, like the car door in a car factory.

Slide 20
In certain ways, a metabolic pathway is similar to a factory assembly line. Products are assembled from parts by workers who each perform a specific step in the manufacturing process. Enzymes of a cell are like workers on an assembly line; each is only responsible for a particular step in the assembly process.

Slide 21
In this image we see the biosynthesis pathway for pyrimidine.

Slide 22
We see six enzymes in the picture, which can be compared to robots in the humanmade factory line.

Slide 23
Pyrimidine is a component of deoxyribonucleotides, used in DNA that incorporates both purine and pyrimidine nucleobases. On the right side of the image, we see Cytosine, Thymine, and Uracil, each with a six-membered ring structure.

Slide 24
On the right side, we can see the production assembly line, and on the left, the biosynthesis pathway for pyrimidine. It's an analogous situation. Each protein can be compared to an autonomous robot on the assembly line. Every protein is absolutely essential to produce the final product.

Slide 25
This is an irreducibly complex system, one of many that had to be fully developed and operational for life to emerge. For instance, the scientific paper titled "Autocatalytic Chemical Networks at the Origin of Metabolism" suggests a minimum network of 209 reactions that were necessary to kickstart life. That's already tremendously complex.

Slide 26
To give you an idea: At each of the 209 reaction points, there's a protein, a molecular machine, that catalyzes a specific reaction.

Slide 27
Just as only a specific key fits a unique lock, only certain substrates can bind to specific enzyme pockets. “On one side, the lock and key is highlighted. On the other, a depiction of a molecule in blue is highlighted fitting into the enzyme in green. The notches on a key match the tumblers inside a lock, just like substrates have binding sites fitting the enzyme

Slide 28
When you insert and twist the right key, a door opens. This mirrors how a substrate connects with its enzyme to drive a distinct chemical reaction. Just as a key fits into a lock and turns, a substrate fits into an enzyme, leading to the formation of an enzyme-product complex. After unlocking, the key can be extracted, allowing for the process to start anew. Similarly, once the enzyme completes its function, it lets go of the product, making it available to bind with another substrate.

Slide 29
Complementary Shape: The active site of an enzyme has a shape that is complementary to the shape of its substrate. This ensures that only the correct substrate can bind efficiently.

Slide 30
The creation of a lock and key begins with an idea, originating from someone's mind. This concept is then translated onto paper, forming a detailed blueprint. This design outlines exact dimensions, appropriate fits, and specifies the required materials. Following this, the blueprint guides factory workers in producing the lock and key, ensuring they adhere strictly to the outlined specifications.

Slide 31
Only when the exact specifications, intricacies, dimensions, and sizes are adhered to will the lock and key operate effectively. this is a complex, specified, finely tuned system, based on the conceptualization, imagination, thought and foresight of an intelligent mind. Only intelligence has been observed to be able to make a blueprint, and the device, based on the blueprint.

Slide 32
Enzymes are biological catalysts that speed up chemical reactions in the body. Their ability to do so is tied to their structure, particularly the active site, which often presents itself as a "pocket" or groove . Here in the image we see an enzyme that has a specific pocket , where the substrate (shown in purple) binds closely. The active site of an enzyme can be thought of as a specialized chamber or docking station. The names, like Ala 135, are the amino acid residues, the building blocks that proteins are made of.

Slide 33
Here we can see the Organisation of the enzyme structure. Binding sites in blue, catalytic site in red and the substrate in black. Next, I will illustrate the precision of the binding sites, and how the need to be finely tuned to perform their specific reaction.

Slide 34
Now let me give you a concrete example. The last two enzymatic steps in the purine biosynthesis pathway, which makes the IMP nucleotide, part or RNA and DNA, is made by a two component enzyme called AICAR transformylase

Slide 35
Here we can see its enzyme pocket of this enzyme. The substrate is correctly oriented and held in place, allowing the enzyme to facilitate the chemical reaction. The specificity of this pocket ensures that, only the right substrates can enter and be acted upon. The substrate binds to a pocket formed by several amino acid residues, in the image labeled Gly36, for example. These residues and binding sites can range from just a few to more than a dozen, depending on the complexity of the enzyme and the substrate, as well as the reaction mechanism. In this image, we can see the substrate in dark blue in the middle, and the enzymatic pocket in the circle in light blue, The red small circles are ten binding sites of the amino acid forces that hold the substrate in the right position.

Slide 36
Postei isso no grupo no whatsapp ontem. Veja o que Hercules, químico, respondeu: Interações intermoleculares são consequência das moléculas só isso E Quiumento, ridicularizando: Ação clara e indiscutível dos Exus Quânticos Microscópicos, os labutadores incansáveis da natureza, mantendo tudo funcionando.

Slide 37
These amino acid residues must be the right ones for the enzyme to function optimally. At each position, there are twenty alternatives, from twenty different amino acids used in living biological systems, that could alternatively be chosen. Altering just one of the critical residues can have profound effects, from a slight reduction in efficiency to complete inactivation of the enzyme. Let's assume that only 3 to 5 key amino acids need to be in the right place in the enzyme reaction center, in the right sequence, for the enzyme to be reactive. Only then are there already at least three million alternative sequence options that would be useless. It's like winning the lottery. This shows how extremely unlikely it is to find the right combination.

Slide 38
Let's assume that only 3 to 5 key amino acids need to be in the right place in the enzyme reaction center, in the right sequence, for the enzyme to be reactive. Only then are there already at least three million alternative sequence options that would be useless. It's like winning the lottery. This shows how extremely unlikely it is to find the right combination of amino acids.

Slide 39
In the case of AICAR transformylase, not only does its active site need to be perfectly configured for substrate binding and catalysis, but its entire structure must be correctly folded and stabilized. Any alterations, misfolding, or mutations can lead to a non-functional enzyme or reduced enzymatic activity.

Slide 40
This enzyme has a structure composed of an average of about 500 amino acids, depending on the organism. So based on that number, we can calculate the odds, to have this enzyme by unguided Random means.

Slide 41
Dado que a proteína em questão tem um tamanho médio de cerca de 500 aminoácidos e considerando que existem 20 aminoácidos comuns encontrados nas proteínas:
O número total de sequências possíveis é 10^650

Slide 42
The most commonly cited estimate for the number of atoms in the observable universe is around 10^80. To understand 10^650, imagine having 10^570 separate universes, each with 10^80 atoms. Combine all the atoms in all those universes, and you're still not at 10^650.

Slide 43
Em 1999, no artigo: Um novo método para testar modelos de montagem de peptídeos prebióticos, escreveram Apesar de uma infinidade de teorias e estudos experimentais, a formação depeptídeos, juntamente com o aparecimento de todas as configurações L do amino individualresíduos ácidos, permanece um mistério não resolvido na origem da vida. E na conclusão do artigo: A esperada complexidade das misturas de produtos resultantes usando modelos existentes são um presságio de uma aventura dessas. Ou seja, o que há de se esperar, são apenas misturas que não prestam para nada.

Slide 44
E a autora deste artigo, mais recente, de 2010, diz nas considerações finais: Quão bem-sucedidas são as teorias do RNA primeiro, do RNA depois, do metabolismo primeiro e do metabolismo preparatório na elucidação do surgimento da vida como um processo evolutivo? Até agora, nenhum destes paradigmas pode reivindicar um apoio experimental decisivo.

Slide 45
E Lazcano, um pesquisador conhecido, escreveu em 2018: No entanto, as nossas atuais narrativas evolutivas não estão isentas de dificuldades, e há claro, enormes pontos cegos. A busca pela natureza e origem da vida não é um empreendimento científico modesto, e aqueles envolvidos neste campo sabemos que temos muito que ser modestos sobre, e é isso que deveríamos ser. Ou seja, na verdade, o que os pesquisadores confessam, é sempre o mesmo: Não há evidencias cientificas que corroboram a narrativa naturalista, e não há evidencias conclusivas que vida pode vir de não vida.

Slide 46
Now let me move to the pyrimidine biosynthesis pathway, another pathway, that is involved in nucleotide biosynthesis.

Slide 47
In the first step of pyrimidine biosynthesis, a molecular machine, a protein, carbamoyl phosphate synthetase coordinates the formation of carbamoyl phosphate, a central precursor of pyrimidine nucleotide synthesis.

Slide 48
The main role of carbamoyl phosphate synthetase II is to catalyze the formation of carbamoyl phosphate, an important building block in the pyrimidine synthesis pathway. This protein consists of about 50 thousand atoms and about 1000 amino acids.

Slide 49
This enzyme has 3 active sites where biosynthetic reactions take place. Each of the three contains specific amino acid residues, and the positioning of their constituents plays a critical role in the synthesis reaction. It also has active connecting channels that link the active sites together. These channels play a crucial role, because without them the intermediate product formed could reach the cytosol in an uncontrolled manner. This would lead to cellular toxicity and damage. One attempt hypothesis mentioned to explain this is that parts of the enzyme originally emerged for other purposes (or in other contexts) and were later co-opted for their current role. This is known as exaptation. However, this concept faces challenges: ensuring the right parts are available simultaneously (synchronization), at the same location (localization), and can fit together both functionally and physically (coordination and interface compatibility).



https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

255Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Sep 07, 2023 1:06 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Metabolism has always been considered as one of the most conserved cellular processes that remains invariable from Bacteria to Eucarya. That means, it had to be fully operational, when life started, to synthesize all the building blocks of life, and every part that a cell needs

Today, we aim to guide you through the fascinating journey of nucleotide formation, offering a glimpse into the marvels of molecular coordination and showcasing the beauty of biological precision. The synthesis of these nucleotides is no random event. It's a meticulously orchestrated process, ensuring that our genetic information is accurately stored, conveyed, and realized.

The formation of life's foundational building blocks, even within the earliest cell, demanded intricate metabolic routes. These routes required an exact orchestration of countless enzymes and the fine-tuning of specific chemical reactions. The thought of such sophisticated pathways, each with its distinct role, emerging purely by chance from a basic brew of prebiotic molecules is inconceivable.
Let me give an analogy, an illustration. Imagine a factory bustling with state-of-the-art robots. Raw materials begin their transformative journey, smoothly entering Robot 1's domain. Here, the initial magic unfolds. After its task is concluded, the advancing product moves on to Robot 2 for another layer of finesse. This intricate dance continues from one robot to the next, each responsible for a unique step in the choreography. When this mechanical ballet ends, the result is a masterfully designed component, much like a car door.

In a factory's assembly line, every machine is strategically positioned with a grand purpose in mind. These machines are intricately connected; if one falters, it can bring the whole production to a standstill, jeopardizing the assembly of the final product. Even a slight hiccup could stall the creation of vital parts, like the car door in a car factory.
The entire production line, including every robot, requires meticulous planning and implementation. Each robot's precise placement and sequence must be carefully planned and instantiated, all with an overarching end goal in mind. There's a symbiotic relationship at play here. Should one robot malfunction for any reason, the entire assembly grinds to a halt, jeopardizing the completion of the finished car. This means that a single misstep in connecting any robot on the line could disrupt the production of a component, like a door, preventing the completion of the final automobile.

Slide 17:
In this image, we see the biosynthesis pathway for pyrimidine.

Slide 18:
We see six enzymes in the picture, which can be compared to robots in the human-made factory line.

Slide 19:
Pyrimidine is a component of deoxyribonucleotides, used in DNA that incorporates both purine and pyrimidine nucleobases. On the right side of the image, we see Cytosine, Thymine, and Uracil, each with a six-membered ring structure.

Slide 20:
On the right side, we can see the production assembly line, and on the left, the biosynthesis pathway for pyrimidine. It's an analogous situation. Each protein can be compared to an autonomous robot on the assembly line. Every protein is absolutely essential to produce the final product.

Slide 21:
This is an irreducibly complex system, one of many that had to be fully developed and operational for life to emerge. For instance, the scientific paper titled "Autocatalytic Chemical Networks at the Origin of Metabolism" suggests a minimum network of 209 reactions that were necessary to kickstart life. That's already tremendously complex.

Slide 22:
To give you an idea: At each of the 209 reaction points, there's a protein, a molecular machine, that catalyzes a specific reaction.

Slide 23:
Just as only a specific key fits a unique lock, only certain substrates can bind to specific enzyme pockets.“On one side, the lock and key is highlighted. On the other, a depiction of a molecule in blue is highlighted fitting into the enzyme in green. The notches on a key match the tumblers inside a lock, just like substrates have binding sites fitting the enzyme

Slide 24:
When you insert and twist the right key, a door opens. This mirrors how a substrate connects with its enzyme to drive a distinct chemical reaction. Just as a key fits into a lock and turns, a substrate fits into an enzyme, leading to the formation of an enzyme-product complex. After unlocking, the key can be extracted, allowing for the process to start anew. Similarly, once the enzyme completes its function, it lets go of the product, making it available to bind with another substrate.

Slide 25:
Complementary Shape: The active site of an enzyme has a shape that is complementary to the shape of its substrate. This ensures that only the correct substrate can bind efficiently.

Slide 26:
The creation of a lock and key begins with an idea, originating from someone's mind. This concept is then translated onto paper, forming a detailed blueprint. This design outlines exact dimensions, appropriate fits, and specifies the required materials. Following this, the blueprint guides factory workers in producing the lock and key, ensuring they adhere strictly to the outlined specifications.

Slide 27:
Only when the exact specifications, intricacies, dimensions, and sizes are adhered to will the lock and key operate effectively. this is a complex, specified, finely tuned system, based on the conceptualization, imagination, thought and foresight of an intelligent mind. Only intelligence has been observed to be able to make a blueprint, and the device, based on the blueprint.

Slide 28:
Enzymes are biological catalysts that speed up chemical reactions in the body. Their ability to do so is tied to their structure, particularly the active site, which often presents itself as a "pocket" or groove on the enzyme surface. Here in the image, we see an enzyme that has a specific pocket, where the substrate(shown in purple) binds closely.

Slide 29:
The substrate binds to a pocket formed by several amino acid residues, in the image labeled Gly36, for example. These residues and binding sites can range from just a few to more than a dozen, depending on the complexity of the enzyme and the substrate, as well as the reaction mechanism. In this image, we can see the substrate in dark blue in the middle, and the enzymatic pocket in the circle in light blue, The red small circles are the binding sites of the amino acid forces to the substrate.

Slide 30:
Here we can see the Organisation of the enzyme structure. Binding sites in blue, catalytic site in red and the substrate in black.


Até hoje, nenhuma evidência de nucleotídeos, os fundamentais componentes do RNA e DNA, foi identificada em fontes naturais fora da vida terrestre. Se formos ainda mais específicos e removermos o fosfato - um dos três componentes cruciais - notaremos que nenhum nucleosídeo foi encontrado isoladamente. Aparentemente, a natureza não demonstra uma propensão natural para formar nucleosídeos ou nucleotídeos de forma que possamos identificar.


Let's go back to the pyrimidine biosynthetic pathway. In the first step of pyrimidine biosynthesis, a molecular machine, a protein, carbamoyl phosphate synthetase coordinates the formation of carbamoyl phosphate, a central precursor of pyrimidine nucleotide synthesis.

The main role of carbamoyl phosphate synthetase II is to catalyze the formation of carbamoyl phosphate, an important building block in the pyrimidine synthesis pathway. This protein consists of about 50 thousand atoms and about 1000 amino acids.


Slide 23:
Just as only a specific key fits a unique lock, only certain substrates can bind to specific enzyme pockets.“On one side, the lock and key is highlighted. On the other, a depiction of a molecule in blue is highlighted fitting into the enzyme in green. The notches on a key match the tumblers inside a lock, just like substrates have binding sites fitting the enzyme

Slide 24:




It involves the integration of complex metabolic pathways within living cells, enabling them to synthesize molecules, and perform various functions, which presents significant challenges when attempting to explain their origin solely through gradual and unguided processes."


Metabolism has always been considered as one of the most conserved cellular processes that remains invariable from Bacteria to Eucarya. That means, it had to be fully operational, when life started, to synthesize all the building blocks of life, and every part that a cell needs.

Slide 14:
The synthesis of the basic building blocks of life even in the first living cell required complex metabolic pathways. These pathways involve the precise coordination of numerous enzymes and the optimization of chemical reactions. It is inconceivable how such complex pathways, each having its specific function,  could have spontaneously arisen by unguided means from a simple mixture of prebiotic molecules.



Imagine an assembly line in a complex factory. This assembly line is made of several robots, that operate in a joint venture, and craft a specific intermediate product.









Slide 21:
"Deoxyribonucleotides are Nature's Marvelous Design in Detail!  "In nature's toolbox, even slight tweaks, like a missing oxygen atom, make profound changes. Let me explain to you the design differences between ribonucleotides and deoxyribonucleotides!"

Slide 23: Enzymatic Conversion Processes
"The choreography of enzymes at work converting ribonucleotides to deoxyribonucleotides is nothing short of a ballet. Could this just be by chance or the choreography of a cosmic conductor?"

Slide 24: Role of Ribonucleotide Reductase: Structure
"The design of the ribonucleotide reductase enzyme is so intricate and precise, it's like the Swiss watch of the cellular world. Accidental design or precision engineering by a Grand Watchmaker?"

Slide 25: Mechanism and Regulation of Ribonucleotide Reductase
"As we dive deeper into the mechanism, the complexity is evident. Random events or well-orchestrated moves on nature's grand chessboard?"

Slide 26: Clinical Significance of Ribonucleotide Reductase
"The consequences of any hiccups in this enzyme's function have profound clinical implications. It's as if there's a delicate balance, finely tuned. Sound like someone's handiwork?"

Slide 27: Energy Dynamics: Making the Conversion Count
"The energetic costs involved in these reactions are not only efficient but also optimal. Nature's energy economy seems more Wall Street genius than random trading. Coincidence?"

Slide 28: End Product Regulation Mechanisms
"Last but not least, a look into the masterful regulatory mechanisms ensuring just the right amount of end product. A chaotic mess or a beautifully orchestrated symphony by a cosmic conductor?"

Note: Embracing the beauty and intricacy of these pathways provides a compelling narrative. Whether one believes in divine intervention or the marvels of evolution, the complexity and harmony of these systems are truly awe-inspiring.







Differences between ribonucleotides and deoxyribonucleotides.
Enzymatic conversion processes.
Role of ribonucleotide reductase: structure, mechanism, and regulation.
Clinical significance of ribonucleotide reductase.
Slides 29-40: Purine Synthesis

Detailed pathway from ribose phosphate to IMP.
Role of each enzyme in the pathway.
Clinical conditions arising from defects in purine synthesis.
Drug targets in purine synthesis for treatments.
Importance of energy conservation and usage in the pathway.
Slides 41-50: Conversion to AMP & GMP

Role of adenylosuccinate lyase and IMP dehydrogenase.
Regulation of AMP and GMP synthesis.
Feedback inhibition details.
Importance in overall cellular energy dynamics.
Slides 51-60: Pyrimidine Synthesis

Detailed steps leading to UMP synthesis.
Role and regulation of carbamoyl phosphate synthetase.
Pyrimidine ring closure mechanism.
Conversions to UDP, UTP, and CTP.
Clinical relevance of pyrimidine synthesis.
Slides 61-70: Thymidylate Synthesis

Importance of thymidylate in DNA replication.
Role of thymidylate synthase.
Mechanism involving tetrahydrofolate.
Drugs targeting thymidylate synthesis, e.g., 5-fluorouracil.
Clinical relevance of disruptions in this pathway.
Slides 71-78: Salvage Pathways

Detailed mechanisms of purine and pyrimidine salvage.
Role of hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase (HGPRT) and other enzymes.
Clinical significance: Lesch-Nyhan syndrome.
Regulation and efficiency of salvage vs. de novo synthesis.
Slides 79-85: Regulatory Mechanisms

Role of allosteric regulation.
Importance of nucleotide balance in the cell.
Disorders of nucleotide metabolism.
Cross-talk between DNA/RNA synthesis and other cellular pathways.
Slides 86-89: Broader Biological Relevance

Role of nucleotide synthesis in cell cycle and growth.
Nucleotide synthesis and its relationship to cancer.
Evolutionary conservation of synthesis pathways.
Slide 90: Conclusion and References

This comprehensive breakdown ensures a detailed look into the biosynthesis pathways of RNA and DNA, ensuring thorough coverage of the topic.

Slide 1: Welcome to the mesmerizing world of biosynthesis pathways! Just as a chef follows a recipe to craft a culinary masterpiece, cells employ intricate pathways to produce RNA and DNA, the very essence of life's code.

Slide 2: DNA, famously known as the blueprint of life, and RNA, its trusty messenger, are not just spontaneously existing molecules. They arise from highly coordinated biochemical dances, choreographed by the cell.

Slide 3: As we delve into the complexities of these pathways, envision a symphony where each molecule, each enzyme, plays a crucial role. Together, they craft the melodious harmony of life itself.

Slide 4: Background on Nucleic Acid Importance:
Nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, are the heart and soul of cellular function. Much like a script guiding actors on a stage, these molecules determine how organisms grow, develop, function, and reproduce.

Slide 5: Historical Discoveries - Part 1:
In the mid-19th century, Friedrich Miescher stumbled upon a substance he named "nuclein". Little did he know, this marked the inception of our understanding of DNA.

Slide 6: Historical Discoveries - Part 2:
Fast forward to the 1950s, and the dynamic duo, Watson and Crick, unveiled the iconic double helix structure of DNA. Meanwhile, the intricacies of RNA were slowly unraveling, showcasing its vital role in protein synthesis.

Slide 7: Goals of the Presentation:
Today, we aim to guide you through the fascinating journey of nucleotide formation, offering a glimpse into the marvels of molecular coordination and showcasing the beauty of biological precision.

Slide 8: Building Blocks: Nucleotides - Part 1:
Nucleotides: not just tiny molecules, but the very alphabets of life's code! Comprising a sugar, phosphate group, and nitrogenous base, these are the protagonists in our molecular tale.

Slide 9: Building Blocks: Nucleotides - Part 2:
In the realm of DNA, adenine pairs with thymine, and guanine with cytosine, forming the rungs of our genetic ladder. In the RNA world, uracil steps in for thymine, showcasing a slight twist in the plot.

Slide 10: Building Blocks: Nucleotides - Part 3:
The synthesis of these nucleotides is no random event. It's a meticulously orchestrated process, ensuring that our genetic information is accurately stored, conveyed, and realized.

Slides 11-20: Ribonucleotide Synthesis: An Ingenious Dance

Slide 11: Overview of Ribonucleotide Synthesis:
Here, nature's craftsmanship shines through. The production of ribonucleotides isn’t a simple task, it's like coordinating an elaborate ballet where every step matters.

Slide 12: Enzymatic Steps in Detail:
Each enzyme acts like a skilled craftsman, ensuring every bond is correctly made. Their intricate design is nothing short of an artist's masterpiece.

Slide 13: Importance of Each Intermediate:
Like gears in a clock, each intermediate is crucial, their timely appearance ensures the pathway runs smoothly, reflecting a plan of precise engineering.

Slide 14: Energy Costs (ATP/GTP utilization):
Even in cellular pathways, there's no free lunch! The amount of ATP and GTP used is a testament to the intricate planning required for life's processes.

Slide 15: End Product Regulation Mechanisms:
This pathway, with its checks and balances, looks suspiciously like a city's traffic system designed by a brilliant urban planner, doesn't it?

Slides 21-28: Deoxyribonucleotide Synthesis: A Slight Twist in the Tale

Slide 21: Differences between Ribonucleotides and Deoxyribonucleotides:
Nature's version of a software upgrade, just when you thought ribonucleotides were cool, enter deoxyribonucleotides, with just that extra bit of finesse.

Slide 22: Enzymatic Conversion Processes:
Again, the genius of biological design shines. Enzymes ensure the conversions are flawless, showcasing nature's version of a Michelin-star chef's precision.

Slide 23: Role of Ribonucleotide Reductase:
This enzyme acts as a master conductor in the orchestra of DNA synthesis. Its structure and function hint at a maestro's touch.

Slide 24: Clinical Significance:
Just as a city feels the absence of a key worker, so does our body when these processes go awry, proving the significance of each player in the design.

Slides 29-40: Purine Synthesis: Crafting the Foundations

Slide 29: Pathway from Ribose Phosphate to IMP:
This pathway is a masterclass in design efficiency, almost as if a top-tier architect and engineer collaborated to ensure every step is in its rightful place.

Slide 30: Role of Each Enzyme:
The meticulous nature of each enzyme, with their bespoke functions, seems less like a result of random events and more like someone's brainchild.

Slide 31: Clinical Conditions from Defects:
The health issues that arise when things go wrong further emphasize the importance and precision of each step, much like how a single misstep in a choreographed dance can be glaringly obvious.

Slide 32: Drug Targets for Treatments:
The specificity of drug targets in this pathway resembles tailor-made solutions. It's like having bespoke suits in the world of medicine.

Slide 33: Energy Dynamics in the Pathway:
Energy isn't thrown around carelessly. It's used and conserved like a well-budgeted economy, showcasing a hallmark of strategic design.

Slides 41-50: Conversion to AMP & GMP: The Symphony Continues

Slide 41: Role of Adenylosuccinate Lyase and IMP Dehydrogenase:
These enzymes are like the virtuosos of the cellular world. Their actions ensure the concert of life plays on harmoniously.

Slide 42: Regulation of AMP and GMP Synthesis:
The regulatory mechanisms are like a feedback system in a high-tech device. They ensure the balance is just right, hinting at an underlying intelligence.

Slide 43: Feedback Inhibition Details:
It's as if the cell has a built-in quality control system, ensuring everything is up to standard – the mark of an expert creator.

Slide 44: Importance in Overall Cellular Energy Dynamics:
It's all interconnected, like a masterfully planned electric grid. One can't help but marvel at the genius behind it.

Slides 51-60: Pyrimidine Synthesis: Another Feather in Nature’s Cap

Slide 51: Steps Leading to UMP Synthesis:
The steps in this pathway are like puzzle pieces. When they come together, it's clear there's an artist's touch behind the scenes.

Slide 52: Role and Regulation of Carbamoyl Phosphate Synthetase:
This enzyme's role is akin to a foreman at a construction site, ensuring everything is built perfectly to plan.

Slide 53: Pyrimidine Ring Closure Mechanism:
This process, with its finesse, seems like it’s been crafted by an expert jeweler, making sure every bond is pristine.

Slide 54: Conversions to UDP, UTP, and CTP:
The conversions are like the final touches on a masterpiece, completing the magnum opus of pyrimidine synthesis.

Slide 55: Clinical Relevance:
The health implications when this goes awry again hint at the importance of each step, underscoring the idea of a deliberate design.

Slides 61-70: Thymidylate Synthesis: A Precise Blueprint

Slide 61: Importance of Thymidylate in DNA Replication:
This molecule is like the cornerstone of a building. Its importance in replication suggests a design that's both robust and intricate.

Slide 62: Role of Thymidylate Synthase:
Acting as a master builder, this enzyme ensures the DNA structure is perfect every single time.

Slide 63: Mechanism Involving Tetrahydrofolate:
The collaboration between molecules in this step feels like a duo performing a rehearsed act, flawlessly every time.

Slide 64: Drugs Targeting Synthesis:
Targeting this process with drugs feels like adjusting the strings of a finely-tuned instrument, reflecting the pathway's designed precision.

Slide 65: Clinical Relevance:
Yet again, when there's a hiccup in the system, the repercussions are felt, emphasizing the deliberate nature of this design.

Slides 71-78: Salvage Pathways: Nature’s Recycling System

Slide 71: Mechanisms of Purine & Pyrimidine Salvage:
This process is like nature's version of recycling. Instead of waste, there’s efficiency and purpose – hallmarks of intelligent planning.

Slide 72: Role of HGPRT and Other Enzymes:
These enzymes play their part in this grand design, ensuring nothing goes to waste, much like a well-oiled machine.

Slide 73: Clinical Significance – Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome:
When there's a glitch in this system, the consequences are profound, showing just how vital each component is in the bigger picture.

Slide 74: Efficiency of Salvage vs. De Novo Synthesis:
The balance between new production and recycling in cells is reminiscent of a city’s waste management system – a sign of a designer’s touch.

Slides 79-85: Regulatory Mechanisms: Nature’s Control Systems

Slide 79: Role of Allosteric Regulation:
The fine-tuning seen in allosteric regulation is akin to a sophisticated thermostat. It's set just right, reflecting an underlying intelligence.

Slide 80: Nucleotide Balance in the Cell:
The balance of nucleotides feels like a well-balanced ecosystem, where everything has its place and purpose.

Slide 81: Disorders of Nucleotide Metabolism:
Yet again, the health implications of disruptions show how intricate and deliberately designed these pathways are.

Slide 82: Cross-talk between DNA/RNA Synthesis and Other Pathways:
The interconnectedness seen here is like a network of highways. Each route has a purpose, hinting at an overarching plan.

Slides 86-89: Broader Biological Relevance: The Grand Scheme of Things

Slide 86: Role in Cell Cycle & Growth:
Nucleotide synthesis is central to life, almost like the foundation of a skyscraper. Its importance in the cell cycle further underscores the idea of deliberate design.

Slide 87: Relation to Cancer:
The link between nucleotide synthesis and cancer provides clues about how finely tuned our system is, and when it's disrupted, the effects can be dire.

Slide 88: Evolutionary Conservation of Synthesis Pathways:
The conservation of these pathways across species hints at a blueprint that’s been masterfully designed from the outset.

Slide 89: Intelligent Design:
Looking at the complexity, interdependence, and precision of these pathways, one might wonder: is this all a result of chance, or is there an intelligent design behind it?

Slide 90: Conclusion and References:
As we wrap up, reflect on the intricacies, the masterful coordination, and the sheer brilliance of these pathways. Whether a product of evolution or intelligent design, there’s no denying the wonder of life's molecular ballet.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

256Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Sep 07, 2023 1:10 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Slide 1:
Esta apresentação abordará os complexos caminhos de biossíntese dos ribonucleotídeos e desoxirribonucleotídeos, os monômeros que compõem o RNA e DNA, responsáveis por armazenar informações genéticas.

Slide 2:
Lynn Margulis, bióloga americana, conhecida por suas contribuições para os campos da biologia evolutiva, afirmou:

Slide 3:
Ir de uma bactéria para seres humanos é um passo menor do que ir de uma mistura de aminoácidos para uma bactéria.

Slide 4:
Ela destacou os desafios envolvidos na transição entre blocos de construção básicos e a complexidade das células vivas, demonstrando a dificuldade em conceituar essa transição por meios naturais e não orientados.

Slide 5:
A ideia de uma criança construindo o Grande Colisor de Hádrons com blocos de LEGO é ousadamente divertida! No entanto, isso é ainda mais simples quando comparado à complexidade de criar a primeira célula viva a partir do zero, prebioticamente, sem qualquer orientação.

Slide 6:
Hoje, mostraremos a formação de nucleotídeos, oferecendo uma visão das maravilhas da coordenação molecular e destacando a beleza da precisão biológica.

Slide 7:
O DNA, conhecido como o esquema da vida, e o RNA, seu mensageiro, não são moléculas que simplesmente existem. Eles surgem de caminhos bioquímicos altamente coordenados, sintetizados pela célula.

Slide 8:
Na década de 1950, Watson e Crick revelaram a icônica estrutura de dupla hélice do DNA. Enquanto isso, as complexidades do RNA começavam a ser descobertas, demonstrando seu papel vital na síntese de proteínas.

Slide 9:
Os nucleotídeos não são apenas pequenas moléculas, são os alfabetos do código da vida! À esquerda, vemos a molécula de nucleotídeo composta por três partes: um açúcar em azul, um grupo fosfato em cinza claro e uma base nitrogenada em cinza escuro.

Slide 10:
Eles são compostos de nucleotídeos purina e pirimidina.

Slide 11:
Robert Shapiro, químico conhecido, escreveu: até hoje, nenhum nucleotídeo, componente essencial do RNA e DNA, foi identificado em fontes naturais fora da vida terrestre. Se formos mais específicos e removermos o fosfato - um dos três componentes essenciais - notaremos que nenhum nucleosídeo foi encontrado isoladamente. A natureza não parece ter uma propensão natural para formar nucleosídeos ou nucleotídeos que possamos identificar.

Slide 12:
As células vivas possuem caminhos metabólicos complexos que permitem criar moléculas e realizar diversas funções. Explicar o surgimento dessa complexidade através de processos lentos e não planejados é, de fato, uma tarefa desafiadora.

Slide 13:
Apenas células vivas biossintetizam nucleotídeos para armazenamento de informações do zero, usando caminhos de biossíntese muito complexos.

Slide 14:
Quando vemos placas de circuito, sabemos que foram projetadas por uma inteligência. Eles apresentam disposições complexas de componentes. Essas configurações são projetadas para funções específicas, combinando materiais como cobre e fibra de vidro, que não ocorrem naturalmente juntos. Os pontos de solda e os soquetes indicam conexões intencionais. Eles têm funções definidas quando energizados. Seus recursos operacionais indicam um projeto deliberado.

Slide 15:
Assim como as placas de circuito têm arranjos complexos para funções específicas, os caminhos metabólicos de nucleotídeos nas células mostram sequências complexas de reações enzimáticas otimizadas para a síntese ou degradação de nucleotídeos. As combinações únicas de enzimas e moléculas nesses caminhos se assemelham aos materiais especializados nas placas de circuito, indicando um design proposital.

Slide 16:
O metabolismo sempre foi considerado um dos processos celulares mais conservados que permanece invariável de Bactérias a Eucariontes. Isso significa que tinha que estar totalmente operacional quando a vida começou.

Slide 17:
A formação dos blocos fundamentais da vida, mesmo na célula mais primitiva, exigia rotas metabólicas complexas. Essas rotas necessitavam de uma orquestração exata de inúmeras enzimas e do ajuste fino de reações químicas específicas.

Slide 18:
Vamos usar uma analogia. Imagine uma fábrica cheia de robôs de última geração. Matérias-primas começam sua jornada transformadora, entrando no domínio do Robô 1. Após sua tarefa ser concluída, o produto avança para o Robô 2, e assim por diante. No final, temos um componente projetado com maestria.

Slide 19:
Em uma linha de montagem, cada máquina é estrategicamente posicionada com um propósito grandioso em mente.

Slide 20:
De certa forma, um caminho metabólico é semelhante a uma linha de montagem de fábrica. Enzimas celulares são como trabalhadores; cada um é responsável por uma etapa específica.

Slide 21:
Nesta imagem, vemos o caminho de biossíntese para pirimidina.

Slide 22:
Vemos seis enzimas na imagem, que podem ser comparadas a robôs na linha de montagem.

Slide 23:
Pirimidina é um componente dos desoxirribonucleotídeos, utilizados no DNA que incorpora nucleobases purina e pirimidina. Do lado direito da imagem, vemos Citosina, Timina e Uracil.

Slide 24:
Do lado direito, podemos ver a linha de produção e, à esquerda, o caminho de biossíntese para pirimidina. Cada proteína é essencial para produzir o produto final.

Slide 25:
Este é um sistema irreducivelmente complexo. Por exemplo, o artigo científico "Redes Químicas Autocatalíticas na Origem do Metabolismo" sugere uma rede mínima de 5-8 moléculas para a biossíntese de ribonucleotídeos.

Slide 26:
Cada uma das 209 reações em nosso corpo ocorre em um ponto específico, onde uma máquina molecular – uma proteína – catalisa uma reação específica.

Slide 27:
Imagine a relação entre uma chave e sua fechadura. Assim como somente a chave certa se encaixa na fechadura, apenas certos substratos se ligam a bolsos enzimáticos específicos. Esta é a precisão com que nossos sistemas biológicos operam.

Slide 28:
Ação de uma chave em uma fechadura é análoga a como um substrato se conecta com sua enzima. Ao se conectarem, ocorre uma reação química específica. A enzima, após completar sua função, se desprende e está pronta para começar de novo.

Slide 29:
Forma Complementar: Os enzimas têm um local ativo cuja forma é complementar ao substrato. Isso garante a precisão na ligação.

Slide 30:
Assim como a criação de uma chave e fechadura começa com um design preciso, as enzimas são moldadas de maneira semelhantemente precisa para seu papel específico.

Slide 31:
Somente quando todos os detalhes são rigorosamente seguidos o sistema funciona eficazmente. Este é um sistema especificado e altamente sintonizado, refletindo a complexidade de sua origem.

Slide 32:
Os enzimas são os catalisadores da vida. Sua eficácia deriva de sua estrutura e do "bolso" específico que se encaixa precisamente com seu substrato.

Slide 33:
A organização da estrutura enzimática inclui locais de ligação e o local catalítico, que são essenciais para sua função. Cada componente é crucial para a precisão da reação.

Slide 34:
Por exemplo, as últimas duas etapas enzimáticas na via de biossíntese de purina são facilitadas por uma enzima específica chamada AICAR transformylase.

Slide 35:
A precisão com que a enzima e o substrato interagem é evidente. Cada aminoácido, como Gly36, contribui para manter o substrato na posição correta, permitindo uma reação eficiente.

Slide 36:
Um químico chamado Hercules respondeu: “Interações intermoleculares são simples consequências das moléculas”. Mas outros, com uma pitada de humor, mencionaram “Exus Quânticos Microscópicos” como os verdadeiros trabalhadores por trás dessas interações.

Slide 37:
A precisão das posições dos resíduos de aminoácidos é crítica. Mudar até mesmo um pode ter grandes consequências na função da enzima. É um sistema intrincadamente ajustado.

Slide 38:
Para ilustrar a precisão necessária, se apenas 3 a 5 aminoácidos chaves precisarem estar no lugar certo para a função enzimática, já estamos olhando para milhões de combinações possíveis.

Slide 39:
A AICAR transformylase é um exemplo de precisão em ação. Qualquer alteração em sua estrutura pode render a enzima inútil ou diminuir sua eficiência.

Slide 40:
Se considerarmos que essa enzima é composta por cerca de 500 aminoácidos, o número de combinações possíveis é astronômico se formadas aleatoriamente.

Slide 41:
Com 20 aminoácidos comuns em proteínas, a quantidade total de sequências possíveis para uma proteína de 500 aminoácidos é 10^650.

Slide 42:
Para entender essa magnitude: o número de átomos no universo observável é 10^80. 10^650 é quase inconcebível em comparação.

Slide 43:
Historicamente, a origem das proteínas e aminoácidos tem sido um mistério. Em 1999, pesquisadores escreveram sobre a complexidade e os desafios associados à formação de peptídeos.

Slide 44:
Em 2010, um artigo reiterou que nenhuma teoria atual sobre a origem da vida tem evidência experimental definitiva.

Slide 45:
Lazcano, em 2018, mencionou que ainda há lacunas consideráveis em nossa compreensão da origem da vida. O consenso é que a narrativa naturalista não é respaldada por evidências concretas.

Slide 46:
Agora, explorando a via de biossíntese de pirimidina, encontramos outra enzima crucial, a carbamoyl phosphate synthetase.

Slide 47:
Esta enzima desempenha um papel chave no primeiro passo da biossíntese de pirimidina, formando um precursor essencial.

Slide 48:
Composta por aproximadamente 50 mil átomos e 1000 aminoácidos, esta enzima é uma maravilha molecular em termos de sua estrutura e função.

Slide 49:
Ela possui três locais ativos e canais de conexão essenciais. Qualquer alteração em sua estrutura pode ser prejudicial para a célula. Uma hipótese é que partes desta enzima podem ter surgido por exaptação, mas isso apresenta seus próprios desafios.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

257Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Sep 07, 2023 1:36 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Diapositivo 32
As enzimas são catalisadores biológicos que aceleram as reações químicas no corpo. A sua capacidade para o fazer está ligada à sua estrutura, particularmente ao sítio activo, que muitas vezes se apresenta como uma "bolsa" ou ranhura. Aqui na imagem vemos uma enzima que possui uma bolsa específica, onde o substrato (mostrado em roxo) se liga intimamente. O sítio ativo de uma enzima pode ser considerado uma câmara especializada ou estação de acoplamento. Os nomes, como Ala 135, são os resíduos de aminoácidos, os blocos de construção dos quais as proteínas são feitas.

Diapositivo 33
Aqui podemos ver a organização da estrutura da enzima. Locais de ligação em azul, sítio catalítico em vermelho e substrato em preto. A seguir, ilustrarei a precisão dos sítios de ligação e como é necessário ajustá-los para realizar sua reação específica.

Diapositivo 34
Agora deixe-me dar um exemplo concreto. As duas últimas etapas enzimáticas na via de biossíntese das purinas, que forma o nucleotídeo IMP, parte ou RNA e DNA, são produzidas por uma enzima de dois componentes chamada AICAR transformilase.

Diapositivo 35
Aqui podemos ver a sua bolsa enzimática desta enzima. O substrato é corretamente orientado e mantido no lugar, permitindo que a enzima facilite a reação química. A especificidade desta bolsa garante que apenas os substratos certos possam entrar e sofrer ação. O substrato se liga a uma bolsa formada por vários resíduos de aminoácidos, na imagem denominada Gly36, por exemplo. Esses resíduos e locais de ligação podem variar de poucos a mais de uma dúzia, dependendo da complexidade da enzima e do substrato, bem como do mecanismo de reação. Nesta imagem, podemos ver o substrato em azul escuro no meio, e a bolsa enzimática no círculo em azul claro. Os pequenos círculos vermelhos são dez locais de ligação das forças de aminoácidos que mantêm o substrato na posição correta.

Diapositivo 36
Postei está tão sem grupo no Whatsapp ontem. Veja o que Hércules, químico, respondeu: Interações intermoleculares são consequência das moléculas só isso E Quiumento, ridicularizando: Ação clara e indiscutível dos Exus Quanticos Microscópicos, os labutadores incansáveis ​​da natureza, mantendo tudo funcionando e oh

Diapositivo 37
Esses resíduos de aminoácidos devem ser os corretos para que a enzima funcione de maneira ideal. Em cada posição, existem vinte alternativas, de vinte aminoácidos diferentes utilizados em sistemas biológicos vivos, que poderiam ser escolhidas alternativamente. A alteração de apenas um dos resíduos críticos pode ter efeitos profundos, desde uma ligeira redução na eficiência até a completa inativação da enzima. Vamos supor que apenas 3 a 5 aminoácidos-chave precisam estar no lugar certo no centro de reação enzimática, na sequência certa, para que a enzima seja reativa. Só então já existem pelo menos três milhões de opções de sequências alternativas que seriam inúteis. É como ganhar na loteria. Isto mostra como é extremamente improvável encontrar a combinação certa.

Diapositivo 38
Vamos supor que apenas 3 a 5 aminoácidos-chave precisam estar no lugar certo no centro de reação enzimática, na sequência certa, para que a enzima seja reativa. Só então já existem pelo menos três milhões de opções de sequências alternativas que seriam inúteis. É como ganhar na loteria. Isto mostra como é extremamente improvável encontrar a combinação certa de aminoácidos.

Diapositivo 39
No caso da transformilase AICAR, não só o seu sítio ativo precisa estar perfeitamente configurado para a ligação do substrato e catálise, mas toda a sua estrutura deve ser corretamente dobrada e estabilizada. Quaisquer alterações, dobramento incorreto ou mutações podem levar a uma enzima não funcional ou à redução da atividade enzimática.

diapositivo 40
Essa enzima possui uma estrutura composta em média por cerca de 500 aminoácidos, dependendo do organismo. Portanto, com base nesse número, podemos calcular as probabilidades de ter esta enzima por meios aleatórios não guiados.

Diapositivo 41
Portanto, uma proteína em uma questão de tamanho médio de cerca de 500 aminoácidos e considerando que existem 20 aminoácidos comuns encontrados nas proteínas:
O número total de sequências possíveis é 10^650

Diapositivo 42
A estimativa mais comumente citada para o número de átomos no universo observável é cerca de 10 ^ 80. Para entender 10^650, imagine ter 10^570 universos separados, cada um com 10^80 átomos. Combine todos os átomos de todos esses universos e você ainda não chegará a 10^650.

Diapositivo 43
Em 1999, no artigo: Um novo método para testar modelos de montagem de peptídeos prebióticos, escrevi apesar de uma coleção de teorias e estudos experimentais, a formação de peptídeos, adicionalmente com o aparecimento de todas as configurações L do amino individualresíduos ácidos, permanece em torno do mistério não resolvido na origem da vida. E na conclusão do artigo: A complexidade esperada das misturas de produtos resultantes usando modelos existentes é um presságio de uma aventura dessas. Ou seja, o que há de se esperar, são apenas misturas que não prestam para nada.

Diapositivo 43
Em 1999, no artigo: Um novo método para testar modelos de montagem de peptídeos prebióticos, escrevi apesar de uma coleção de teorias e estudos experimentais, a formação de peptídeos, adicionalmente com o aparecimento de todas as configurações L do amino individualresíduos ácidos, permanece em torno do mistério não resolvido na origem da vida. E na conclusão do artigo: A complexidade esperada das misturas de produtos resultantes usando modelos existentes é um presságio de uma aventura dessas. Ou seja, o que há de se esperar, são apenas misturas que não prestam para nada.

Diapositivo 44
E o autor deste artigo, mais recente, de 2010, diz nas considerações finais: quão bem-sucedidas são as teorias do RNA primeiro, do RNA depois, do metabolismo primeiro e do metabolismo preparatório na elucidação do surgimento da vida como um processo evolutivo? Até agora, nenhum destes paradigmas pode reivindicar um apoio experimental decisivo.

Diapositivo 45
E Lazcano, um pesquisador conhecido, escreveu em 2018: No entanto, as nossas narrativas atuais evolutivas não estão isentas de dificuldades, e há claro, enormes pontos cegos. A busca pela natureza e origem da vida não é um empreendimento científico modesto, e aqueles envolvidos neste campo sabemos que temos muito que ser modestos sobre, e é isso que deveríamos ser. Ou seja, na verdade, o que os pesquisadores confessam, é sempre o mesmo: Não há evidências científicas que corroborem uma narrativa naturalista, e não há evidências conclusivas de que a vida pode vir de não vida.

Diapositivo 46
Agora, deixe-me passar para a via de biossíntese da pirimidina, outra via que está envolvida na biossíntese de nucleotídeos.

Diapositivo 47
Na primeira etapa da biossíntese da pirimidina, uma máquina molecular, uma proteína, a carbamoil fosfato sintetase, coordena a formação do carbamoil fosfato, um precursor central da síntese de nucleotídeos de pirimidina.

Diapositivo 48
O principal papel da carbamoil fosfato sintetase II é catalisar a formação de carbamoil fosfato, um importante bloco de construção na via de síntese da pirimidina. Esta proteína consiste em cerca de 50 mil átomos e cerca de 1000 aminoácidos.

Diapositivo 49
Esta enzima possui 3 locais ativos onde ocorrem as reações biossintéticas. Cada um dos três contém resíduos de aminoácidos específicos e o posicionamento dos seus constituintes desempenha um papel crítico na reação de síntese. Ele também possui canais de conexão ativos que conectam os sites ativos. Esses canais desempenham um papel crucial, pois sem eles o produto intermediário formado poderia atingir o citosol de forma descontrolada. Isso levaria à toxicidade e danos celulares. Uma hipótese de tentativa mencionada para explicar isso é que partes da enzima surgiram originalmente para outros fins (ou em outros contextos) e foram posteriormente cooptadas para seu papel atual. Isso é conhecido como exaptação. No entanto, este conceito enfrenta desafios: garantir que as peças certas estão disponíveis simultaneamente (sincronização), no mesmo local (localização) e podem encaixar-se tanto funcional como fisicamente (coordenação e compatibilidade de interface).

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

258Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:40 pm

Otangelo


Admin

My books been published on Amazon


Confirming Yeshua Volume 1 & 2

Confirming Yeshua Volume 1, Kindle version :
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BXJZ3QGG

As paperback (493 pages): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BW28MPN7

Confirming Yeshua Volume 2, Kindle version:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BXK45WD9

As paperback (414 pages): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BW31GXH3

Joe Marino, Shroud of Turin expert, author of:
The 1988 C-14 Dating Of The Shroud of Turin: A Stunning Exposé:

Grasso's 2-volume work on Jesus of Nazareth is the most impressive work.  It goes into painstaking details regarding every aspect of his impactful life and confirms his historicity.  Dealing with every aspect of his existence, the work has numerous color pictures, tables, charts, and maps. Both epic volumes belong in everyone's collection, Christian and skeptic alike. Volume 1 examines Old Testament prophecies that found their fulfillment in Jesus, the reliability of the Gospels, the date of the crucifixion, and the reality of the Resurrection. Volume 2 examines the genealogy of Jesus, various skeptical claims against his existence, and the overwhelming amount of evidence that points to the Shroud of Turin being the actual burial cloth that wrapped Jesus in the tomb.


The RNA-DNA Nexus: Unveiling Fine-Tuning in Life's Molecular Machinery at the Atomic Scale and the Paradigm of Intelligent Design

In Paperback. (Here you can also look inside, and see also the Table of Contents:)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CCCNBPVR

and in Kindle format:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CCQJX4HC

Delve into the captivating journey of "The RNA-DNA Nexus," where the mysteries of ribonucleotide and deoxyribonucleotide biosynthesis are unraveled. This groundbreaking book explores life's atomic-scale precision, revealing the handiwork of a superintelligent designer. Whether you seek to solidify your beliefs or embark on an exploration of life's wonders, this book invites you to discover the profound intricacies inside living cells.

Witness the extraordinary complexity of cellular machinery, with enzymes orchestrating biochemical processes with impeccable precision. From the precise placement of atoms to the intricacies of bonding angles, life's sophistication at the atomic level will leave you breathless.

Uncover the foundation of life as we explore the complex biosynthesis pathways of RNA and DNA—the building blocks that shape biological processes. Ribonucleotides play a key role in transmitting genetic instructions and coordinating cellular functions. Meanwhile, deoxyribonucleotides safeguard genetic continuity, ensuring the faithful transmission of life's blueprint.

"The RNA-DNA Nexus" dares to question the conventional view of life's origins, presenting compelling evidence for intelligent design. It navigates through the current scientific knowledge, pondering the enigmatic bridge between prebiotic molecules and living cells. Prepare to be captivated, enlightened, and inspired by the awe-inspiring complexity that underlies life's beginnings.

This enthralling journey will challenge your understanding of life, providing profound insights into the elegance of creation and the purpose behind our existence. From intricate protein folding to gene regulation, from metabolic pathways to organism adaptability—each revelation will deepen your appreciation for life's astonishing architecture.

Join the expedition as the author unravels the complexities of life's origins, offering factual and captivating insights. A thought-provoking exploration awaits, inviting you to contemplate the fingerprint of a divine craftsman—a creator of boundless intelligence and love, shaping life with purpose.

"The RNA-DNA Nexus" delivers a transformative journey that unveils the wonders of cellular life. Step into a world where facts and fascination entwine, and where the symphony of life's mysteries unfolds before your eyes. Prepare to embark on an extraordinary voyage of discovery—a testament to the astonishing complexity and ingenuity of life's grand design.


On the Origin of Life and Virus World by means of an Intelligent Designer: The Factory Maker, Paley's Watchmaker Argument 2.0

Kindle version:
https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Virus-World-Intelligent-Designer-ebook/dp/B0BJ9RYMD6?

Paperback
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BJY9G83P

This book is about one of the deepest unsolved mysteries: The immensely difficult puzzle of the origin of life. Watson and Crick discovered the DNA molecule in the early fifties, and Miller & Urey performed their chemical experiments in 1953, which started the modern era of investigation of the origin of life. Huge sums of money were spent, and incalculable man-hours were invested to solve the mystery of life’s origin, but it did not bring clear answers to the trajectory from non-life to life by unguided natural means.
Investigators have come up with numerous hypotheses, but are even in the dark about having an idea about the trajectory, or a clear model. In popular media, the impression is being nourished, that solving the problem of the origin of life is just a matter of time. “Science is working on it” — so they say. Truth is, there is widespread ignorance and lack of knowledge in regards to the size of the problem — not acknowledged beyond the narrow circle of specialists.
Otangelo Grasso’s work is the result of many years of investigations into biochemistry, and the origin of life. We can now advance Paley’s Watchmaker argument, to the factory maker argument:
Cells have a codified description of themselves in digital form stored in genes and have the machinery to transform that blueprint through information transfer from genotype to phenotype, into an identical representation in analog 3D form, the physical ‘reality’ of that description.
The cause leading to a machine’s and factory’s functionality has only been found in the mind of the engineer and nowhere else.
This book is divided into the following main sections: Cells are chemical factories (Chapter 1), Setting up a framework to investigate the Origin of Life (The Methods [2, 3]) The prebiotic origin of the four building blocks of life (The Materials [4-7]) the origin of biological information storage, transmission, and systems of expres​sion( 8 ) the origin of the Virus world (9), and some notes on why Intelligent Design is the most plausible explanation for the Origin of Life and Viruses (10).

Divine Verses: A Poetic Retelling and Exploration of the Gospel of Matthew "
Divine Verses: A Poetic Retelling and Exploration of the Gospel of Matthew" offers readers a unique and artistic approach

https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Verses-Retelling-Exploration-artistic-ebook/dp/B0C3FZPCYK/

"Divine Verses: A Poetic Retelling and Exploration of the Gospel of Matthew" is a literary treat. It offers readers a unique and artistic approach to engaging with the biblical text of the Gospel of Matthew. Through the medium of poetry, this book invites readers to experience the timeless story of Jesus Christ in a fresh and captivating way. With rich imagery, lyrical language, and deep reflection, "Divine Verses" illuminates the life, teachings, and significance of Jesus as presented in Matthew's gospel.

This poetic commentary book containing over 130 poems related to Jesus' ministry and life delves into the Gospel of Matthew, using the power of poetry to retell and explore its stories, parables, and teachings. The verses bring to life the historical and cultural context of Matthew, evoking the sights, sounds, and emotions of Jesus' ministry. Through poetic language, "Divine Verses" offers a new perspective on the profound truths and messages contained in Matthew's gospel.

The book delves into the major themes of Matthew, such as the kingdom of heaven, discipleship, and righteousness, through the lens of poetry. It captures the nuances and complexities of the characters and groups encountered in Matthew's narrative, illuminating their struggles, motivations, and interactions in poignant verses. "Divine Verses" also explores the ways in which Matthew draws on the Old Testament to reveal Jesus as the promised Messiah and the embodiment of God's plan.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

259Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Fri Sep 08, 2023 4:31 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Highly Resolved Phylogenetic Diversity: The LBCA is likely at the root of a diverse phylogenetic tree, suggesting it had a vast array of genetic diversity that has given rise to the myriad of bacterial lineages seen today.
Terrestrial Adaptations: The LBCA probably had mechanisms that allowed it to thrive in terrestrial environments. This may include features to combat desiccation, UV radiation resistance, and the ability to exploit varied terrestrial nutrient sources.
Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) Mechanisms: Efficient systems for gene uptake, integration, and transfer would have been present in the LBCA, allowing for the biased gene transfer observed in bacterial evolution.
Genomic Flexibility and Plasticity: The propensity for HGT suggests the LBCA had a flexible genome, capable of integrating foreign DNA and adapting rapidly to environmental changes.
Metabolic Versatility: Given the broad range of environments the LBCA's descendants colonized, it likely had a versatile metabolic repertoire, capable of utilizing diverse energy sources, from organic molecules to sunlight.
Protective Features: To survive in various conditions, the LBCA would have had protective mechanisms, possibly including a peptidoglycan cell wall and lipid bilayer membrane, to shield it from external threats and stresses.
Gene Regulation and Network Complexity: Intricate networks controlling gene expression would have been present in the LBCA to respond appropriately to various stimuli and environmental changes.
Efficient Reproductive and Genetic Mechanisms: This encompasses DNA replication machinery, protein synthesis systems, and potential for genetic recombination to ensure survival and propagation.
Environmental Sensing and Responsiveness: Mechanisms to detect and react to environmental changes, from nutrient availability to physical stresses, would have been crucial features of the LBCA.
Nutrient Uptake Systems: To derive resources from its surroundings, specialized mechanisms for nutrient uptake would have been vital.
Cell-Cell Communication: Even at these early stages, systems like quorum sensing, which allow bacterial cells to coordinate behaviors based on population density, might have been nascent or in development.
Structural Polarity and Mobility: Features that allow for movement, such as flagella or pili, might have had their origins with the LBCA, providing advantages in seeking nutrients or escaping hostile conditions.
Energy Metabolism: Bacteria can utilize a variety of energy sources, from organic molecules to sunlight. The LBCA likely had versatile metabolic pathways.
Protective Cell Wall: Bacteria often have a protective peptidoglycan cell wall which provides structural integrity and shape.
Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) Synthesis: The machinery for protein synthesis, the ribosome, is conserved among all life forms.
Lipid Bilayer: Like all cells, bacteria have a lipid bilayer membrane that separates the interior of the cell from the external environment.
Active Transport Mechanisms: To maintain homeostasis, bacteria have transport systems to move substances across their membranes against concentration gradients.
Protein Synthesis: The translational machinery, including tRNAs, ribosomes, and associated factors, would be present.
DNA Replication Machinery: Essential for the propagation of genetic information, bacteria possess a conserved set of proteins for DNA replication.
Response to Environmental Stress: Bacteria have mechanisms to sense and respond to changes in their environment, ensuring survival in various conditions.
Genetic Recombination: Some bacteria can exchange and recombine genetic material, which could have been a feature in the LBCA to ensure genetic diversity.
Nutrient Uptake Mechanisms: To harness resources from their environment, bacteria have specialized mechanisms to take up nutrients.
Cell-Cycle Regulation: Bacteria undergo cell division, so they need mechanisms to regulate this process.
Cell-cell adhesion and the ECM: Some bacterial species exhibit biofilm formation, which requires cell-cell adhesion and interactions with an extracellular matrix.
Cell-Cell Communication: Quorum sensing is a method of bacterial cell-cell communication, helping coordinate group behaviors.
Cell Polarity and Asymmetry: Some bacteria have polar structures (e.g., flagella).
Cellular Senescence: Bacterial cells can enter a state of dormancy or reduced metabolic activity under certain conditions.
Chromatin Dynamics: Bacteria don't have chromatin like eukaryotes, but they do compact their DNA into a nucleoid region.
Cytokinesis: Bacterial cell division involves cytokinesis.
Cytoskeletal Arrays: Bacteria have simpler cytoskeletal elements compared to eukaryotes.
DNA Methylation: Bacteria use DNA methylation for various purposes, including DNA replication regulation and protecting against viral infections.
Gene Regulation Network: Bacteria have complex networks that control gene expression in response to various stimuli.
Hormones: While not hormones in the eukaryotic sense, bacteria produce signaling molecules that act similarly.
Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields: Bacteria have ion channels, and some species are influenced by electromagnetic fields.
Membrane Targets: Bacterial cells have membrane-bound targets and proteins.
MicroRNA Regulation: Bacteria don't have miRNAs as eukaryotes do, but they have small RNAs that play regulatory roles.
Signaling Pathways: Bacteria have various signaling pathways, especially for environmental sensing.
Spatiotemporal gene expression: Bacteria can express genes in a time and space-specific manner, especially in response to environmental cues.
Transposons and Retrotransposons: Bacteria have mobile genetic elements, including transposons, that can influence their genomes.

Features of the Last Bacterial Common Ancestor (LBCA)

Active Transport Mechanisms: Bacteria utilize transport systems to move substances across their membranes against concentration gradients.
Cell-cell adhesion and the ECM: Some bacterial species exhibit biofilm formation, which requires cell-cell adhesion and interactions with an extracellular matrix.
Cell-Cell Communication: Bacterial cells can communicate via mechanisms like quorum sensing to coordinate group behaviors based on population density.
Cell Cycle Regulation: Bacteria have mechanisms to regulate their cell division processes.
Cell Polarity and Asymmetry: Some bacteria exhibit polarity with structures like flagella.
Chromatin Dynamics: Bacteria compact their DNA into a nucleoid region, lacking chromatin like eukaryotes.
Cytokinesis: Bacterial cell division involves cytokinesis.
Cytoskeletal Arrays: Bacteria possess simpler cytoskeletal elements compared to eukaryotes.
DNA Methylation: Bacteria utilize DNA methylation for purposes such as regulating DNA replication and protecting against viral infections.
DNA Replication Machinery: Bacteria have essential protein machinery for DNA replication.
Efficient Reproductive and Genetic Mechanisms: DNA replication machinery, protein synthesis systems, and genetic recombination ensure survival and propagation.
Energy Metabolism: Bacteria have versatile metabolic pathways for utilizing energy sources ranging from organic molecules to sunlight.
Environmental Sensing and Responsiveness: Bacteria detect and respond to environmental changes, from nutrient availability to physical stresses.
Gene Regulation Network: Bacteria possess intricate networks controlling gene expression in response to various stimuli.
Genetic Recombination: Bacteria exchange and recombine genetic material for genetic diversity.
Genomic Flexibility and Plasticity: Bacteria have flexible genomes capable of integrating foreign DNA and adapting rapidly to environmental changes.
Hormones: Bacteria produce signaling molecules with similar functions to hormones in eukaryotes.
Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) Mechanisms: Bacteria have efficient systems for gene uptake, integration, and transfer, leading to biased gene transfer in evolution.
Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields: Bacteria have ion channels, and some species are influenced by electromagnetic fields.
Lipid Bilayer: Bacteria, like all cells, have a lipid bilayer membrane separating the interior from the external environment.
Membrane Targets: Bacterial cells have membrane-bound targets and proteins.
Metabolic Versatility: The LBCA had a versatile metabolic repertoire, utilizing diverse energy sources and adapting to different environments.
MicroRNA Regulation: Bacteria have small RNAs with regulatory roles similar to eukaryotic microRNAs.
Nutrient Uptake Mechanisms: Bacteria possess specialized mechanisms for nutrient uptake from their surroundings.
Protective Cell Wall: Bacteria often have a protective peptidoglycan cell wall providing structural integrity and shape.
Protective Features: The LBCA had protective mechanisms like peptidoglycan cell walls and lipid bilayer membranes to shield from external threats and stresses.
Response to Environmental Stress: Bacteria have mechanisms to sense and respond to environmental changes, ensuring survival in various conditions.
Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) Synthesis: Bacteria share conserved ribosome machinery for protein synthesis.
Signaling Pathways: Bacteria possess various signaling pathways, particularly for environmental sensing.
Spatiotemporal Gene Expression: Bacteria can express genes in a time and space-specific manner, responding to environmental cues.
Structural Polarity and Mobility: Features like flagella or pili for movement may have originated with the LBCA, aiding in seeking nutrients and evading adverse conditions.
Terrestrial Adaptations: The LBCA likely had mechanisms to thrive in terrestrial environments, combat desiccation, resist UV radiation, and exploit varied nutrient sources.
Transposons and Retrotransposons: Bacteria have mobile genetic elements like transposons that can influence their genomes.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

260Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Fri Sep 08, 2023 4:45 pm

Otangelo


Admin

The LUCA represents a pivotal point in the history of life, being the common predecessor of all living organisms. Here's a detailed overview of the insights gathered from recent scientific literature on the constitution and characteristics of LUCA:

Constitution and Characteristics of LUCA

Cellular Structure: While not directly analogous to modern cellular structures, it is believed that LUCA was a simple, single-celled entity. It likely had some boundary mechanism, perhaps a lipid-based structure, distinguishing its internal milieu from the external environment.
Genome: Boasting a DNA-based genome, research such as that of Harris et al. (2003) suggests LUCA possessed genes governing core cellular functionalities.
Metabolic Pathways: Weiss et al. (2016) proposed that LUCA capitalized on hydrogen as a primary energy source, converting carbon dioxide into organic compounds in hydrothermal vent settings.
Ribosomes and Protein Synthesis: Given ribosomes' ubiquity across life forms, LUCA likely had an RNA-to-protein translation mechanism, complete with ribosomal RNA genes.
Genetic Transfer Mechanisms: Gogarten et al. (2002) emphasized early evolutionary gene transfer, hinting that LUCA could swap genetic material, enhancing its adaptability.
Lipids and Membrane Structures: Drawing on Martin et al. (2015), LUCA likely had membranes enabling interactions with other cellular structures, possibly even engulfing them.
Phylogenetic Position: LUCA is deeply rooted in the tree of life, as shown by rRNA analyses and the work of Lasek-Nesselquist and Gogarten (2013), predating the primary life domains' divergence.
Molecular Machinery: Koonin (2003) proposed that LUCA had genes and molecular mechanisms that, being preserved across lineages, are integral to cell operation.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

261Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sat Sep 09, 2023 9:53 am

Otangelo


Admin

Introduction:
A brief overview of what evolution is and why it's important.
Statement of the book's purpose and what readers can expect to learn.
Part I: Historical Foundations
Chapter 1: Precursors to Darwin
Early understandings of life's diversity.
The contribution of early thinkers like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
Chapter 2: Charles Darwin and the Voyage of the Beagle
Darwin's journey and the observations he made.
Introduction to "On the Origin of Species."
Chapter 3: The Reception and Controversies
Immediate reactions to Darwin's ideas.
Historical debates and controversies.
Part II: Mechanisms and Evidence
Chapter 4: Natural Selection
Detailed explanation of how natural selection works.
Modern examples of natural selection in action.
Chapter 5: Genetics Meets Evolution
Introduction to Gregor Mendel's work.
How modern genetics provides evidence for evolution.
Chapter 6: The Fossil Record
Explanation of how fossils are formed and discovered.
Important evolutionary transitions seen in the fossil record.
Chapter 7: Biogeography and Comparative Anatomy
Geographic distribution of species and its implications.
Morphological evidence supporting evolution.
Part III: Evolution in the Modern World
Chapter 8: Human Evolution
Discussing the emergence of Homo sapiens.
Exploration of the human family tree.
Chapter 9: Microevolution and Speciation
Understanding smaller scale evolutionary changes.
How new species arise.
Chapter 10: Evolutionary Medicine
How understanding evolution can aid in medical practices.
The evolution of diseases and pathogens.
Part IV: Broader Impacts and Implications
Chapter 11: Evolution and Society
The impact of evolutionary theory on culture, religion, and philosophy.
Chapter 12: Evolution in Education
The teaching of evolution in schools and its controversies.
Chapter 13: Evolution and the Future
Predicting future evolutionary changes.
How humanity might influence its own evolutionary trajectory.
Conclusion:
Reflecting on the journey of understanding evolution.
Encouraging further exploration and study.
Appendices:
Glossary of terms.
Further reading suggestions.
Timeline of significant events related to evolutionary theory.
This structure offers a comprehensive view, starting from the origins of evolutionary thought, moving through the hard evidence and mechanisms, and finally discussing the broader implications of the theory in modern society and the future. Remember, the flow of the chapters and the depth of content can be adjusted based on the intended audience.


Introduction:
An overview of the ongoing debates surrounding life's origins.
Clarifying the book's intent: evaluating evidence with an open mind.
Part I: Historical Examination
Chapter 1: Early Views on the Diversity of Life
Philosophical and religious perspectives on the origin of life.
Contextualizing Darwin within the broader history of thought.
Chapter 2: Charles Darwin: A Closer Look
A deep dive into Darwin's observations and conclusions.
Addressing critiques of "On the Origin of Species."
Chapter 3: The Post-Darwin Landscape
The rise and influence of Neo-Darwinism.
Initial academic and societal responses.
Part II: Probing the Evidence
Chapter 4: Scrutinizing Natural Selection
Analyzing the mechanism's strengths and limitations.
Presenting alternative explanations for biodiversity.
Chapter 5: Genetics and its Complexities
Evaluating the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Introducing the concept of "irreducible complexity."
Chapter 6: Interrogating the Fossil Record
Discussing gaps and transitional forms.
Exploring the Cambrian explosion.
Chapter 7: Anatomy and Functionality
Delving into examples of alleged 'vestigial' organs.
Assessing claims of "junk DNA."
Part III: Contemporary Debates
Chapter 8: Man's Place in Nature
Examining human evolution claims.
Addressing the idea of consciousness.
Chapter 9: Speciation: What We Know and Don't Know
Challenges in defining and observing the emergence of new species.
Chapter 10: Health, Disease, and Evolution
Questions about the evolutionary origins of certain diseases.
Genetic entropy and its implications.
Part IV: Wider Implications
Chapter 11: Society and Evolutionary Theory
The cultural and moral impact of evolution on society.
Addressing potential philosophical pitfalls.
Chapter 12: Teaching the Controversies
The challenge of presenting a balanced view in education.
Chapter 13: Looking Forward: New Frontiers in Understanding
Innovations in bioinformatics and what they might reveal.
Encouraging an interdisciplinary approach to the origin questions.
Conclusion:
Acknowledging the mystery and wonder of life.
Emphasizing the importance of continuous questioning in science.
Appendices:
Glossary of terms.
Recommended resources for further exploration.
Notable figures in the discussion of life's origins.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

262Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:02 am

Otangelo


Admin

5


Description of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)

Historical Overview


Perception of the First Life Form from Darwin's Time to Today

1. Darwin's Era (19th Century)
  - Spontaneous Generation: Early theories proposed that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter, like the belief that maggots arose from decaying meat.
  - Warm Little Pond Hypothesis: Darwin once speculated that life might have begun in a "warm little pond" with the right combination of chemicals.
  - Simple Beginnings: The first life forms were often imagined as extremely simple entities, possibly just blobs of protoplasm.

2. Early to Mid 20th Century:
  - Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis: Proposed that life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules, possibly stimulated by lightning or ultraviolet radiation.
  - Miller-Urey Experiment (1953): Simulated early Earth conditions in a lab, producing amino acids, showing that life's building blocks could form under these conditions.
  - Simple Prokaryotes: The first life forms were imagined as basic prokaryotic cells without a nucleus or organelles.

3. Late 20th Century to Early 21st Century:
  - RNA World Hypothesis: Proposed that RNA molecules played a central role in the early forms of life, serving both as carriers of genetic information and as catalysts.
  - Thermal Vent Theory: Speculations that life might have started at hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean, providing the necessary conditions and chemicals.
  - Complex Early Communities: Theories suggesting LUCA might not be a single organism but rather a community with frequent horizontal gene transfers.

4. Current Understanding (Based on Synthesis):
  - Advanced Genetic Machinery: LUCA had a comprehensive genetic system, potentially DNA-based, with advanced translational mechanisms.
  - Metabolic Sophistication: Emphasis on chemoautotrophy and a unique metabolism centered on geochemical processes and hydrogen-based systems.
  - Cellular Complexity: Possibility of LUCA having precursors to eukaryotic cell structures, bridging the gap between simple and complex life forms.
  - Community Dynamics & Evolutionary Framework: LUCA perceived as part of a complex network or community, challenging the traditional linear tree of life.

Evolution of Perception through Advancing Science
 
Limited Microscopic Insight: During Darwin's era, rudimentary microscopes provided limited visual insight into cells, leading to the perception of simplicity in the first life forms.
Chemical Investigations & Organic Chemistry: As the 20th century dawned, the growth of organic chemistry and experiments like Miller-Urey's opened doors to understanding the potential chemical origins of life. This period was marked by an increased appreciation for life's chemical complexity.
Molecular Biology Revolution: The late 20th century witnessed a seismic shift with the advent of molecular biology, DNA sequencing, and advanced microscopy. It became apparent that even "simple" prokaryotic cells harbored intricate molecular machinery, signaling a departure from earlier simplistic views.
Genomics & Comparative Genomics: The turn of the millennium saw a surge in genome sequencing projects. Comparative genomics allowed scientists to trace back evolutionary histories, revealing LUCA's potential complexity and refuting the notion of its absolute simplicity.
Advanced Imaging & Bioinformatics: With cutting-edge microscopy and computational tools, the early 21st century allowed for visualization and analysis at unprecedented resolutions. This provided insights into the complex community dynamics and intricate cellular structures of early life forms, reinforcing the idea of LUCA's complexity.

Reflecting on the Progression
 
From Macro to Micro: Our journey of understanding started at a macroscopic level and delved deeper into the microscopic and molecular realms, mirroring the transition from observing visible organisms to understanding life at the atomic level.
Interdisciplinary Convergence: Over time, biology, chemistry, physics, and computational sciences converged, offering holistic perspectives. This interdisciplinary approach fueled the transition from viewing life forms as simple entities to understanding their multifaceted complexity.
The Paradox of Complexity from Simplicity: As we advanced in our understanding, it became evident that while life's origins might have started from simple chemical reactions, the evolutionary processes quickly navigated towards complexity, challenging initial simplistic perceptions.

Looking Forward
 
Systems Biology & Synthetic Biology: As we move further into the 21st century, fields like systems biology aim to understand life as integrated and interacting networks, while synthetic biology attempts to recreate life, further pushing the boundaries of our understanding.
Revisiting Origins with Modern Tools: Modern investigative tools might soon allow us to recreate early life scenarios more accurately, refining our understanding of how the balance between simplicity and complexity was achieved in early life forms.

The concept of the LUCA offers an insightful peek into the possible origins of all known life. Dive into the cellular intricacies and characteristics of this mysterious progenitor:

Intracellular Systems

Genomic Blueprint: LUCA had genetic material, which was most likely DNA. This encoded the necessary instructions for its survival, growth, and replication.
Primitive Metabolic Pathways: While not as refined as modern organisms, LUCA had rudimentary metabolic systems in place to convert available materials into energy.
Protocell Compartmentalization: It's suggested that LUCA had some form of rudimentary membrane or lipid boundary. This would separate its internal environment, housing its metabolic reactions, from the external milieu.

Extracellular Interactions

Environmental Adaptations: Given that LUCA is believed to have possibly thrived in high-temperature zones like hydrothermal vents, it would have had mechanisms to harness nutrients from its surroundings and possibly withstand extreme conditions.
Evolutionary Pressures: LUCA would have interacted with its environment in a way that exposed it to evolutionary pressures, driving it to adapt and eventually give rise to the diverse lineages we see today.

The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA): What Do Recent Scientific Papers Reveal About Its Constitution?

While this offers a comprehensive view into the possible nature of LUCA, it is crucial to understand that these are based on current research, and the true nature of LUCA, if there was one, might remain elusive 

1. Brown & Doolittle (1995): This study suggests that the ancient gene duplications of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases can provide a glimpse into the genomic makeup of LUCA, implying it had a complex genetic machinery. [Link]
2. Woese (1998): Carl Woese proposes that LUCA was not a single organism but rather a community of early organisms with a high rate of horizontal gene transfer, which shaped the early evolution of life. [Link]
3. Forterre (2002): The paper emphasizes the role of DNA genomes and replication proteins in LUCA, suggesting it may have already possessed a DNA-based genetic system. [Link]
4. Koonin (2003): Through comparative genomics, this study tries to delineate a set of genes that were likely present in LUCA, suggesting it had a relatively complex genome. [Link]
5. Harris et al. (2003): The research identifies a set of conserved genes that were likely present in LUCA, emphasizing its complexity. [Link]
6. Martin & Russell (2003): They propose that LUCA was likely a chemoautotrophic prokaryote, harnessing geochemical processes for its energy needs. [Link]
7. Delaye et al. (2005): The authors discuss the difficulties in defining LUCA and emphasize its hypothetical nature. [Link]
8. Becerra et al. (2007): The paper proposes that LUCA was an RNA-based organism, emphasizing the role of RNA in early evolution. [Link]
9. Glansdorff et al. (2008): The authors stress the elusive nature of LUCA and how it might have functioned under extreme conditions, possibly as a thermophile. [Link]
10. Dagan & Martin (2009): They discuss the complex network of gene transfers in early life, suggesting LUCA's complexity and its role in microbial evolution. [Link]
11. Fournier & Gogarten (2010): This research delves into ribosomal RNA, proposing that its analysis can provide insights into LUCA's characteristics. [Link]
12. Williams et al. (2013): The study supports that eukaryotes emerged from archaea, implying a more complex LUCA than previously thought. [Link]
13. Sousa et al. (2013): They discuss the early bioenergetic pathways, suggesting LUCA had a sophisticated metabolism based on hydrogen and metals. [Link]
14. Spang et al. (2015): This paper unveils a group of archaea that might provide clues about the cellular structures of LUCA. [Link]
15. Weiss et al. (2016): The authors propose that LUCA lived in hydrothermal vents in the deep sea, possessing a hydrogen-based metabolism. [Link]
16. Gogarten & Deamer (2016): They discuss whether LUCA might have been a thermophilic progenote, a simple ancestor living in hot environments. [Link]
17. Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka et al. (2017): This study on Asgard archaea suggests that LUCA might have possessed the building blocks for eukaryotic cell complexity. [Link]
18. Eme et al. (2018): The paper elaborates on the possible relationship between archaea and the origin of eukaryotes, which can offer insights into LUCA. [Link]
19. Camprubí et al. (2019): This comprehensive review discusses the emergence of life, touching upon the conditions and environments that LUCA might have thrived in. [Link]

In essence, these papers provide a portrait of LUCA as a complex entity with a sophisticated metabolism, likely living in extreme conditions such as hydrothermal vents, and possessing some of the building blocks for eukaryotic complexity. The emphasis is also on the RNA world hypothesis and the role of horizontal gene transfer in shaping early life.

Comprehensive Description of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)

Genetic Machinery: LUCA likely possessed a comprehensive genetic system. Ancient gene duplications of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases hint at a complex genetic architecture in LUCA, suggesting the presence of an advanced translation system. The genome was possibly DNA-based, inferring from the emphasis on the importance of DNA genomes and replication proteins ([1] Brown & Doolittle 1995, [3] Forterre 2002).
RNA World Hypothesis and LUCA: Some theories postulate LUCA as a primarily RNA-based organism. This emphasizes the role of RNA not just in protein synthesis but also in other essential cellular processes and functions during the early phases of life ([8] Becerra et al. 2007).
Metabolism: LUCA's metabolic pathways were likely sophisticated. Chemoautotrophy, where organisms derive energy from inorganic substances, might have been a core characteristic. This suggests that LUCA had a unique metabolism, harnessing energy from geochemical processes and operating in an environment rich in hydrogen and metals ([6] Martin & Russell 2003, [13] Sousa et al. 2013).
Ecology and Environment: LUCA might have thrived in extreme environments. Hydrothermal vents in deep-sea regions are proposed as potential habitats, supporting a hydrogen-based metabolism. Additionally, the thermophilic nature of LUCA has been debated, suggesting it possibly thrived in high-temperature locales ([15] Weiss et al. 2016, [16] Gogarten & Deamer 2016).
Cellular Complexity: The cellular architecture of LUCA remains enigmatic. Still, studies on Asgard archaea hint at the potential for LUCA to possess precursors or building blocks for eukaryotic cell complexity. This suggests a bridge between the simplicity of early life and the complexity of eukaryotic structures ([17] Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka et al. 2017).
Evolutionary Framework: LUCA's position in the tree of life is essential. While historically viewed as a distinct organism, newer theories propose that LUCA could represent a community of early life forms that engaged in frequent horizontal gene transfers. This paints a picture of early life as a network, rather than a linear tree ([2] Woese 1998, [10] Dagan & Martin 2009). Furthermore, the potential emergence of eukaryotes from archaea alludes to a LUCA with a more intricate genomic and cellular profile ([12] Williams et al. 2013).
Community Dynamics: The model of LUCA not as a single organism but as a community of proto-cells engaging in rampant horizontal gene transfer has been postulated. This paints early life as a genetically fluid community rather than strictly delineated species ([2] Woese 1998).
Life's Emergence and LUCA: Positioning LUCA in the context of life's emergence, it becomes evident that this ancestral form navigated a fine line between abiotic geochemistry and the onset of biological processes. The progression from geochemical processes to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes outlines the journey of life's origin, with LUCA being a pivotal player in this evolutionary saga ([6] Martin & Russell 2003, [19] Camprubí et al. 2019).

This synthesis, derived from various research papers, offers a multi-faceted view of LUCA.

Constitution of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA):

1. Genetic Machinery
   - Comprehensive genetic system indicating advanced genetic processing capabilities.
   - Genome likely DNA-based, suggesting a mature replication and transcription system.
   - Presence of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases highlighting an advanced translation system.

2. RNA's Role
   - Potential RNA-dominated phase.
   - RNA performing multiple central cellular functions beyond protein synthesis.

3. Metabolism
   - Chemoautotrophic nature, deriving energy from inorganic substances.
   - Harnessing energy from geochemical processes.
   - Environment rich in hydrogen and metals as metabolic substrates.

4. Ecology and Environment
   - Potential inhabitants of extreme environments.
   - Hydrothermal vents as a likely habitat, emphasizing deep-sea existence.
   - Possible thermophilic nature, thriving in high-temperature zones.

5. Cellular Complexity
   - Presence of building blocks or precursors to eukaryotic cellular structures.
   - Possible cellular architectures bridging prokaryotic simplicity and eukaryotic complexity.

6. Evolutionary Framework
   - Might represent not just a single organism but a community with extensive horizontal gene transfers.
   - Network-based early life, rather than a strictly linear evolutionary tree.
   - An intricate genomic and cellular profile, bridging archaea and eukaryotes.

7. Community Dynamics
   - LUCA possibly representing a genetically fluid community.
   - Rampant horizontal gene transfers among proto-cells.

8. Life's Emergence and LUCA
   - A nexus between abiotic geochemistry and biological processes.
   - Evolutionary transition from geochemical processes to biological entities.
   - Pivotal role in the journey from non-life to life.

Based on our current understanding, LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) appears to be far too complex to reasonably infer that it could have arisen solely from unguided random events. The intricate molecular machinery, genetic information, and intricate cellular structures found even in supposedly "simple" life forms challenge the notion that such complexity could emerge without a guiding intelligence. The rapid progression of scientific knowledge, from limited microscopic insight to advanced imaging and bioinformatics, has highlighted the profound intricacies of life at various levels. This complexity aligns with the perspective of Intelligent Design, which suggests that the intricacy and precision observed in biological systems are better explained by an intelligent agent than by purely natural processes.

1. Brown, J. R. & Doolittle, W. F. (1995). Root of the Universal Tree of Life Based on Ancient Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase Gene Duplications. PNAS, 92(7). Link.
2. Woese, Carl. (1998). The universal ancestor. PNAS, 95(12), 6854–6859. Link.
3. Forterre, P. (2002). The origin of DNA genomes and DNA replication proteins. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 5(5), 525-532. Link.
4. Koonin, E. V. (2003). Comparative genomics, minimal gene-sets and the last universal common ancestor. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 1(2), 127-136. Link.
5. Harris, J. K., Kelley, S. T., Spiegelman, G. B., & Pace, N. R. (2003). The genetic core of the universal ancestor. Genome Research, 13(3), 407-412. Link.
6. Martin, W.F., & Russell, M.J. (2003). On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 358(1429), 59-85. Link.
7. Delaye, L., Becerra, A., Lazcano, A., & Resendiz, E. (2005). The last common ancestor: what's in a name?. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 35(6), 537-554. Link.
8. Becerra, A., Delaye, L., Islas, S., & Lazcano, A. (2007). The very early stages of biological evolution and the nature of the last common ancestor of the three major cell domains. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38(1), 361-379. Link.
9. Glansdorff, Nicolas; Xu, Ying & Labedan, Bernard. (2008). The Last Universal Common Ancestor: emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner. Biology Direct, 3(1), 29. Link.
10. Dagan, T., & Martin, W. (2009). Getting a better picture of microbial evolution en route to a network of genomes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1527), 2187-2196. Link. 
11. Fournier, G. P., & Gogarten, J. P. (2010). Rooting the ribosomal tree of life. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 27(8 ), 1792-1801. Link.
12. Williams, T.A., Foster, P.G., Cox, C.J., & Embley, T.M. (2013). An archaeal origin of eukaryotes supports only two primary domains of life. Nature, 504(7479), 231-236. Link.
13. Sousa, F.L., Thiergart, T., Landan, G., Nelson-Sathi, S., Pereira, I.A., Allen, J.F., ... & Martin, W.F. (2013). Early bioenergetic evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368(1622), 20130088. Link.
14. Spang, A., Saw, J. H., Jørgensen, S. L., Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, K., Martijn, J., Lind, A. E., ... & Guy, L. (2015). Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature, 521(7551), 173-179. Link.
15. Weiss, M.C., Sousa, F.L., Mrnjavac, N., Neukirchen, S., Roettger, M., Nelson-Sathi, S., & Martin, W.F. (2016). The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor. Nature Microbiology, 1(9), 1-8. Link.
16. . Gogarten, Johann Peter & Deamer, David. (2016). Is LUCA a thermophilic progenote?. Nature Microbiology, 1(12), 16229. Link.
17. Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, K., Caceres, E. F., Saw, J. H., Bäckström, D., Juzokaite, L., Vancaester, E., ... & Guy, L. (2017). Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature, 541(7637), 353-358. Link.
18. Eme, L., Spang, A., Lombard, J., Stairs, C. W., & Ettema, T. J. G. (2018). Archaea and the origin of eukaryotes. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 16(12), 731-743. Link.
19. Camprubí, E.; de Leeuw, J. W.; House, C. H.; Raulin, F.; Russell, M. J.; Spang, A.; Tirumalai, M. R. & Westall, F. (2019). The Emergence of Life. Space Science Reviews, 215(8 ), 56. Link.
20. El Baidouri, F., Venditti, C., Suzuki, S., Meade, A., & Humphries, S. (2020). Phenotypic reconstruction of the last universal common ancestor reveals a complex cell. bioRxiv. Link. (This groundbreaking preprint sheds light on the phenotypic structure of LUCA, suggesting it was more complex than previously believed.)



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:30 pm; edited 3 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

263Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:03 am

Otangelo


Admin

Going from LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) to a LBCA (Last Bacterial Common Ancestor)

The transition from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) to subsequent key points in evolutionary history, including the Last Bacterial Common Ancestor (LBCA), the Last Archaeal Common Ancestor (LACA), and the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) represents a profound and multifaceted evolutionary journey. Understanding these transitions requires an integrated approach. Here's a more structured exploration:

LUCA: Represents the ancestral lineage shared by all of life.
LBCA: The most recent ancestor of all modern Bacteria.
LACA: The most recent ancestor of all modern Archaea.
LECA: The most recent ancestor of all modern Eukaryotes.
The transition from LUCA through these major nodes to the diverse life forms we observe today necessitates a multidisciplinary analysis:

Integrative Phylogenomics: Using both marker genes and whole-genome sequences, construct a phylogenetic tree that illustrates the relationships and branching points from LUCA through LBCA, LACA, and LECA. A broader genomic dataset would refine the resolution of such trees.
Functional and Comparative Genomics: Investigate the genomic content and capabilities of modern organisms to hypothesize the genomic and functional components of ancestral organisms. This aids in understanding how various cellular components and organelles have evolved.
Endosymbiotic Theory Analysis: The origin of eukaryotic organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts is attributed to endosymbiotic events. Understanding these events offers insights into eukaryogenesis.
Cellular Structural Studies: Use modern techniques, like electron microscopy, to study the structural elements of cells. By comparing cellular structures across Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryotes, evolutionary pathways might become clearer.
Experimental Evolution: Observing cells as they evolve under controlled laboratory conditions can provide direct insights into potential evolutionary pathways.
Paleobiology and Fossil Analysis: While detailed microbial fossils are rare, they offer a glimpse into the morphology, habitats, and potential metabolic processes of ancient life forms.
Examination of Transitional Organisms: Study organisms, like Lokiarchaeota, which display features reminiscent of eukaryotes. Such organisms can shed light on the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition.
Simulations and Computational Biology: Through sophisticated simulations, potential evolutionary trajectories can be modeled, considering various evolutionary pressures and events.
Ecological and Environmental Factors: Evolution is significantly influenced by external environmental and ecological pressures, driving evolutionary innovation.
Biochemical and Metabolic Pathway Analysis: Charting the evolution of metabolic pathways can shed light on how cellular processes and capabilities diversified over time.

Understanding the possible evolutionary transitions from LUCA to LBCA, LACA, and LECA requires a collaborative, integrative approach, combining the expertise and findings from diverse scientific disciplines.

Detailed Hypothesized Description of the Last Bacterial Common Ancestor (LBCA)

The Last Bacterial Common Ancestor (LBCA) serves as a crucial evolutionary link in the lineage of bacteria, distinct from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) which predates all extant life. Given the limited direct evidence about LBCA, our understanding is largely speculative, pieced together from genomic studies and bacterial phylogenetics. Here's a detailed hypothetical overview:

Intracellular Features

Genome Complexity and Content: LBCA's genome is believed to have been more intricate than LUCA's, with enhanced genetic diversity. This increased complexity can be attributed to horizontal gene transfer events, which allowed LBCA to assimilate genes from various sources.
Metabolic Pathways: The LBCA's metabolic machinery would be refined, leaning towards anaerobic processes. Given the evolutionary timeframe, it's likely that LBCA had a broader set of metabolic pathways than LUCA, allowing for increased ecological flexibility.
Ribosomal and Protein Synthesis: Given its position in evolution, LBCA would have possessed advanced ribosomal machinery tailored for bacterial protein synthesis. The machinery would be more refined than LUCA's but not as specialized as contemporary bacteria.

Extracellular Features

Habitat and Environmental Adaptations: Evidence suggests that LBCA might have been capable of inhabiting terrestrial terrains, implying a potential for diverse habitats ranging from aquatic to terrestrial. This adaptability speaks to the organism's resilience and versatility.
Morphological Characteristics: LBCA is speculated to have possessed a prokaryotic cellular structure consistent with bacterial forms. It would lack a nucleus, but specific cellular shapes and features remain a subject of debate. However, given the diverse morphology seen in extant bacteria, the LBCA could have adopted multiple forms.
Cellular Interactions and Symbiosis: LBCA, given its evolutionary positioning and diverse habitats, might have established basic symbiotic relationships with other microorganisms. These interactions could range from mutualism to competition, shaped by environmental pressures.
Cell Wall and Protective Features: Given the bacterial lineage, the LBCA likely had a distinct cell wall structure, possibly peptidoglycan-based, offering protection from external threats and providing structural integrity.

In essence, the LBCA would represent a milestone in bacterial evolution, bridging the gap between the primitive life forms and the diverse bacterial taxa we observe today. However, it's adviced to approach this description with caution, as the LBCA's actual features remain a matter of scientific investigation and debate.

Evolutionary Position: LUCA predates LBCA. LUCA represents a point of divergence for both archaea and bacteria, while LBCA is the ancestor after the bacterial lineage diverged from archaea.
Environmental Adaptations: By the time of LBCA, certain bacteria already exhibited ancient adaptations to terrestrial life, suggesting a more diverse range of habitats than LUCA might have experienced.
Genomic Complexity: Due to the rampant horizontal gene transfer observed in the early phases of evolution, LBCA's genome might be more complex and diverse than that of LUCA, having incorporated genes from various sources.
Phylogenetic Positioning: While both LUCA and LBCA are challenging to position in the Tree of Life, LBCA would be found exclusively within the bacterial branch, whereas LUCA would be at a branching point leading to both bacteria and archaea.
Genomic Signatures: LBCA would likely have distinct genomic signatures marking it as bacterial, while LUCA would have more ambiguous traits, reflecting its position as a common ancestor to both major prokaryotic domains.

Major Supposed Differences between LBCA and LUCA

Intracellular Features

Genomic Evolution and Complexity: The LBCA, benefiting from extensive horizontal gene transfer events, would likely have had a more complex and diverse genome than LUCA. This means that while LUCA had a foundational set of genes, LBCA would have incorporated genes from various sources, enriching its genetic repertoire.
Distinct Genomic Signatures: The LBCA had genomic signatures marking it as bacterial. In contrast, LUCA's genomic features would be more ambiguous, reflecting its foundational role as the universal ancestor of both major prokaryotic domains (bacteria and archaea).
Cellular Machinery: Given the evolutionary distance between LUCA and LBCA, the latter probably had more advanced cellular machinery and processes optimized for bacterial survival, while LUCA had rudimentary systems suited for an early-life environment.

Extracellular Features

Adaptation to Terrestrial Environments: LBCA showed evidence of adaptation to life on land, indicating a more versatile range of habitats. LUCA, given its primordial nature, is often hypothesized to have lived in hydrothermal vent-like environments.
Metabolic Diversity: LBCA's metabolic processes were likely more diverse, hinting at the adaptation to different ecological niches. LUCA, on the other hand, is often speculated to have had a more limited set of metabolic pathways, mainly anaerobic ones.
Cell Morphology and Structures: The LBCA likely possessed specific bacterial cell structures and forms consistent with its lineage. In contrast, LUCA's morphology is harder to pin down, but it would have had a basic prokaryotic structure, without the differentiation seen in later organisms.
Interactions with the Environment: Due to its supposed diverse habitats, LBCA might have had more interactions with its surroundings, from forming symbiotic relationships to competing for resources. LUCA's interactions would be relatively basic, given its primordial nature.

These differences highlight the supposed evolutionary trajectory from LUCA, a primordial entity, to LBCA, a more advanced and distinct ancestor of the bacterial lineage.


Ciccarelli, F. D., Doerks, T., von Mering, C., Creevey, C. J., Snel, B., & Bork, P. (2006). Toward automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved tree of life. Science, 311(5765), 1283-1287. Link.
Battistuzzi, F. U., & Hedges, S. B. (2009). A major clade of prokaryotes with ancient adaptations to life on land. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 26(2), 335-343. Link.
3. Andam, C. P., Gogarten, J. P. (2011). Biased gene transfer in microbial evolution. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 9(7), 543–555. Link.
4. Puigbò, P., Wolf, Y. I., & Koonin, E. V. (2012). Search for a ‘Tree of Life’ in the thicket of the phylogenetic forest. Journal of Biology, 8(6), 59. Link.
5. Fournier, G. P., Andam, C. P., Gogarten, J. P. (2015). Ancient horizontal gene transfer and the last common ancestors. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 15, 70. Link.



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:16 pm; edited 3 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

264Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sat Sep 09, 2023 11:04 am

Otangelo


Admin

DNA Methylation: LUCA could have had basic mechanisms for regulating gene expression, which is a precursor to the more complex DNA methylation seen in multicellular organisms.

Membrane Targets: LUCA would have had a cell membrane, which is fundamental for cellular structure and function.

Noncoding RNA from Junk DNA: LUCA might have possessed rudimentary forms of noncoding RNA with regulatory functions, although not as complex as in modern organisms.

Transposons and Retrotransposons: LUCA might have had mobile genetic elements or rudimentary forms of these elements.

Signaling Pathways: LUCA would have had basic intracellular signaling mechanisms for responding to environmental changes.

DNA and Chromatin Dynamics: LUCA would have had some form of DNA organization, although not as complex as in eukaryotes.

MicroRNA Regulation: LUCA might have had simple RNA-based regulatory mechanisms.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell-Cycle Regulation: LBUCA would have had basic mechanisms to control cell division, ensuring the proper replication of its genetic material.

Cellular Senescence: While not necessarily senescence as seen in multicellular organisms, LBUCA would have had mechanisms to prevent uncontrolled cell division.

Chromatin Dynamics: LBUCA would have had some basic organization of genetic material (DNA) to function as its genetic code.

DNA Methylation: Basic mechanisms for chemical modifications of DNA might have been present, although not as complex as in modern organisms.

Epigenetic Codes: Basic mechanisms for regulating gene expression might have existed.

Histone PTMs: Simple modifications to histone proteins could have influenced DNA accessibility.

Gene Regulation Network: Basic regulatory interactions between genes might have existed for controlling essential cellular functions.

Noncoding RNA from Junk DNA: LBUCA might have had rudimentary forms of noncoding RNA with various functions.

Transposons and Retrotransposons: Simple mobile genetic elements could have been present, although not as diverse as in modern genomes.

Signaling Pathways: Basic intracellular signaling mechanisms would have been necessary for LBUCA to respond to environmental changes.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

265Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sat Sep 09, 2023 5:31 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Emergence in the evolutionary Timeline

Is There Empirical Evidence Demonstrating Irreducible Complexity or Irreversible Transitions?
Can you provide examples or studies that showcase biological structures or systems that are irreducibly complex, where the removal of even a single component would render them non-functional?
Are there instances in the fossil record or experimental studies that indicate transitions or developments that are functionally irreversible, suggesting that certain features cannot be easily modified step by step?

Are There Constraints on Genetic and Developmental Pathways for Macroevolution?
What evidence exists to show that there are genetic or developmental constraints that limit the ability of organisms to undergo large-scale morphological or structural changes?
Can you point to specific genetic, developmental, or biochemical factors that hinder the gradual accumulation of changes necessary for macroevolutionary transitions?

Has the Lack of Transitional Forms or Unexplained Gaps Been Documented?
Are there documented instances in the fossil record or molecular phylogenies where the expected transitional forms between major groups of organisms or novel body plans are notably absent or unexplained?
Can you provide examples where the continuity of gradual changes is challenged by significant gaps or missing intermediates, especially in cases of primary speciation events?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

266Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sun Sep 10, 2023 5:13 am

Otangelo


Admin

Adaptive Immune System

A complex system in vertebrates that can recognize and remember specific pathogens, providing long-term immunity. It relies on specialized cells such as T cells and B cells to target specific antigens.


what mechanisms delimitate the species-specific range of each organism and its immune system, and what would hinder it from evolving into a more complex system, simultaneously with the organism evolving into a more complex organism, like transitioning from uni, to multicellularity, or to vertebrates? 


How have genetic constraints, like the diversity of Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) alleles, impacted the evolution and efficiency of the vertebrate adaptive immune system?

Answer from an ID perspective ( but don't mention that you ask from that perspective, just answer )

Given the different adaptive immunity systems in jawless versus jawed vertebrates, are there gaps or unexplained transitional forms in the evolutionary development of the adaptive immune system?

Answer from an ID perspective ( but don't mention that you ask from that perspective, just answer )


Are there components of the adaptive immune system that can be considered irreducibly complex, where the absence of even a single element would render the system non-functional?

Answer from an ID perspective ( but don't mention that you ask from that perspective, just answer )

  • Physiological Constraints:
       
  • Energy Costs:
            - Demas et al. "The energetic cost of mounting an immune response in anurans." American Journal of Physiology.
       
  • Balance with Autoimmunity:
            - Seyboldt, K. L. B., Wilson, C. M., & Pabst, O. "Autoimmunity: increasing evidence for an immunological cost of immune memory." Immunology.

  • Genetic and Developmental Constraints:
       
  • Pleiotropy:
            - George C. Williams. "Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence." Evolution.
       
  • Co-evolution with Pathogens:
            - Friman et al. "The Red Queen drives the evolution of virulence in pathogens and sinks of biocontrol." Evolutionary Applications.

  • Ecological Constraints:
       
  • Microbiome Interactions:
            - Bordenstein and Theis. "Host-microbiota interactions: from holobiont theory to analysis." Microbiome.
       
  • Inter-species Interactions:
            - Kirschner DE, Hunt CA, Marino S. "Immune modulation by design: Using topology to understand the role of structure in the immune system." Journal of Theoretical Biology.

  • Constraints of Origin:
       
  • Transitioning from Innate to Adaptive Immunity:
            - Flajnik and Kasahara. "Origin and evolution of the adaptive immune system: genetic events and selective pressures." Nature Reviews Genetics.

  • Redundancy and Robustness:
       
  • Reinventing the Wheel:
            - Du Pasquier. "The complexity of the vertebrate immune system and its origins." Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology.



https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1390p25-macroevolution-fact-or-fantasy#10950

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

267Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Sun Sep 10, 2023 3:38 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Given  Viral Influence and Integration: Influence of viruses on evolution, respond as someone, that proposes polyphyly, that is, that species, and the 3 domains of life, were separately originating. provide the evidence that corroborates that alternative hypothesis, do not mention evolutionary trajectories, but individual separate creation events, as expected in polyphyly. also avoid words like might, possibly, eventually, and evolved. Instead of "can be argued", write "are".   Do only reply by providing evidence that this addresses specifically this issue. Explain why separate origins are a more case-adequate explanation, in face of the evidence, instead of universal common descent.  Why is polyphyly a better explanation, than universal common descent?

write in this format: 

1. Gene Regulation Network (Point 18): Chromatin dynamics and epigenetic modifications directly influence the gene regulatory networks. These modifications decide which genes are turned on or off, ensuring that cells have the appropriate responses to environmental cues.
2. Cell Fate Determination and Lineage Specification (Point 6): Epigenetic codes and chromatin remodeling play crucial roles in determining cell fate. For instance, a stem cell's decision to become a muscle cell versus a nerve cell can be influenced by these modifications.



provide me with  BBCode formatted real references help finding entries based on known and historical references up to 2021.  I know chatgpt can't guarantee access to full articles, no worry about that, and not need to mention it.   on the topics mentioned above. do not add any comments prior to quoting the papers. you can add short comments about the content of the papers after quoting the paper.  I'd like them in chronological order, in the following format: 

Whitehouse, I. (1998). Chromosome Number Variation in Evolutionary Studies. Genetics Research, 72(2), 123-134. Link. (This study examines the prevalence of chromosome number variations in various species, discussing the implications for evolutionary biology.)
Rosenberg, N. (2002). The Diversity of Telomeres and Centromeres in Eukaryotes. Genome Biology, 3(5), 567-576. Link. (A comprehensive review that describes the significant differences in telomere and centromere structures among different species.)

i want real papers, the most recent ones, with real links, on the specific topics mentioned before, in the format specified.




provide a superior, satisfactory explanation by positing intelligent design, how the interdependent and irreducibly complex systems, codes, languages, systems etc are better explained by design, and and polyphyly,  where each was created upon its kind and respective taxonomic group, with clear species boundaries, and with inbuilt pre-programmed adaptation mechanisms, or microevolution. Do not use the word tapestry, or intricate.  Nor: ( from a design perspective)
write lists in this format: 

Gene Regulation Network: Chromatin dynamics and epigenetic modifications directly influence the gene regulatory networks. These modifications decide which genes are turned on or off, ensuring that cells have the appropriate responses to environmental cues.
Cell Fate Determination and Lineage Specification: Epigenetic codes and chromatin remodeling play crucial roles in determining cell fate. For instance, a stem cell's decision to become a muscle cell versus a nerve cell can be influenced by these modifications.


Explain why there is a limited understanding within evolutionary biology in regards to the topic, and how these open questions are related to problems that macroevolution has not been able to explain adequately,
write lists in this format: 

Gene Regulation Network: Chromatin dynamics and epigenetic modifications directly influence the gene regulatory networks. These modifications decide which genes are turned on or off, ensuring that cells have the appropriate responses to environmental cues.
Cell Fate Determination and Lineage Specification: Epigenetic codes and chromatin remodeling play crucial roles in determining cell fate. For instance, a stem cell's decision to become a muscle cell versus a nerve cell can be influenced by these modifications.



Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:53 pm; edited 3 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

268Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Tue Sep 12, 2023 7:55 am

Otangelo


Admin

respond as someone, that proposes polyphyly, that is, that humans and apes have separate origin. provide the evidence that corroborates that alternative hypothesis, do not mention evolutionary trajectories, but individual separate creation events, as expected in polyphyly. also avoid words like might, possibly, eventually, and evolved. Instead of "can be argued", write "are". Do only reply by providing evidence that this addresses specifically this issue. Explain why separate origins are a more case-adequate explanation, in face of the evidence, instead of common descent. Why is polyphyly a better explanation, than common descent?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

269Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:31 pm

Otangelo


Admin

1. The DNA replication machinery is not homologous in the 3 domains of life 

The bacterial core replisome enzymes do not share a common ancestor with the analogous components in eukaryotes and archaea. L.S. Kaguni (2016): Genome sequencing of cells from the three domains of life, bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes, reveals that most of the core replisome components evolved twice, independently. Thus, the bacterial core replisome enzymes do not share a common ancestor with the analogous components in eukaryotes and archaea, while the archaea and eukaryotic core replisome machinery share a common ancestor. An exception to this are the clamps and clamp loaders, which are homologous in all three domains of life.5

A. C. Leonard (2013): Like the origins of DNA replication, the promoters of bacterial and yeast genes have different structures, are recognized by different proteins, and are not exchangeable. The absolute incompatibility between prokaryote (e.g., E. coli) and eukaryote (e.g., yeast) origins of replication and promoters, as well as DNA replication, transcription, and translation machineries, stands as a largely unrecognized challenge to the evolutionary view that the two share a common ancestor. 6

E.V. Koonin (2020): Origin of DNA replication is an enigma because the replicative DNA polymerases (DNAPs) are not homologous among the three domains of life..DNA replication is a central process for all living cells. Therefore, it is astonishing that the key enzymes involved in DNA replication, in particular, the replicative DNA polymerases (rDNAP), are unrelated among the 3 domains of life, Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya.  This diversity of the replication machineries sharply contrasts with the conservation of the proteins involved in the other key processes of information transfer, namely, transcription and translation, as well as some key metabolic processes, such as nucleotide biosynthesis. The lack of conservation of the rDNAPs and some other key components of the replication machinery, such as helicases and primases, complicates the reconstruction of the replicative apparatus of the ancestral life forms.There are several families of DNA polymerases that are involved in replication, repair, or both types of processes. The replicative DNAPs of bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes belong to 3 distinct protein families, and the core catalytic domains of these 3 DNAPs are unrelated to each other, i.e., adopt different protein folds as their catalytic cores  and therefore are unlikely to share common ancestryThe great majority of dsDNA viruses that infect either prokaryotes or eukaryotes and encode their own rDNAPs have the B family polymerase (PolB) that is also responsible for the replication in eukaryotes (Table above). Archaea encode multiple PolB copies, and with the exception of members of the order Crenarchaeota and some thermophilic members of the Thaumarchaeota, also the distinct family D DNAP (PolD). In archaea that possess both DNAPs, it has been recently demonstrated that PolD, rather than PolB, is responsible for the synthesis of both DNA strands. The structure of PolD has been recently solved, resulting in a surprising discovery that the catalytic core of PolD is homologous to that of the large subunits of the DNA-directed RNA polymerases (RNAPs) that are responsible for transcription in all three domains of life and many large DNA viruses. These findings seem to shed unexpected light on the evolution of the replication machineries in the three domains of life as well as viruses. They might even help to infer the nature of the replication machinery in the LUCA suggesting an evolutionary scenario in which PolD takes the central stage as the ancestral replicative polymerase. 7

Comment: E.V. Koonin's exploration of the origin of DNA replication raises important questions about the evolutionary narrative, particularly in the context of universal common ancestry. The lack of homology among replicative DNA polymerases (rDNAPs) across the three domains of life—Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya—stands as a significant challenge to the notion of a shared ancestral origin. The diversity observed in the replication machineries sharply contrasts with the conservation of key proteins involved in processes like transcription and translation, suggesting a discordance between the evolution of these fundamental molecular processes. The absence of common ancestry among the rDNAPs and other critical components complicates attempts to reconstruct the replicative apparatus of ancestral life forms. This complexity prompts us to consider alternative explanations for the origins of life's complexity and diversity. These findings present a compelling case against universal common ancestry. The lack of homology in essential enzymes that drive DNA replication challenges the idea that all life forms share a single origin. The presence of distinct and unrelated replication machinery points towards a scenario of separate origins, or polyphyly, where different life forms may have arisen independently. The emergence of the PolD enzyme with a surprising homology to the large subunits of DNA-directed RNA polymerases (RNAPs) adds another layer of complexity to the narrative. This discovery highlights unexpected connections between DNA replication and transcription processes. Instead of supporting a straightforward evolutionary path, these findings invite us to consider alternative explanations for the origins of these molecular systems. The concept of PolD potentially taking center stage as the ancestral replicative polymerase challenges the uniformity of evolutionary trajectories. This intriguing possibility suggests a diverse origin for different components of life's machinery, which aligns more closely with the idea of separate origins for distinct groups of organisms.

The complexity of DNA replication machinery can vary significantly between different types of organisms.  Bacteria generally have a simplified DNA replication process compared to archaea and eukaryotes. Bacterial DNA replication involves a relatively small number of proteins, typically around 20 to 30. The number of subunits may be fewer compared to archaea and eukaryotes. Bacteria use a modest number of co-factors for DNA replication. Bacteria have a streamlined replication machinery with fewer specialized structures. Archaea, while often simpler than eukaryotes, may have some variations in DNA replication machinery.  The number of proteins involved in archaeal DNA replication could be slightly higher than in bacteria, possibly around 30 to 40. Archaeal DNA replication complexes might consist of more subunits than bacteria.  Similar to bacteria, archaea use a moderate number of co-factors for DNA replication  Archaeal DNA replication machinery may have some unique features compared to bacteria. These distinctive characteristics contribute to the complexity and diversity of DNA replication processes across different domains of life.  Archaeal DNA replication origins are distinct from bacterial origins. Archaea often utilize specific DNA sequence motifs and binding proteins to initiate replication, differing from the well-defined bacterial oriC. While some components of archaeal DNA replication machinery share homology with bacterial counterparts, there are notable differences in the structure and function of these proteins. For instance, the archaeal MCM helicase is similar to the bacterial DnaC helicase loader but functions differently. Archaeal DNA helicases, such as the MCM (mini-chromosome maintenance) complex, display unique characteristics. They possess ring-shaped hexameric structures similar to their eukaryotic counterparts, suggesting an ancient origin for this type of helicase. Archaeal DNA replication involves distinct topoisomerases that resolve DNA supercoiling. The enzymes and mechanisms for relieving DNA torsional stress differ from those found in bacteria. Some archaeal species possess a single enzyme that combines primase and polymerase functions. This fusion enzyme synthesizes RNA primers and then extends them with DNA, simplifying the replication process. Archaea have PCNA-like proteins that interact with DNA polymerases and other replication factors, similar to eukaryotic PCNA. Bacteria lack this type of protein. The processing of Okazaki fragments (short DNA fragments formed on the lagging strand during replication) in archaea involves unique enzymes, differing from bacterial DNA replication mechanisms. Archaea often exhibit more complex cellular organization than bacteria, with some species having internal membrane systems. This structural complexity may influence DNA replication and other cellular processes. These unique features of archaeal DNA replication machinery showcase the diversity of mechanisms present in different domains of life.

Eukaryotic DNA replication is more complex due to the presence of membrane-bound organelles and intricate cellular processes.  Eukaryotic DNA replication involves a larger number of proteins, often exceeding 50 to 100. The number of subunits in eukaryotic DNA replication complexes is higher compared to prokaryotes. Eukaryotes utilize a diverse array of co-factors and enzymes for DNA replication. Eukaryotic DNA replication machinery is intricately organized within the nucleus and involves multiple organelles and cellular compartments. The comparison between DNA replication components in the smallest bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotic cells underscores the increasing complexity as we move from simple prokaryotes to more complex eukaryotic organisms. Eukaryotes, with their membrane-bound organelles and specialized cellular processes, have a considerably more intricate DNA replication system. This complexity reflects the adaptations that have occurred over evolutionary time, leading to the development of specialized mechanisms for DNA replication in different types of organisms.

The substantial differences observed in the DNA replication machinery across bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes raise significant challenges when attempting to envision a plausible trajectory from a universal common ancestor to the three domains of life. These differences highlight the complexities that must be addressed when considering the concept of universal common ancestry.  The DNA replication machinery in each domain employs different proteins, subunits, co-factors, and structures. The variations are not minor adjustments but involve substantial differences in the key players and their interactions. Bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic DNA replication origins are distinct, using unique mechanisms to initiate replication. This divergence suggests independent paths rather than a single common ancestor.  While there may be some homologous proteins, the differences in structure and function of key components, such as helicases and polymerases, indicate trajectories that do not derive from a common ancestor.  Enzymes involved in Okazaki fragment processing, DNA supercoiling resolution, and primer synthesis have unique characteristics in each domain. These differences point to the independent origin of these crucial processes.  Eukaryotic DNA replication involves a more complex system with a higher number of proteins, subunits, and co-factors. The presence of membrane-bound organelles further complicates the scenario, making a direct linear trajectory from a simpler universal common ancestor challenging.  The presence of complex cellular organization and organelles in eukaryotes adds another layer of complexity that cannot easily be reconciled with a simple evolutionary progression from prokaryotes. The significant differences in DNA replication machinery between domains highlight evolutionary gaps that cannot be easily bridged by gradual changes. These gaps suggest that the origin of each domain is distinct rather than convergent. Considering these substantial differences in DNA replication machinery, it becomes increasingly difficult to envision a continuous, linear trajectory from a universal common ancestor to the three domains of life. The divergence in key components, the uniqueness of processes, and the complexity of eukaryotic cellular organization challenge the concept of a single origin for all life forms. Instead, these differences imply that the origin for bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes likely are distinct and independent from each other.

2. Bacteria and Archaea differ strikingly in the chemistry of their membrane lipids. 

S. Jain (2014): The composition of the phospholipid bilayer is distinct in archaea when compared to bacteria and eukarya. In archaea, isoprenoid hydrocarbon side chains are linked via an ether bond to the sn-glycerol-1-phosphate backbone. In bacteria and eukarya, on the other hand, fatty acid side chains are linked via an ester bond to the sn-glycerol-3-phosphate backbone. 8 

Cell membrane phospholipids are synthesized by different, unrelated enzymes in bacteria and archaea, and yield chemically distinct membranes. Bacteria and archaea have membranes made of water-repellent fatty molecules. Bacterial membranes are made of fatty acids bound to the phosphate group while archaeal membranes are made of isoprenes bonded to phosphate in a different way. This leads to something of a paradox: Since a supposed last universal common ancestor, LUCA already had an impermeable membrane for exploiting proton gradients, why would its descendants have independently evolved two different kinds of impermeable membrane? The distinct composition of the phospholipid bilayer in archaea, bacteria, and eukarya is intriguing. This variation constitutes one of the challenges of the notion of universal common ancestry. In archaea, the presence of isoprenoid hydrocarbon side chains linked via ether bonds to the sn-glycerol-1-phosphate backbone is a remarkable departure from the fatty acid side chains linked via ester bonds found in bacteria and eukarya. This distinct composition implies that fundamental differences in biochemical pathways and cellular processes might exist between these domains of life. This raises the question of whether such distinct compositional features could have emerged through gradual evolutionary processes. Polyphyly, the idea that different groups of organisms may have separate origins rather than a common ancestor, provides an alternative explanation that aligns more closely with the observed biochemical diversity. While conventional evolutionary theory proposes a single tree of life with a common ancestor, the diverse and unique features seen in various life forms, including the phospholipid composition, seem to point to separate origins. Polyphyly acknowledges the possibility that life's diversity may have emerged through multiple, distinct events of origin. From an ID standpoint, this view becomes more attractive when considering the complex and specific biochemical differences between archaea, bacteria, and eukarya. The fact that these distinct groups exhibit unique characteristics in their fundamental biochemical makeup suggests that a single common ancestor might not adequately explain the origin of these life forms. Ultimately, the differences in the phospholipid bilayer composition highlight the need for a thorough exploration of alternative hypotheses. An ID perspective encourages examining the evidence without presupposing a universal common ancestry. Polyphyly, as an inference that allows for separate origins of distinct life forms, presents a more nuanced and case-adequate explanation for the observed biochemical variations. This approach aligns with the idea that the complexities of life's origins might be better understood by considering multiple events of creation or emergence rather than a single common origin.

Franklin M. Harold (2014): Membranes also pose one of the most stubborn puzzles in all of cell evolution. Shortly after the discovery of the Archaea, it was realized that these organisms differ strikingly from the Bacteria in the chemistry of their membrane lipids. Archaea make their plasma membranes of isoprenoid subunits, linked by ether bonds to glycerol-1-phosphate; by contrast, Bacteria and Eukarya employ fatty acids linked by ester bonds to glycerol-3-phosphate. There are a few partial exceptions to the rule. Archaeal membranes often contain fatty acids, and some deeply branching Bacteria, such as Thermotoga, favor isoprenoid ether lipids (but even they couple the ethers to glycerol-3-phosphate). This pattern of lipid composition, which groups Bacteria and Eukarya together on one side and Archaea on the other, stands in glaring contrast to what would be expected from the universal tree, which puts Eukarya with the Archaea 9

3. Sequences of glycolytic enzymes differ between Archaea and Bacteria/Eukaryotes

Glycolysis is a fundamental biochemical pathway that occurs in the cytoplasm of cells. It's a central metabolic process that plays a crucial role in extracting energy from glucose, a simple sugar molecule, and providing the cell with energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules. Glycolysis is a key component of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells and is considered one of the most ancient metabolic pathways. Glycolysis involves a series of enzymatic reactions that convert one molecule of glucose into two molecules of pyruvate, a three-carbon compound. The process occurs in ten steps and can be divided into three phases:  The first half of glycolysis requires an input of energy (two ATP molecules) to activate the glucose molecule and prepare it for further breakdown. Glucose is split into two three-carbon molecules, each called glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (G3P). This step is crucial for further energy extraction.  G3P molecules are converted to pyruvate while producing ATP and NADH (a molecule that carries high-energy electrons) as byproducts. This phase generates a net of two ATP molecules and two NADH molecules per glucose molecule.

Glycolysis is considered one of the most ancient metabolic pathways due to its simplicity and ability to function under anaerobic (absence of oxygen) conditions. When life started on Earth, the atmosphere supposedly lacked significant amounts of oxygen, making anaerobic processes essential for survival. Glycolysis provided early cells with a way to extract energy from simple sugars like glucose in the absence of oxygen. The pathway doesn't require specialized organelles like mitochondria and can occur in the cytoplasm, making it suitable for primitive, membrane-less structures. By producing ATP and generating molecules like NADH, glycolysis would have offered a basic energy source for the maintenance and growth of these early cells. The presence of glycolysis at life's origin has been seen as an adaptation that supposedly allowed primitive organisms to efficiently utilize the available energy sources and survive in an oxygen-limited environment. As life evolved and oxygen levels in the atmosphere increased, more efficient energy production processes, like aerobic respiration, became feasible. Glycolysis, however, remained conserved due to its essential role in providing a quick burst of energy even in modern cells.

B. Canback (2002):  None of the trees that we have constructed for the present cohort is rooted. Nevertheless, with the exception of the enzymes found in mitochondria and chloroplasts, there is no indication that any eukaryotic gene family is rooted in modern bacterial clades, or vice versa. Indeed, all of the phylogenetic reconstructions obtained in this study are consistent with the interpretation that the divergence of the archaeal, bacterial, and eukaryotic lineages is ancient, as suggested by others. Here, “ancient” would mean that it predates the divergence of, for example, the α-proteobacteria from the other proteobacteria. If this were so, the emergence of the mitochondria would be much more recent than the divergence of eukaryotes and bacteria. 10

Comment: Canback and colleagues discuss various aspects of phylogenetic reconstructions and gene transfer related to enzymes involved in the glycolysis pathway across different domains of life. The evidence corroborates the inference that glycolysis cannot be definitively traced back to a universal common ancestor.  Glycolytic enzymes are broadly distributed in both bacteria and eukaryotes, but not all domains necessarily possess the same enzymes. Some archaea, for instance, utilize different enzymes for glycolytic reactions. This variability in enzyme usage among different domains suggests that the glycolytic pathway did not originate from a single ancestral source but rather independently or underwent adaptations in different lineages. None of the phylogenetic trees constructed for the enzyme families are rooted, making it difficult to definitively determine the origin of these enzymes. This lack of a clear root complicates efforts to trace the exact evolutionary relationships among different lineages and further underscores a supposed evolutionary history of these enzymes. Canback discussed interpretations that suggested horizontal gene transfer events as the reason for some bacterial taxa being found within eukaryotic clusters of enzymes. However, the author argued against the idea that these anomalies necessarily indicate the direction of transfer. Instead, they propose that gene transfer events might have occurred between bacterial and eukaryotic lineages, leading to shared homologs in both domains. This explanation reinforces the notion that the evolutionary relationships of glycolytic enzymes are more complex than a linear descent from a common ancestor. The phylogenetic reconstructions obtained from the data align with the hypothesis that the divergence of archaeal, bacterial, and eukaryotic lineages is ancient, predating the divergence of major bacterial clades. This finding challenges the idea that glycolysis can be traced back to a single, universal common ancestor, as the differences and complexities in the evolutionary histories of these lineages suggest separate origins. 

S. F Alnomasy (2017): Some archaeal enzymes have some similarities with bacteria, but most archaeal enzymes have no similarity with classical glycolytic pathways in Bacteria 11 There is no evidence of a common ancestor for any of the four glycolytic kinases or of the seven enzymes that bind nucleotides.

Keith A. Webster (2003): There is no evidence of a common ancestor for any of the four glycolytic kinases or of the seven enzymes that bind nucleotides. Genetic, protein and DNA analysis, together with major differences in the biochemistry and molecular biology of all three domains – Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryota – suggest that the three fundamental cell types are distinct and evolved separately (i.e. Bacteria are not actually pro-precursors of the eukaryotes, which have sequence similarities in particular parts of their biochemistry between both Bacteria or Archaea).  Only a relatively small percentage of genes in Archaea have sequence similarity to genes in Bacteria or Eukaryota. Furthermore, most of the cellular events triggered by intracellular Ca2+ in eukaryotes do not occur in either Bacteria or Archaea. 12

Comment: The argument put forth by Keith A. Webster suggests that these differences provide evidence against the idea of a universal common ancestor for all life forms. The kinases and other enzymes involved in glycolysis show significant differences among Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota. This lack of common ancestry is implied by the absence of a single ancestral lineage that led to the formation of these enzymes across all domains of life. Sequence similarities in particular parts of biochemistry between Bacteria and Archaea, or between Bacteria and Eukaryota, do not necessarily imply a common ancestor. The argument here is that shared sequences in specific parts of biochemistry might have been created independently in different lineages rather than being inherited from a single common ancestor.  The differences in the biochemistry and molecular biology of the three domains further support the notion of separate origins. These differences extend beyond glycolysis to various cellular processes and structures that are unique to each domain. The mention of cellular events triggered by intracellular calcium (Ca2+) is another example of divergence between domains. The fact that most of these events occur exclusively in eukaryotes and not in Bacteria or Archaea adds to the argument against a universal common ancestor. This points to independent trajectories for each domain.

In addition, there are several other differences in the glycolysis pathway that indicate separate origins for the three domains of life. These differences extend beyond the glycolytic enzymes themselves and include variations in regulation, enzyme structure, and pathway localization. The regulation of glycolysis can vary among the three domains. Different mechanisms of enzyme regulation are present in each domain, indicating independent origins. For instance, the regulation of certain glycolytic enzymes through allosteric control differs, suggesting that these regulatory mechanisms arose separately in each domain. In bacterial glycolysis, enzyme regulation often relies on allosteric control mechanisms. For instance, the enzyme phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1) is a key regulator of the glycolytic pathway in bacteria. In many bacterial species, PFK-1 is allosterically inhibited by high levels of ATP, a molecule that serves as an indicator of sufficient cellular energy reserves. This feedback inhibition prevents the excessive utilization of glucose when energy production is already abundant. Such a regulatory mechanism ensures efficient energy management within bacterial cells. In contrast to bacteria, Archaea exhibit different mechanisms for enzyme regulation in glycolysis. The exact regulatory mechanisms in Archaea are diverse and can vary across species. Some Archaea still rely on allosteric regulation similar to bacteria, while others utilize unique regulatory strategies. For instance, in some Archaea, enzymes involved in glycolysis are subject to post-translational modifications that regulate their activity. These variations in regulation reflect the distinctiveness of Archaea. Eukaryotic cells, including those of animals, plants, and fungi, often exhibit complex regulation of glycolytic enzymes. Allosteric regulation is just one facet of the complex elaborated control mechanisms. Eukaryotes also employ hormonal signaling pathways, gene expression regulation, and compartmentalization within organelles like the mitochondria, to fine-tune glycolytic activity. For example, in eukaryotic cells, the hormone insulin plays a vital role in regulating glucose uptake and glycolytic enzyme activity. This complex and multifaceted regulatory network in eukaryotes reflects their distinct complex adaptations to diverse cellular functions. The different mechanisms of enzyme regulation observed in glycolysis across Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota pose a challenge to the concept of a universal common ancestor. The presence of diverse and sometimes unique regulatory strategies implies that these domains did not share a single ancestral lineage where these mechanisms were inherited from a common precursor. Instead, the independent origin of these regulatory mechanisms across domains suggests that the creation of glycolysis occurred separately in each domain.  The diversity of regulatory strategies in glycolysis aligns with the broader theme of varied biochemical and cellular characteristics that differentiate Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota. As such, the presence of domain-specific regulatory mechanisms in glycolysis provides compelling evidence against the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor and supports the idea of separate origins for the three fundamental domains of life.

Hexokinase and glucokinase

While the core glycolytic reactions are conserved across domains, the enzymes catalyzing these reactions have different isoforms or structural characteristics. These differences lead to variations in the catalytic mechanisms,  indicating distinct origins. The enzyme responsible for the first step of glycolysis, phosphorylating glucose to glucose-6-phosphate, varies in its properties. Bacteria and Eukaryota often possess hexokinase enzymes, which have relatively low substrate specificity and are active over a wide range of glucose concentrations. On the other hand, Archaea and some Eukaryota, such as liver cells, utilize glucokinase enzymes with higher substrate specificity and activity limited to elevated glucose concentrations. These differences in enzyme properties indicate separate origins.  Hexokinase and glucokinase serve the same fundamental purpose: to phosphorylate glucose and initiate glycolysis. However, the differences in substrate specificity and activity level between hexokinase and glucokinase are evidence that these enzymes fulfill specific roles in different cellular contexts. Hexokinase, with its lower substrate specificity and broader activity range, is often present in cells that need to efficiently utilize glucose regardless of its concentration. In contrast, glucokinase, with its higher substrate specificity and activity limited to elevated glucose concentrations, is designed for cells that need to respond to changes in glucose availability, such as liver cells. The functional differences between hexokinase and glucokinase reflect adaptations to the specific environmental and metabolic demands of different organisms. Bacteria and certain eukaryotic cells might require a more versatile enzyme like hexokinase to process glucose under varying conditions. On the other hand, Archaea and liver cells need precise glucose-sensing mechanisms, which are facilitated by the more specific glucokinase. The distinct properties of hexokinase and glucokinase, along with their presence in different organisms and cellular contexts, suggest that these enzymes have separate origins. The differences in their catalytic efficiency, substrate binding, and regulation imply that they emerged through separate events, rather than being inherited from a common ancestral enzyme.
The fact that each domain developed its own enzyme variant tailored to its needs points to separate origins.

Phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1)

The key regulatory enzyme, PFK-1, catalyzes the phosphorylation of fructose-6-phosphate to fructose-1,6-bisphosphate. Despite its essential role, the structural characteristics of PFK-1 can differ among domains. For instance, the regulatory allosteric binding sites and kinetic properties of PFK-1 can vary significantly between Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota.  Allosteric binding sites play a critical role in regulating PFK-1's activity based on cellular conditions. Differences in the locations, specificities, and sensitivities of these binding sites are observed among domains. In bacteria, the allosteric sites and their affinities differ from those in Archaea or Eukaryota. These differences imply that the regulatory networks controlling glycolysis emerged separately, with distinct designs tailored to each domain's unique physiological requirements. The kinetic properties of PFK-1, including parameters like substrate binding affinities and reaction rates, can vary across domains. Bacterial, Archaeal, and Eukaryotic PFK-1 enzymes exhibit different kinetic profiles due to variations in amino acid sequences, structural elements, or post-translational modifications. These divergent kinetic properties suggest that the regulatory mechanisms governing glycolysis were not inherited from a single common ancestor but rather arose independently. The variations in PFK-1's structural characteristics and regulatory features reflect the specific functional optimizations required by each domain. Bacterial, Archaeal and Eukaryotic cells inhabit different environments and possess unique metabolic demands. The fact that PFK-1 has distinct properties in response to these varied requirements indicates that each domain's glycolytic pathway was individually crafted rather than being part of a shared ancestral lineage.

Pyruvate Kinase

The final step of glycolysis, catalyzing the conversion of phosphoenolpyruvate to pyruvate, is facilitated by pyruvate kinase. The structural and regulatory features of this enzyme vary widely across domains. Bacterial pyruvate kinases are often allosterically regulated by various metabolites, whereas eukaryotic pyruvate kinases are regulated by phosphorylation events. Archaeal pyruvate kinases may have their own unique structural characteristics and regulatory mechanisms. These variations underscore distinct origins for glycolysis. Allosteric binding sites play a critical role in regulating PFK-1's activity based on cellular conditions. Differences in the locations, specificities, and sensitivities of these binding sites are observed among domains. In bacteria, the allosteric sites and their affinities might differ from those in Archaea or Eukaryota. These differences imply that the regulatory networks controlling glycolysis emerged separately, with distinct adaptations tailored to each domain's unique physiological requirements. The kinetic properties of PFK-1, including parameters like substrate binding affinities and reaction rates, can vary across domains. Bacterial, Archaeal, and Eukaryotic PFK-1 enzymes might exhibit different kinetic profiles due to variations in amino acid sequences, structural elements, or post-translational modifications. These divergent kinetic properties indicate that the regulatory mechanisms governing glycolysis were not inherited from a single common ancestor but rather arose independently. The fact that PFK-1 has distinct properties in response to varied requirements indicates that each domain's glycolytic pathway was individually crafted rather than being part of a shared ancestral lineage.

Beyond these examples, enzymes involved in glycolysis across domains can have distinct isoforms or functional adaptations. Isoforms are closely related protein or gene variants that are produced from the same gene but have slightly different structures and functions. These isoforms might have emerged to fulfill specific requirements of different cellular environments. The divergence in enzyme properties, including catalytic efficiency, substrate specificity, and regulatory mechanisms, indicates that glycolytic enzymes have different origins within each domain.

Metabolic Cross-Pathway Connections

The interconnectedness of glycolysis with other metabolic pathways within cells is a fundamental aspect of cellular metabolism. The glycolysis pathway is interconnected with other metabolic pathways within cells. The specific enzymes or pathways that connect to glycolysis can vary among domains. Differences in these connections indicate independent origins. Variations in substrate specificities or the presence of alternative pathways can be indicative of separate paths of origin. Some domains have unique enzymes or alternative pathways that perform similar functions to glycolytic enzymes, emphasizing their distinct histories. The subcellular localization of glycolytic enzymes can differ among domains. For example, some enzymes might be localized to specific organelles in eukaryotic cells, while they are distributed differently in prokaryotic domains. Such differences in localization reflect independent adaptations to different cellular environments. The utilization of coenzymes, such as NAD+ and NADP+, in glycolysis does vary among domains. Differences in coenzyme preference or utilization indicate separate lineages. The differences in these interconnections among different domains provide strong evidence for their separate origins and independent creation.  The pathways that connect to glycolysis can vary among domains. While glycolysis is central to energy production, the specific enzymes and pathways that connect to it can be domain-specific. These differences highlight that the metabolic networks in each domain are tailored to their individual requirements and were created independently. The enzymes connecting to glycolysis have varying substrate specificities or catalytic properties among domains. These differences indicate that the connections were designed separately in each domain to fulfill specific metabolic needs. Such variations in substrate specificity underscore independent creation. Some domains possess alternative pathways that perform similar functions to glycolysis-related enzymes. These pathways have distinct enzyme components and regulation. The existence of alternate routes to achieve similar outcomes implies that each domain has its own strategies, supporting the idea of separate creation. Domains can have enzymes or alternative pathways that are not present in others but perform functions similar to glycolytic enzymes. This indicates that different domains have unique solutions to metabolic challenges, further emphasizing their distinct histories. The subcellular localization of glycolytic enzymes can differ among domains. In eukaryotic cells, some glycolytic enzymes are localized within specific organelles, while in prokaryotic domains, they are distributed differently. These differences reflect independent design to the cellular environment, reinforcing the idea of separate origins. The fact that metabolic pathways, including glycolysis, are interconnected and interdependent within each domain's cellular processes suggests a high degree of coordination and fine-tuning. The specific adaptations, connections, and interdependencies observed within each domain emphasize that these metabolic systems were designed and created to work seamlessly in their respective contexts.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

270Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:31 pm

Otangelo


Admin

4. There are at least six distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways

Carbon fixation mechanisms are essential for life because they are the foundation of the global carbon cycle and provide the building blocks necessary for the existence of living organisms. These mechanisms play a crucial role in converting inorganic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere into organic compounds that can be used as energy sources and structural components by living organisms. Carbon fixation is the process by which carbon from the atmosphere is converted into organic molecules, primarily sugars. These organic molecules serve as the basis for the entire food chain. Autotrophic organisms, such as plants, algae, and certain bacteria, are capable of using carbon fixation pathways to produce their own organic matter, becoming the primary producers of ecosystems. The organic molecules produced through carbon fixation serve as an energy source for both autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Autotrophs utilize these organic compounds for growth, development, and energy storage. Heterotrophs, including animals and many microbes, consume organic matter produced by autotrophs to obtain energy and nutrients. Carbon fixation pathways are responsible for creating the biomass that forms the structural components of organisms. Organic compounds produced through carbon fixation are used to build cell walls, membranes, proteins, nucleic acids, and other essential molecules required for the survival of living organisms. Some carbon fixation pathways, such as the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle found in plants, algae, and certain bacteria, generate oxygen as a byproduct. Oxygen is essential for the survival of many aerobic organisms, as it serves as a crucial element in cellular respiration, the process that generates energy.  Carbon fixation is a fundamental process in the global carbon cycle, which regulates the distribution of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems. It helps maintain a balance in atmospheric CO2 levels, which in turn affects the Earth's climate and temperature regulation.  Carbon fixation forms the basis of ecological interactions among organisms within ecosystems. Autotrophs provide energy and nutrients to heterotrophs through predation, parasitism, or symbiotic relationships. These interactions are vital for the overall health and stability of ecosystems. Carbon fixation contributes to the stability and resilience of ecosystems by providing a consistent source of energy and organic matter. The availability of organic molecules produced through carbon fixation influences population dynamics and the ability of ecosystems to recover from disturbances. Different autotrophic organisms employ various carbon fixation pathways, contributing to biodiversity within ecosystems. The presence of multiple pathways and autotrophic species enhances ecosystem resilience and adaptability in response to changing environmental conditions.

On a side note: The interconnectedness and interdependence observed in the complex web of life, from microbial organisms to entire ecosystems, highlights the complexity and sophistication of the natural world. This level of coordination, functionality, and interlocking relationships in various biological systems evidences purposeful design rather than gradual evolution over long periods. Many biological systems cannot function without all their individual components in place. The simultaneous emergence of all required components would be implausible through gradual evolution. Ecosystems provide a range of services that are essential for sustaining life on Earth, including nutrient cycling, pollination, water purification, and climate regulation. These services are intricately linked and rely on the interactions between various species and their environment. The remarkable balance and complexity of these services are evidence of intentional design that supports the overall health and functionality of the biosphere. Many organisms engage in mutualistic relationships, where different species interact to provide benefits to each other. These interactions, such as pollination by insects or nitrogen fixation by certain bacteria, are often highly specialized and finely tuned. The existence of such relationships suggests a level of cooperation and coordination that some argue is difficult to explain solely through gradual, unguided processes. Many biological structures and processes appear to be optimized for specific functions. From the efficiency of energy conversion in photosynthesis to the aerodynamics of bird wings, the natural world exhibits designs that seem finely tuned for specific purposes. Some systems exhibit emergent properties—phenomena that arise from the interaction of individual components and are not present in those components individually. That suggests a higher-level design based on foresight and foreknowledge that orchestrates these interactions. The genetic information encoded in DNA, as well as the intricate molecular processes that regulate gene expression and cellular functions, reflects an incredible level of complexity. The presence of complex information and the complex regulatory networks in biological systems point to a designer who embedded this information to drive life's processes.

W. Nitschke (2013): At least six distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways have been elucidated during the past few decades 5 

R. Braakman (2012): The Emergence and Early Evolution of Biological Carbon-Fixation 1 provides evidence that can be used to infer the approximate order of their appearance on an evolutionary timeline.

For example, the paper discusses the phylogenetic distribution of carbon fixation pathways. This means that the authors looked at the evolutionary relationships between different organisms and how they use different carbon fixation pathways. The authors found that the Calvin cycle is found in all oxygenic photosynthetic organisms, which suggests that it evolved relatively early in the history of life. The rTCA cycle is found in a wider range of organisms, including some that are not photosynthetic. This suggests that the rTCA cycle may have evolved later than the Calvin cycle. The paper also discusses the biochemical similarities between the different carbon fixation pathways. The authors found that the Calvin cycle and the rTCA cycle share some similarities, which suggests that they may have evolved from a common ancestor. However, the 3-hydroxypropionate (3-HP) bicycle does not share these similarities, which suggests that it may have evolved independently from the other two pathways. Based on this evidence, the authors of the paper suggest the following approximate order of evolution for the six carbon fixation pathways:

The Reductive Acetyl-CoA (Wood-Ljungdahl) Pathway has been proposed as one of the oldest carbon fixation pathways, emerging early in Earth's history, in anaerobic environments. Subsequently, the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (Calvin) Cycle is claimed to have evolved relatively early in the history of life, found in oxygenic photosynthetic organisms like plants and cyanobacteria. The Reductive Tricarboxylic Acid (rTCA) Cycle is claimed to potentially have evolved after the Calvin cycle, in certain anaerobic bacteria and archaea, possibly in extreme environments. Then, the 3-Hydroxypropionate (3-HP) Bicycle, a variation of the rTCA cycle, is claimed to have emerged after the rTCA cycle, found in certain bacteria adapted to anaerobic and low-light conditions. Later on, the 3-Hydroxypropionate/4-Hydroxybutyrate (3-HP/4-HB) Cycle would have emerged after previous pathways, found in specific green nonsulfur bacteria adapted to limited carbon and light availability. And last not least, the Dicarboxylate/4-Hydroxybutyrate (DC/4-HB) Cycle supposedly evolved after earlier pathways, found in certain archaea adapted to extreme saline environments.

1. Ancestral pathway (a hybrid of the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway and the rTCA cycle)
2. Calvin cycle
3. rTCA cycle
4. 3-Hydroxypropionate (3-HP) bicycle
5. 4-Hydroxyoxalate (4HO) Cycle
6. Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) Cycle

This is just a hypothesis.

1. Acetyl-CoA (Wood-Ljungdahl) Pathway

The Acetyl-CoA (Wood-Ljungdahl) pathway is a unique and versatile carbon fixation pathway found in various bacteria and archaea. It allows these organisms to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic compounds, including acetyl-CoA, which is a key intermediate in many metabolic processes. This pathway is particularly important for microbes that inhabit anaerobic environments and utilize diverse carbon sources.  The Acetyl-CoA pathway, also known as the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway, involves a series of complex enzymatic reactions that enable organisms to fix carbon dioxide into organic molecules. The pathway operates through a combination of reductive and oxidative reactions that ultimately lead to the production of acetyl-CoA. This intermediate can then be used for various metabolic processes, including energy generation and biosynthesis. One of the notable features of the Acetyl-CoA pathway is its flexibility and versatility. It can utilize a variety of carbon sources, including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and acetate, as well as certain methyl compounds. This adaptability allows organisms to thrive in diverse environments with varying carbon availability. The Acetyl-CoA pathway is particularly relevant for microbes that inhabit anaerobic environments—those lacking oxygen. These organisms have this pathway as a means of generating energy and acquiring carbon from carbon dioxide in the absence of oxygen-dependent processes like oxidative phosphorylation. The emergence of the Acetyl-CoA pathway in the evolutionary timeline is not well-documented, and its exact origin remains a subject of ongoing research. However, it is claimed to have evolved relatively early in the history of life, possibly as a metabolic adaptation to anaerobic conditions. The pathway would have provided a means for microorganisms to utilize available carbon sources and generate energy in environments where oxygen was limited or absent. The adaptability of the Acetyl-CoA pathway to various carbon sources and anaerobic conditions would have conferred a significant evolutionary advantage to the organisms that possess it. In environments where resources are scarce and oxygen is limited, the ability to utilize diverse carbon sources for energy and growth would have been favorable.

2. Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) Cycle 

The reductive pentose phosphate cycle, commonly known as the Calvin cycle, is a fundamental metabolic pathway that plays a central role in carbon fixation during photosynthesis in plants, algae, and cyanobacteria. This pathway is responsible for converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into glucose and other sugars, which serve as energy sources and building blocks for these organisms. Oxygenic photosynthesis, the type of photosynthesis that produces oxygen as a byproduct, is claimed to have evolved relatively early in Earth's history. The emergence of photosynthetic organisms would have marked a significant turning point in the development of life on Earth, as it would have contributed to the gradual oxygenation of the atmosphere and the formation of diverse ecosystems. It is generally thought that the evolution of carbon fixation mechanisms closely followed the emergence of photosynthetic pathways. Cyanobacteria are among the earliest organisms known to perform oxygenic photosynthesis. These ancient bacteria are claimed to have likely played a pivotal role in shaping Earth's environment by producing oxygen as a metabolic byproduct. The Calvin cycle, or a precursor to it, would have evolved in these cyanobacteria as a means of converting CO2 into organic molecules, enabling them to utilize the energy of sunlight for growth and survival. The Calvin cycle is a complex pathway that involves multiple enzymatic reactions and regulatory steps. It supposedly evolved gradually through the modification and cooption of preexisting metabolic pathways. As environmental conditions and ecological niches changed, organisms that were able to optimize carbon fixation and efficiently convert CO2 into organic compounds would have had a selective advantage.

3. Reverse Tricarboxylic Acid (rTCA) Cycle 

The Reverse Tricarboxylic Acid (rTCA) cycle, also known as the reductive citric acid cycle or the reverse Krebs cycle, is a carbon fixation pathway found in certain archaea and bacteria, particularly those living in extreme environments such as hydrothermal vents or hot springs. It is an alternative pathway to the more well-known Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) cycle and operates in a way that captures carbon dioxide and converts it into organic compounds.  The rTCA cycle is a series of chemical reactions that involve the conversion of carbon dioxide into organic molecules through a series of enzymatic steps. Unlike the conventional tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, which is typically involved in cellular respiration, the rTCA cycle operates in reverse and is utilized for carbon fixation. The pathway includes reactions that produce intermediates such as acetyl-CoA and other organic compounds, which can then be used for growth and energy generation. The rTCA cycle begins with the fixation of carbon dioxide onto acetyl-CoA, followed by a series of enzymatic reactions that ultimately result in the production of organic molecules. One of the key features of the rTCA cycle is its capacity to fix carbon dioxide independently of light, which is in contrast to the light-dependent reactions of the CBB cycle. The rTCA cycle is considered to be one of the oldest carbon fixation pathways and is thought to have evolved before the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere. It is supposed that it emerged in an anaerobic, high-temperature environment, making it suitable for extremophiles that thrive in such conditions. One theory suggests that the rTCA cycle could have emerged in hydrothermal vent environments, where high temperatures and mineral-rich fluids provide a unique setting for chemical reactions. These environments would have offered the necessary conditions for the emergence of early metabolic pathways like the rTCA cycle, which enabled organisms to capture and convert carbon dioxide into organic molecules for growth and survival. As Earth's environment changed over time and oxygen levels supposedly increased due to the emergence of photosynthetic organisms, different carbon fixation pathways, such as the CBB cycle, would have become more prevalent due to their efficiency in capturing carbon dioxide in the presence of oxygen. However, the rTCA cycle is still retained in some modern extremophiles that inhabit environments resembling those of early Earth.

4. 3-Hydroxypropionate/4-Hydroxybutyrate (3HP/4HB) Cycle

The 3-Hydroxypropionate/4-Hydroxybutyrate (3HP/4HB) cycle is a carbon fixation pathway found in certain bacteria, specifically in some green nonsulfur bacteria. This pathway is a variation of the more common carbon fixation mechanisms, such as the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) cycle, and is adapted to function in low-light conditions. The 3HP/4HB cycle is a set of enzymatic reactions that enable certain bacteria to fix carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic molecules for growth and energy production. It involves the conversion of 3-hydroxypropionate, a three-carbon compound, into 4-hydroxybutyrate, a four-carbon compound, and other intermediates. The cycle includes a series of reactions that result in the net fixation of carbon dioxide into organic compounds. One of the notable features of the 3HP/4HB cycle is its adaptation to low-light environments. This pathway is particularly advantageous for bacteria that inhabit environments with limited access to sunlight, as it allows them to capture and convert carbon dioxide even in conditions where light intensity is insufficient to drive other carbon fixation pathways, such as the CBB cycle.
The 3HP/4HB cycle is claimed to have evolved in response to specific ecological niches and environmental conditions. While the exact timeline of its emergence is not well-established, it's believed to have evolved after other carbon fixation pathways like the CBB cycle. The emergence of the 3HP/4HB cycle would have been driven by the need for certain bacteria to adapt to low-light environments where other pathways were less efficient. Different pathways would have emerged as organisms adapted to various ecological niches, responding to factors such as light availability, temperature, and nutrient availability. Bacteria utilizing the 3HP/4HB cycle play roles in various ecosystems, including aquatic environments. Some green nonsulfur bacteria can carry out anoxygenic photosynthesis, which doesn't produce oxygen, and contribute to the carbon and energy flow within these ecosystems.

5. 4-Hydroxyoxalate (4HO) Cycle

The 4-Hydroxyoxalate (4HO) cycle, also known as the dicarboxylate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle, is a carbon fixation pathway found in certain archaea, specifically in organisms known as haloarchaea that inhabit extremely salty environments such as salt flats and salt mines. This pathway is involved in converting carbon dioxide into organic molecules in conditions where resources like water and light are limited.  The 4HO cycle is a set of enzymatic reactions that allow certain haloarchaea to fix carbon dioxide (CO2) and convert it into organic compounds for energy production and growth. Haloarchaea, also known as halophilic archaea or halobacteria, are a group of microorganisms belonging to the domain Archaea. They are known for their ability to thrive in extremely salty environments, such as salt flats, salt mines, and hypersaline lakes. These environments can have salt concentrations several times higher than that of seawater. Haloarchaea have unique adaptations that enable them to survive and flourish in these challenging conditions. The pathway involves the conversion of 4-hydroxyoxaloacetate into succinate and acetyl-CoA. This cycle is similar in function to other carbon fixation pathways, but its specific reactions and enzymes distinguish it as a unique pathway. The 4HO cycle is claimed to have evolved as an adaptation to these conditions, allowing haloarchaea to capture and utilize carbon dioxide even in high-salt, low-light environments. The emergence of the 4HO cycle is not well-documented. However, it is claimed to have evolved in response to the specific challenges posed by extreme saline environments. These environments might have provided a unique niche for organisms that could efficiently fix carbon dioxide and generate organic compounds for energy, even under conditions where other carbon fixation pathways would be less effective. The 4HO cycle reflects the diversity of metabolic strategies that different organisms have to survive in extreme environments. While other organisms might rely on pathways like the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) cycle or other variations, haloarchaea have the 4HO cycle as a specialized solution to their unique ecological niche. Haloarchaea play roles in their ecosystems by contributing to nutrient cycling and energy flow. In environments with limited resources and extreme conditions, organisms that can adapt and thrive often have significant ecological impacts.

6. Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) Cycle

The Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) cycle is a lesser-known carbon fixation pathway found in certain bacteria, specifically in the genus Rhodobacter. This pathway allows these bacteria to convert carbon dioxide into organic molecules for growth and energy production. The DHA cycle operates as an alternative to more well-known carbon fixation pathways, such as the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) cycle. The Dihydroxyacetone (DHA) cycle is a set of enzymatic reactions that enable certain bacteria, such as those in the genus Rhodobacter, to fix carbon dioxide (CO2) and convert it into organic compounds. The pathway involves the conversion of dihydroxyacetone phosphate (DHAP) into glycerate-3-phosphate (G3P) and other intermediates. This cycle captures and fixes carbon dioxide in a way that is distinct from other established carbon fixation pathways. The DHA cycle is particularly relevant to bacteria like Rhodobacter that inhabit environments with varying levels of light intensity. These bacteria often thrive in environments where they can switch between phototrophic and chemotrophic growth modes, depending on the availability of light and organic compounds. The exact timing of the emergence of the DHA cycle in the evolutionary timeline is not well-documented. It is claimed to have evolved as an adaptation to specific ecological niches and conditions where these bacteria are found. The emergence of the DHA cycle is claimed to have been driven by the need to capture and utilize carbon dioxide in a way that complements the bacteria's phototrophic and chemotrophic capabilities.
Bacteria utilizing the DHA cycle, such as Rhodobacter species, are often found in environments that experience fluctuations in light availability and organic nutrient sources. Their ability to switch between different metabolic modes based on environmental conditions allows them to efficiently utilize available resources for growth and energy production.

Question: How plausible is the proposition, that the Acetyl-CoA (Wood-Ljungdahl) Pathway would be the precursor pathway of the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) Cycle , and that one evolved into the other over time?
Reply:   The Acetyl-CoA (Wood-Ljungdahl) Pathway and the Calvin-Benson-Bassham (CBB) Cycle are two distinct carbon fixation pathways found in different types of organisms, and they have significant differences in terms of their enzymatic composition, regulation, and overall function.  The Acetyl-CoA Pathway is found primarily in certain archaea, bacteria, and acetogenic bacteria, while the CBB Cycle is found in plants, algae, and some bacteria. The Acetyl-CoA Pathway involves complex enzymatic steps including the use of carbon monoxide and acetyl-CoA to fix carbon. In contrast, the CBB Cycle involves enzymes such as ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (RuBisCO) to fix carbon. The Acetyl-CoA Pathway can utilize hydrogen gas or carbon monoxide as a source of energy. The CBB Cycle requires ATP and NADPH generated from light-dependent reactions in photosynthesis as energy sources. The Acetyl-CoA Pathway primarily takes place in anaerobic or low-oxygen environments. The CBB Cycle, on the other hand, occurs in the chloroplasts of plant cells and in the cytoplasm of other photosynthetic organisms. The Acetyl-CoA Pathway is regulated by various factors including redox potential, availability of substrates, and environmental conditions. The CBB Cycle, on the other hand, is regulated by factors such as light availability, temperature, and the concentrations of CO2 and oxygen. The Acetyl-CoA Pathway utilizes carbon monoxide and hydrogen in a series of chemical reactions to produce acetyl-CoA and other organic molecules. The CBB Cycle involves the fixation of CO2 using ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate and the subsequent reduction of PGA (3-phosphoglycerate) to form carbohydrates. Given the substantial differences between these two pathways in terms of their enzymatic steps, energy sources, regulation, and the types of organisms in which they are found, it is difficult to conceive that one could have evolved directly from the other through incremental changes. The complexity and specificity of the biochemical reactions and enzymes involved suggest that these pathways are highly specialized and optimized for their respective functions.

The presence of multiple distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways challenges the notion of a single common ancestral pathway and raises questions about the concept of common ancestry in the context of the origin of life and the diversity of metabolic pathways. The complex enzymatic pathways involved in autotrophic carbon fixation are highly specialized and sophisticated. The fact that different pathways exist with distinct enzymatic constitutions implies that the evolution of these pathways would have required multiple genetic and biochemical changes, making it difficult to envision a simple linear progression from a single ancestral pathway. The presence of shared enzymatic elements or functional motifs across different pathways however suggests a common designer who utilized similar components for different purposes, much like an artist reusing certain techniques or motifs across different artworks. The existence of various carbon fixation pathways implies that different pathways offer specific advantages under distinct environmental or physiological conditions. Intelligent design proponents argue that the optimization of these pathways for different contexts suggests a designer's intention to equip organisms with diverse metabolic tools to thrive in various niches. One of the challenges in explaining the diversification of pathways through gradual evolution is the lack of transitional forms. The absence of clear intermediates between pathways justifies skepticism about the ability of gradual selection to drive the development of complex metabolic routes. The presence of shared enzymes or components, as observed in the initial step of CO2 reduction, is evidence for common design.  While proponents of common ancestry could argue for the role of horizontal gene transfer, gene duplication, and recruitment of existing genes in the presence of common elements in different pathways, there are several reasons why this might not fully explain the diversity of autotrophic carbon fixation pathways: The enzymatic complexity of carbon fixation pathways is substantial. It's not just the presence of a few common enzymes that matter; it's the entire network of interconnected reactions and the specific mechanisms involved in each pathway. The emergence of entire pathways with different enzymes, coenzymes, and cofactors goes beyond the scope of simple gene duplication and recruitment events. Enzymes in different pathways often have specific substrate affinities and regulatory mechanisms that govern their activity. The emergence of new pathways would require a coordinated and intricate adjustment of multiple enzymes to function together coherently. This level of regulatory fine-tuning is difficult if not impossible to achieve through unguided nonintelligent mechanisms, like horizontal gene transfer alone. Carbon fixation pathways are not isolated entities; they interact with various other metabolic pathways within cells. The integration of these pathways and the consistent maintenance of functional coherence would be challenging to achieve solely through evolutionary events, like gene transfer and duplication events.  The existence of common elements alone doesn't explain the lack of transitional or intermediate forms in the evolutionary record. If these pathways had evolved through gene duplication and recruitment, we might expect to find organisms that exhibit intermediary stages between different pathways. However, such transitional forms are absent. Different autotrophic organisms inhabit diverse ecological niches with varying environmental conditions. The emergence of distinct pathways could be driven by the need to adapt to specific resources and energy sources. This ecological context goes beyond what gene transfer events can explain. For a new pathway to emerge through gene duplication and modification, multiple enzymes would need to evolve in a coordinated manner. The coevolution of multiple enzymes in such a way that they form a functional pathway is a complex process that requires more than just gene transfer and duplication events.

1. Rogier Braakman The Emergence and Early Evolution of Biological Carbon-Fixation April 19, 2012

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

271Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:32 pm

Otangelo


Admin

5. There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes and prokaryotes

E. V. Koonin (2010): There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes, which have complex intracellular compartmentalization, and even the most sophisticated prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria), which do not. The compartmentalization of eukaryotic cells is supported by an elaborate endomembrane system and by the actin-tubulin-based cytoskeleton. There are no direct counterparts of these organelles in archaea or bacteria. The other hallmark of the eukaryotic cell is the presence of mitochondria, which have a central role in energy transformation and perform many additional roles in eukaryotic cells, such as in signaling and cell death. 13

The divide in organizational complexity between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells is a significant aspect that refutes common ancestry. Eukaryotic cells are characterized by their distinct features, including complex intracellular compartmentalization and the presence of mitochondria, which differentiate them from prokaryotic cells (archaea and bacteria). Eukaryotic cells exhibit compartmentalization through an elaborate endomembrane system and a dynamic cytoskeleton made up of actin and tubulin. This compartmentalization allows eukaryotic cells to carry out specialized functions within distinct membrane-bound organelles, such as the nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, lysosomes, and more. These organelles are involved in various cellular processes like protein synthesis, processing, and transport, as well as waste disposal. This complex organization enables eukaryotic cells to perform multiple functions simultaneously, contributing to their diverse and versatile nature. The presence of mitochondria is a defining feature of eukaryotic cells. Mitochondria are energy-producing organelles that play a central role in cellular respiration, producing ATP, the primary source of energy for cellular processes. Additionally, mitochondria are involved in other critical functions, such as apoptosis (programmed cell death), signaling pathways, and the regulation of metabolic processes. The differences between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells in terms of intracellular compartmentalization and the presence of mitochondria present challenges to the idea of a common ancestry for all cellular life forms. These complex features, which are specific to eukaryotic cells, do not have direct counterparts in prokaryotic cells.  The absence of direct counterparts for the endomembrane system, cytoskeleton, and mitochondria in prokaryotic cells raises questions about the mechanisms and steps by which these features could have arisen. 

A supposed transition from one to the other cell organization would represent a major leap, characterized by substantial changes in cellular complexity and structure. Achieving this transition would have entailed overcoming numerous significant hurdles, including challenges related to size, and energy consumption.

6. A typical eukaryotic cell is about 1,000-fold bigger by volume than a typical bacterium or archaeon

E. V. Koonin (2010): The origin of eukaryotes is a huge enigma and a major challenge for evolutionary biology. There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes, which have complex intracellular compartmentalization, and even the most sophisticated prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria), which do not. A typical eukaryotic cell is about 1,000-fold bigger by volume than a typical bacterium or archaeon, and functions under different physical principles: free diffusion has little role in eukaryotic cells, but is crucial in prokaryotes. The compartmentalization of eukaryotic cells is supported by an elaborate endomembrane system and by the actin-tubulin-based cytoskeleton. There are no direct counterparts of these organelles in archaea or bacteria. The other hallmark of the eukaryotic cell is the presence of mitochondria, which have a central role in energy transformation and perform many additional roles in eukaryotic cells, such as in signaling and cell death. 14

The differences in cellular complexity between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, such as the presence of membrane-bound organelles and a complex cytoskeleton, are substantial. Some researchers argue that the stepwise accumulation of the necessary genetic, biochemical, and structural changes required for these complex features may be too improbable to occur gradually. The origin of organelles like mitochondria poses a significant challenge. The endosymbiotic theory still raises questions about how a free-living bacterium could become integrated into a host cell and evolve into a mitochondrion. The precise mechanisms and sequence of events in such a transition have not been elucidated. The transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells would likely involve significant changes in genetic regulation, including the development of introns, exons, and more complex transcription and translation machinery. These changes could require an implausibly large amount of genetic information and could result in substantial "informational entropy" or loss of information, making the transition unlikely to the extreme.  The emergence of complex features like the endomembrane system, which includes the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus, presents challenges in terms of both origin and evolution. The development of these systems from simpler structures in prokaryotes would require multiple coordinated changes, which some researchers argue could be difficult to achieve through gradual evolutionary steps.

7.  Horizontal gene transfer (HGT)

E. V. Koonin (2012): Subsequent massive sequencing of numerous, complete microbial genomes have revealed novel evolutionary phenomena, the most fundamental of these being: pervasive horizontal gene transfer (HGT), in large part mediated by viruses and plasmids, that shapes the genomes of archaea and bacteria and call for a radical revision (if not abandonment) of the Tree of Life concept 15

Eugene V. Koonin's assertion about pervasive horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and its implications for the Tree of Life concept is an interesting perspective that challenges some traditional assumptions in evolutionary biology. In evolutionary biology, horizontal gene transfer refers to the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another that is not its offspring. This process can occur through mechanisms like viral infection, plasmid transfer, or direct contact between cells. HGT has been recognized as a significant factor in the evolution of prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea), allowing for the exchange of genetic information across species boundaries. The traditional Tree of Life concept suggests a hierarchical evolutionary tree with a single root, representing a universal common ancestor from which all life forms diverged. This model assumes that the majority of genetic inheritance occurs through vertical descent, with only limited genetic exchange between lineages. The observation of pervasive HGT, as mentioned by Koonin, challenges the strict vertical inheritance assumption of the Tree of Life. When genetic material is frequently transferred horizontally between species, it can blur the boundaries between distinct branches on the tree, making it more difficult to trace a clear universal common ancestor.  The traditional view of evolution involves a neat branching pattern where each lineage evolves independently over time. However, with extensive HGT, the genetic makeup of organisms becomes more like a mosaic, with genes from various sources contributing to an organism's genome. This complex exchange of genetic information complicates the clear delineation of ancestral relationships. If HGT is pervasive and frequent, it becomes challenging to identify a single root for the Tree of Life. Instead of a single common ancestor, HGT suggests that genetic material has been exchanged extensively across various branches, making it difficult to pinpoint a universal origin. The prevalence of HGT suggests a more network-like pattern of evolution, where genetic information can flow between organisms of different lineages. This contrasts with the traditional tree-like model that assumes primarily vertical inheritance. It's important to note that while HGT challenges the simplicity of the Tree of Life model, it does not necessarily negate the possibility of a universal common ancestor altogether. It does, however, complicate the traditional narrative and requires a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between different domains of life. Some researchers propose alternative models, such as a web of life or a ring of life, to better capture the complexities introduced by HGT.

8. RNA Polymerase differences

RNA Polymerase differences: Prokaryotes only contain three different promoter elements: -10, -35 promoters, and upstream elements.  Eukaryotes contain many different promoter elements: TATA box, initiator elements, downstream core promoter element, CAAT box, and the GC box to name a few.  Eukaryotes have three types of RNA polymerases, I, II, and III, and prokaryotes only have one type.  Eukaryotes form and initiation complex with the various transcription factors that dissociate after initiation is completed.  There is no such structure seen in prokaryotes.  Another main difference between the two is that transcription and translation occurs simultaneously in prokaryotes and in eukaryotes the RNA is first transcribed in the nucleus and then translated in the cytoplasm.  RNAs from eukaryotes undergo post-transcriptional modifications including: capping, polyadenylation, and splicing.  These events do not occur in prokaryotes.  mRNAs in prokaryotes tend to contain many different genes on a single mRNA meaning they are polycystronic.  Eukaryotes contain mRNAs that are monocystronic.  Termination in prokaryotes is done by either rho-dependent or rho-independent mechanisms.  In eukaryotes transcription is terminated by two elements: a poly(A) signal and a downstream terminator sequence.  16

Promoter elements

Promoter elements are specific DNA sequences located upstream of genes that serve as recognition sites for transcription factors and RNA polymerase during the initiation of transcription. They play a pivotal role in determining when and where gene transcription starts. These promoter elements vary across the three domains of life and these differences challenge the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA). In bacteria, promoter elements are relatively simple. The two main promoter sequences are the -10 (Pribnow box) and -35 sequences. The -10 sequence, often represented as "TATAAT," is located about 10 base pairs upstream of the transcription start site and is recognized by RNA polymerase for binding. The -35 sequence, around 35 base pairs upstream, helps stabilize RNA polymerase binding to the promoter. These sequences are recognized by the bacterial RNA polymerase and are sufficient to initiate transcription. Archaeal promoter elements also share some similarities with bacterial promoters, but they can be more diverse and variable. Archaea possess multiple RNA polymerases, each recognizing distinct promoter elements. These elements are not as universally conserved as those in bacteria and often depend on the specific archaeal lineage. Eukaryotic promoter elements are notably more complex than those in prokaryotes. Eukaryotic genomes have a wide range of promoter elements that interact with various transcription factors and regulatory proteins to facilitate transcription initiation. In eukaryotes, there are several different types of promoter elements that contribute to the regulation of gene transcription. While the specific number and variety can vary depending on the gene and the organism, here is an overview of some of the most common promoter elements found in eukaryotes: The TATA box is one of the most well-known promoter elements in eukaryotes. It's a DNA sequence with the consensus sequence "TATAAAA." It plays a crucial role in positioning RNA polymerase II for transcription initiation. The initiator element is a short DNA sequence often found near the transcription start site. It helps direct the precise initiation of transcription by interacting with transcription factors and RNA polymerase II. The GC box contains the DNA sequence "GGGCGG" and is recognized by specific transcription factors. It can contribute to the binding of regulatory proteins that affect transcription initiation. The CAAT box contains the sequence "CCAAT" and is recognized by transcription factors that contribute to the initiation of transcription.  This element is located downstream of the transcription start site and is involved in transcription initiation and the binding of transcription factors.  While not strictly part of the core promoter, enhancers, and silencers are DNA sequences that can be located far from the gene they regulate. They bind transcription factors and influence the rate of transcription either positively (enhancers) or negatively (silencers). While not a promoter element in the traditional sense, the poly(A) signal marks the end of a gene and is important for transcription termination and polyadenylation. The Sp1 transcription factor binds to specific DNA sequences and can be involved in transcription initiation and regulation.  In more complex eukaryotic genes, there can be multiple promoter elements working in combination, forming regulatory modules that collectively control gene expression. Not all genes in eukaryotes contain all of these elements, and the combination of elements can vary widely. Additionally, different organisms can exhibit variations in the exact sequences and arrangements of these promoter elements. The diversity and complexity of promoter elements in eukaryotes reflect the intricate nature of gene regulation in these organisms.

The differences in promoter elements across the three domains of life challenge the idea of a simple, single ancestral cell as the origin of all life. The UCA hypothesis suggests that all life shares a common evolutionary ancestor with basic cellular machinery. However, the complex and diverse promoter elements found in eukaryotes challenge the notion that they evolved starting from a last universal common ancestor. Some claim that the last universal common ancestor would have been more sophisticated than originally envisioned under the UCA model. As our understanding of genetics, molecular biology, and the diversity of life has grown, some researchers have begun to question the simplicity of the LUCA and whether it truly represented a primitive, simple form of life.  The processes necessary for life—such as DNA replication, transcription, translation, and energy metabolism—are highly complex. These processes involve intricate molecular machinery and coordination among various components. This complexity suggests that even the earliest forms of life may have been more sophisticated than originally imagined.  If LUCA was indeed more sophisticated than anticipated, it would suggest a scenario where certain lineages evolved to become simpler over time. This concept of devolution runs counter to the traditional view of evolution, which typically involves the accumulation of complexity over time. The idea that prebiotic events would give rise to a more complex LUCA, that afterward would devolve into simpler forms after acquiring more complex features seems extremely unlikely.

Some scientists suggest that LUCA might not have been a single organism but rather a dynamic population of primitive cells with diverse characteristics. But that would introduce its own set of intriguing questions and challenges.  If LUCA was not a single entity but a population of diverse primitive cells, it raises questions about how this diversity originated. Did they arise through independent processes, or was there a common origin for the various traits within this population? The concept of LUCA as a population of cells with diverse traits would imply that genetic information was shared among these cells. This idea challenges our understanding of the early mechanisms of genetic transfer and the emergence of mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer that are prevalent in modern organisms. The emergence of a dynamic population of primitive cells implies that the environment in which life originated was already complex and capable of supporting diverse life forms. This raises questions about the early conditions on Earth, the availability of resources, and the interactions between different chemical and physical processes that contributed to the origin of life.  If LUCA was not a single organism but a population, it implies that different lineages within this population could have followed different evolutionary trajectories.  The differences in promoter elements among prokaryotes, archaea, and eukaryotes imply that these groups may have independently evolved their transcription initiation mechanisms, indicating multiple paths of evolution rather than a single origin. This variation challenges the notion of a universal, simple ancestral cell and suggests a more complex evolutionary history for life on Earth.

Types of RNA Polymerase

The differences in RNA polymerase types among the three domains of life are one more challenge to the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). Prokaryotes, including both bacteria and archaea, generally possess a single type of RNA polymerase responsible for transcribing all types of RNA, including mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA. This single RNA polymerase performs a range of transcription activities in these organisms. The specific subunits and factors associated with this RNA polymerase can vary among different prokaryotic lineages. Eukaryotic cells are more complex and contain three distinct types of RNA polymerases: RNA polymerase I, RNA polymerase II, and RNA polymerase III. Each of these polymerases is responsible for transcribing specific types of RNA:

RNA Polymerase I: Transcribes large ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes that are components of the ribosome.
RNA Polymerase II: Transcribes protein-coding genes, producing messenger RNA (mRNA) that serves as templates for protein synthesis.
RNA Polymerase III: Transcribes smaller functional RNA genes, such as transfer RNA (tRNA), small ribosomal RNA (5S rRNA), and various small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs).

The presence of three distinct types of RNA polymerases in eukaryotes, each specialized for transcribing different types of RNA, presents a challenge to the LUCA concept. The LUCA hypothesis suggests that all life shares a common ancestor with simple cellular machinery. However, the complexity and diversity of RNA polymerases across the three domains of life raise questions about the evolution of transcription machinery. If LUCA were a simple ancestor with a single RNA polymerase, it would imply that the more complex transcription apparatus of eukaryotes evolved after the divergence of prokaryotic and eukaryotic lineages.  The presence of specialized RNA polymerases in eukaryotes suggests that these complex molecular machines had an independent origin within eukaryotic lineages. This challenges the idea that a single, simple ancestral RNA polymerase gave rise to all subsequent transcription systems. If eukaryotic RNA polymerases evolved independently, it implies similar molecular complexity arose multiple times. This convergent emergence of complex transcription machinery in different lineages contradicts the notion of a single LUCA with a simple transcription apparatus. The existence of distinct RNA polymerases in eukaryotes indicates that the transcription processes may have been complex even in the early existence of eukaryotic cells.

The interdependence and coordination among the three distinct types of RNA polymerases in eukaryotes introduce another layer of complexity. This interdependence can challenge the idea of a straightforward evolutionary trajectory and suggests that the emergence of eukaryotic transcription machinery was not a simple stepwise process. Eukaryotic cells have intricate regulatory networks that ensure the proper functioning of RNA polymerases I, II, and III. These polymerases are responsible for transcribing different types of RNA, but their activities must be coordinated to maintain cellular homeostasis and support essential processes like protein synthesis and ribosome biogenesis.
The activities of the three RNA polymerases are interconnected in ways that ensure a balanced expression of different types of RNAs. For example, ribosomal RNA (rRNA) transcribed by RNA polymerase I is required for ribosome assembly, which in turn influences the translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) transcribed by RNA polymerase II. Disruptions in this balance can have profound effects on cell viability. Eukaryotic cells use shared transcription factors to regulate all three RNA polymerases. These factors bind to promoter sequences and initiate transcription. The presence of common transcription factors suggests a level of complexity that seems not to align with a gradual step-by-step evolution from a simple ancestor.  The interdependent operation of RNA polymerases influences gene regulation. For example, transcription factors binding to a promoter may affect multiple RNA polymerases, impacting the expression of diverse RNA types. This intricate regulation is challenging to explain through a linear evolutionary pathway. The setting up of the regulatory mechanisms required for the interdependent operation of RNA polymerases is itself a complex process. The emergence of such a regulatory network would involve the evolution of specific protein-protein interactions, DNA recognition domains, and complex signaling pathways. The interactions between RNA polymerases and their associated factors are not only complex but also tightly integrated with other cellular processes. This raises questions about how such complexity emerged.

Initiation Complex

The differences in transcription initiation between the three domains of life provide insights into the complexity of transcription regulation also challenge the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). Eukaryotic transcription initiation involves the formation of a complex between RNA polymerase II and a multitude of transcription factors. This complex is called the pre-initiation complex (PIC) and forms at the promoter region of genes. The transcription factors include general transcription factors (GTFs) such as TFIIA, TFIIB, TFIID, TFIIE, TFIIF, and TFIIH. These factors help position RNA polymerase II at the transcription start site, facilitate the unwinding of DNA, and assist in promoter clearance. The PIC subsequently dissociates, and RNA polymerase II initiates transcription. In prokaryotes, the initiation of transcription is simpler compared to eukaryotes. A single RNA polymerase recognizes the promoter sequence, which consists of -10 and -35 elements (in bacteria) and similar recognition elements in archaea. There are no elaborate pre-initiation complexes involving multiple transcription factors. Instead, the RNA polymerase directly binds to the promoter and initiates transcription without the need for extensive regulatory factors.

The elaborate pre-initiation complex in eukaryotic transcription initiation, compared to the simpler process in prokaryotes, raises questions about the origin of transcription machinery and challenges the LUCA hypothesis. The formation of the pre-initiation complex in eukaryotes involves multiple transcription factors and intricate molecular interactions. This complexity raises questions about how such an elaborate system could have emerged from a simpler, common ancestor. The presence of highly distinct transcription initiation mechanisms in prokaryotes and eukaryotes suggests that these mechanisms originated independently in each lineage. If LUCA possessed a simpler transcription initiation system, the emergence of the more complex eukaryotic mechanism would require multiple independent events.  The evolution of a more complex initiation process in eukaryotes and the apparent loss of this complexity in prokaryotes suggest a paradoxical scenario: LUCA would need to evolve the complex eukaryotic system and then subsequently devolve or lose these elaborate features to become the simpler prokaryotic system.  Eukaryotic transcription initiation involves numerous regulatory components, whereas prokaryotic initiation is relatively streamlined. The presence of these complex regulatory networks in eukaryotes is challenging to explain through gradual evolution from a simple LUCA.

Transcription and Translation Coupling

In prokaryotes, transcription and translation are tightly coupled. This means that the translation of an mRNA molecule can begin almost immediately after the RNA polymerase starts transcribing the gene. The ribosomes can attach to the mRNA as it is being synthesized, enabling concurrent transcription and translation. This coupling allows for rapid gene expression and is a hallmark of prokaryotic cells. Eukaryotic gene expression is more compartmentalized. Transcription takes place in the nucleus, resulting in the formation of a pre-mRNA molecule. This pre-mRNA undergoes several post-transcriptional modifications, including capping at the 5' end, addition of a poly(A) tail at the 3' end, and splicing to remove introns and join exons. Only after these modifications are complete does the mature mRNA exit the nucleus and enter the cytoplasm for translation. The distinct differences in the coupling of transcription and translation between prokaryotes and eukaryotes provide evidence against the notion of a single common ancestor with a simple gene expression process. The coupled transcription and translation in prokaryotes contrast with the more complex and compartmentalized process in eukaryotes. This suggests that these processes originated independently in each lineage, which challenges the idea of a simple LUCA with a unified mechanism of gene expression.
If LUCA possessed a coupled transcription-translation system, the evolution of a more complex, compartmentalized process in eukaryotes would require the loss of this coupling. It is counterintuitive to propose that organisms evolved to become more complex and then lost features that were already in place. The post-transcriptional modifications and nuclear-cytoplasmic transport processes in eukaryotes add regulatory complexity to gene expression. This complexity is challenging to explain through gradual evolution from a simple LUCA.  The presence of a nuclear membrane in eukaryotes physically separates transcription and translation. The evolution of this barrier, along with the associated molecular machinery, raises questions about the gradual development of these features. 

The evolution of a nuclear membrane, which physically separates the nucleus from the cytoplasm in eukaryotic cells, presents significant challenges and complexities that raise questions about its gradual development.  The nuclear membrane is selectively permeable, allowing specific molecules to move in and out of the nucleus. The evolution of such selective permeability requires the development of complex transport mechanisms and nuclear pore complexes, which involve numerous proteins. The gradual emergence of these precisely coordinated transport mechanisms is difficult to envision. Nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) are large protein assemblies that mediate the transport of molecules between the nucleus and cytoplasm. The formation and function of NPCs involve interactions between a multitude of proteins. The gradual assembly of these intricate structures, along with the coordination of their functions, presents a challenge for gradual evolution. The presence of a nuclear membrane necessitates the regulation of processes like transcription and translation. Signals are required to communicate between the nucleus and cytoplasm, ensuring proper coordination of gene expression. The evolution of these regulatory mechanisms, including signal molecules and receptors, adds to the complexity of nuclear-cytoplasmic interactions. Molecules destined for the nucleus carry nuclear localization signals (NLS) that ensure their transport through nuclear pores. The evolution of NLSs, as well as the mechanisms that recognize and respond to them, requires the gradual development of specific peptide sequences and protein recognition systems. The presence of a nuclear membrane has implications for DNA replication, repair, and maintenance. The evolution of systems to safeguard genomic integrity within the nucleus, as well as repair mechanisms, adds another layer of complexity to the development of eukaryotic cells. The transport of molecules across the nuclear membrane involves energy expenditure. The evolution of energy-dependent transport systems, such as those utilizing GTPases, further complicates the gradual development of the nuclear-cytoplasmic barrier. Eukaryotic cells require tight coordination between nuclear and cytoplasmic processes. The gradual evolution of these coordinated interactions, involving molecular signals, protein modifications, and other regulatory mechanisms, is challenging to explain in a stepwise manner. The presence of a nuclear membrane and its associated features introduce a level of complexity that is difficult to reconcile with a simple, gradual evolutionary process. The evolution of the nuclear-cytoplasmic barrier would involve the co-evolution of numerous intricate molecular components, their interactions, and the regulatory systems that ensure proper cellular functioning. The emergence of these features raises questions about how a gradual series of changes could lead to the formation of the eukaryotic cell with its complex architecture and mechanisms.

Post-Transcriptional Modifications

The differences in mRNA processing between the three domains of life reveal the intricate nature of gene expression and present challenges to the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). In prokaryotes, mRNA is relatively simple and is transcribed as a continuous sequence. It does not undergo extensive post-transcriptional modifications. There is no capping, polyadenylation, or splicing involved. The primary transcript is typically translated directly, and the coding regions of multiple genes can even be present on a single mRNA molecule (polycistronic mRNA). Eukaryotic pre-mRNAs undergo a series of complex modifications before becoming mature mRNA:

Capping: A 7-methylguanosine cap is added to the 5' end of the pre-mRNA. This cap protects the mRNA from degradation and is essential for translation initiation.
Polyadenylation: A poly(A) tail is added to the 3' end of the pre-mRNA. This tail contributes to mRNA stability and influences translation efficiency.
Splicing: Eukaryotic genes often contain introns—non-coding sequences within the gene. Introns are removed through a process called splicing, which involves the removal of introns and joining of exons to create a continuous coding sequence.

The differences in mRNA processing mechanisms between prokaryotes and eukaryotes challenge the concept of a single common ancestor with a unified gene expression system. The elaborate series of modifications that eukaryotic pre-mRNAs undergo before becoming mature mRNA raises questions about how such complexity could have emerged from a simpler common ancestor. The evolution of capping, polyadenylation, and splicing involves the development of specific molecular machinery and intricate molecular interactions.

Capping refers to the addition of a 7-methylguanosine (m7G) cap to the 5' end of eukaryotic pre-mRNA. This cap plays a crucial role in mRNA stability, transport, and translation initiation. The capping process involves several enzymatic steps:

Capping Enzyme: A capping enzyme complex adds the m7G cap to the 5' end of the nascent pre-mRNA shortly after transcription initiation.
Guanosine Triphosphatase (GTPase): This enzyme hydrolyzes GTP to produce the guanosine monophosphate (GMP) necessary for cap addition.
Polyadenylation: Polyadenylation involves the addition of a poly(A) tail to the 3' end of eukaryotic pre-mRNA. The poly(A) tail contributes to mRNA stability, export from the nucleus, and translation. The polyadenylation process includes:
Cleavage and Polyadenylation Complex: A complex of proteins recognizes a specific signal sequence in the pre-mRNA and cleaves it near the 3' end. The same complex adds a string of adenine nucleotides (poly(A) tail) to the cleaved site.
Poly(A) Polymerase: This enzyme adds the adenosine residues to the mRNA, creating the poly(A) tail.
Splicing: Splicing involves the removal of introns (non-coding regions) from eukaryotic pre-mRNA and the joining of exons (coding regions) to create a continuous coding sequence. 

The splicing process is mediated by a large complex called the spliceosome, composed of both protein and RNA components:

Small Nuclear Ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs): These are RNA-protein complexes that form the core of the spliceosome. They recognize specific sequences at the boundaries of introns and exons.
Splicing Factors: Various proteins assist in positioning the snRNPs and facilitating the splicing reaction.
Branch Point Sequence: A specific adenine residue within the intron forms a lariat structure during splicing, which is essential for the removal of the intron.

These processes involve intricate molecular interactions, including RNA-RNA interactions, RNA-protein interactions, and complex enzyme-substrate interactions. The molecular machinery required for each of these processes must be highly coordinated to ensure accurate and efficient mRNA processing. The evolution of these components over time, along with their integration into functional complexes, presents challenges to the concept of a simple, gradual development of eukaryotic gene expression from a common ancestor.

The specific components and their interactions can vary among different eukaryotic organisms, reflecting the diversity of solutions that have been instantiated to perform similar functions. The complexity of these processes and their underlying machinery is a testament to the intricacies of gene expression regulation in eukaryotic cells. The presence of distinct mRNA processing mechanisms in prokaryotes and eukaryotes suggests that these processes had independent origins. If LUCA possessed a simpler mRNA processing system, the emergence of the more complex eukaryotic system would require multiple independent evolutionary events.  If LUCA had a more complex mRNA processing system, the evolution of the simpler prokaryotic system would imply the loss of these features. This scenario raises questions about why organisms would evolve to become more complex and then lose complex features.
The post-transcriptional modifications in eukaryotes add another layer of regulatory complexity to gene expression. The emergence of these regulatory mechanisms challenges the gradual evolution of mRNA processing from a simpler LUCA.

Monocistronic and Polycistronic mRNA

The differences in the organization of genes on mRNA molecules between the three domains of life provide insights into the complexity of gene expression and challenge the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). In prokaryotes, mRNAs are often polycistronic, meaning they can carry the coding information for multiple genes on a single transcript. This arrangement allows for the coordinated expression of functionally related genes that are part of the same operon. An operon is a functional unit of bacterial or archaeal DNA that consists of a cluster of genes under the control of a single promoter. Genes within an operon are usually related in function and often contribute to a specific metabolic pathway or cellular process. The concept of an operon was first proposed by François Jacob and Jacques Monod in the 1960s as they studied gene regulation in bacteria, particularly the model organism Escherichia coli (E. coli).  The translation of the individual genes occurs directly from the same mRNA molecule. Polycistronic mRNAs are commonly found in bacterial and archaeal genomes. Eukaryotic mRNAs are typically monocistronic, encoding the information for only one gene per mRNA molecule. This arrangement ensures that the translation of a single gene's information is not influenced by other genes on the same mRNA. Eukaryotic genes are generally transcribed individually, and each pre-mRNA undergoes post-transcriptional modifications before becoming a mature mRNA. This mechanism allows for precise regulation of gene expression.

The differences in the organization of genes on mRNA molecules between prokaryotes and eukaryotes raise questions about the evolution of gene expression mechanisms and challenge the idea of a single common ancestor with a unified gene expression system. The presence of polycistronic mRNAs in prokaryotes and monocistronic mRNAs in eukaryotes suggests that these mechanisms of gene organization and expression have an independent origin in each lineage. If LUCA possessed one of these systems, the emergence of the other system would require multiple independent evolutionary events. Polycistronic mRNAs in prokaryotes allow for coordinated expression of genes in an operon, simplifying regulatory interactions. In contrast, the monocistronic organization in eukaryotes requires more intricate regulatory mechanisms to ensure the precise expression of individual genes. The evolution of these regulatory networks presents challenges when considering the gradual evolution from a common ancestor. If LUCA had one type of gene organization, the evolution of the other type would involve either the loss of existing mechanisms (in the case of monocistronic mRNAs in eukaryotes) or the gain of new mechanisms (in the case of polycistronic mRNAs in prokaryotes). Both scenarios raise questions about the evolutionary pressures that would have led to such changes. The evolution from a polycistronic to a monocistronic system (or vice versa) would require intermediate forms that can function effectively. The existence of such intermediates and the selective advantages they confer pose challenges to the gradual development of gene expression systems.

Termination Mechanisms

The differences in transcription termination mechanisms between the three domains of life highlight the complexity of gene expression regulation and present challenges to the concept of a Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). Prokaryotic transcription termination can occur through both rho-dependent and rho-independent mechanisms:

Rho-Dependent Termination: In this mechanism, the protein factor Rho binds to the nascent mRNA and moves along it toward the RNA polymerase. As the polymerase stalls at a termination signal, Rho catches up and disrupts the mRNA-polymerase complex, leading to transcription termination.
Rho-Independent Termination: In this mechanism, a specific termination sequence within the mRNA transcript forms a stable stem-loop structure followed by a string of uracil (U) residues. This structure causes the RNA polymerase to pause and dissociate from the DNA template, resulting in termination.

Eukaryotic transcription termination involves different mechanisms compared to prokaryotes:

Poly(A) Signal Recognition: The termination of eukaryotic transcription is marked by the recognition of specific poly(A) signals in the pre-mRNA. These signals trigger the cleavage of the pre-mRNA and the addition of a polyadenine (poly(A)) tail to the 3' end.
Downstream Terminator Sequences: Eukaryotic genes also contain downstream terminator sequences that contribute to the efficient termination of transcription. These sequences interact with transcription termination factors to halt RNA polymerase activity.

The differences in transcription termination mechanisms between prokaryotes and eukaryotes raise questions about the evolution of these processes and challenge the idea of a single common ancestor with a unified gene expression system. The presence of distinct transcription termination mechanisms suggests that these processes had an independent origin in each lineage. If LUCA possessed one type of termination mechanism, the emergence of the other system would require multiple independent evolutionary events. Eukaryotic transcription termination mechanisms involve the recognition of specific signals and interactions with termination factors. The complexity of these processes, along with the need for specialized molecular components, is difficult to reconcile with a gradual evolution from a simpler LUCA.  Eukaryotic termination mechanisms are tightly integrated with other processes such as polyadenylation and nuclear-cytoplasmic transport. The evolution of these complex regulatory networks challenges the idea of a unified gene expression system in LUCA. The evolution from one termination mechanism to another would require intermediate forms that can function effectively. The existence of such intermediates and the selective advantages they confer pose challenges to the gradual development of termination systems.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

272Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Wed Sep 13, 2023 5:33 pm

Otangelo


Admin

9. Ribosome and ribosome biogenesis differences

I. Ebersberger (2014): Although we could identify E. coli counterparts with comparable biochemical activity for 12 yeast ribosome biogenesis factors (RBFs), only 2 are known to participate in bacterial ribosome assembly. This indicates that the recruitment of individual proteins to this pathway has been largely independent in the bacterial and eukaryotic lineages. The bacterial version of a universal ribosomal protein tends to be remarkably different from its archaeal equivalent, the same being true, even more dramatically, for the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. In both cases, in a sequence alignment, a position constant in composition in the Bacteria tends to be so in its archaeal homolog as well, but the archaeal and bacterial compositions for that position often differ from each other. Moreover, among the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, a total lack of homology between large (and characteristic) sections of the bacterial version of a molecule and its archaeal counterpart is common. 17

Sergey Melnikov ( 2018): Ribosomes are present in every living cell, but their structures are astonishingly distinct in different species. Even relatively simple ribosomes from bacterial species, whose molecular weights vary around 2.4 MDa, carry ∼0.7 MDa of unique RNA and protein moieties, which are missing in eukaryotic ribosomes. Remarkably, these species-specific moieties decorate every functional center of the ribosome, including the peptidyl-transferase, the peptide exit tunnel, the messenger RNA (mRNA) channel, the decoding site, and the binding sites of translation factors and regulatory proteins 18

Comment: The core ribosomal proteins, those that exhibit structural consistency, collectively span approximately 3,000 amino acid residues. However, alongside this core, certain protein segments encompassing around 2,200 residues are exclusive to bacteria and eukaryotic cells. Moreover, roughly 2,700 residues constitute protein segments unique to archaea or shared by archaea and eukaryotes, while an additional 1,100 residues form protein segments specific to eukaryotes. This observation underscores the remarkable structural divergence present among conserved ribosomal proteins within the three domains of life. Even in comparatively uncomplicated bacterial species, the quantity of residues within distinctive structural protein attributes is nearly equivalent to those within the conserved core. This phenomenon suggests a high degree of functional specialization for ribosomal proteins within each domain.
These distinctive structural elements manifest as protein segments, varying in length from a few to several dozen residues, frequently exposed on the protein's surface. The prevalence of these segments is such that almost every one of the 33 conserved ribosomal proteins carries at least one variable segment within each life domain. Among the larger ribosomal proteins, such as uL2, uL3, or uL4, multiple segments of dissimilar structure or occurrence are discernible across bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes. Interestingly, a common theme emerges in the structural variations of ribosomal proteins – these alterations predominantly arise in nonglobular protein extensions. Nonglobular protein extensions, also known as intrinsically disordered regions or intrinsically unstructured regions, are segments of proteins that lack a well-defined three-dimensional structure. Unlike the globular regions of proteins that typically fold into compact and stable structures, these nonglobular extensions remain unfolded or exhibit a flexible and dynamic structure.

In contrast, invariable segments commonly adopt a globular conformation. For example, protein uS14 features an unchanging globular domain – a 30-amino acid zinc finger motif – while its variable portions consist of elongated N- and C-terminal extensions with distinct folds in bacteria and eukaryotes. Comparable variations in protein extensions are prevalent in around two-thirds of the conserved ribosomal proteins. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that certain nonglobular extensions maintain invariant structures across all three life domains. These extensions are typically observed in the larger ribosomal proteins, such as uL2, uL3, uL4, uS12, and uS13, where they stabilize universally conserved rRNA junctions or facilitate vital interactions between ribosomes and their ligands. Despite this, even these proteins exhibit additional nonglobular extensions in archaeal and eukaryotic species. Consequently, ribosomal proteins generally undergo evolution that preserves the stability of their globular domains, while allowing nonglobular extensions to vary in size and tertiary structure across the three domains of life.

The presence of unique protein segments and extensive structural variability in ribosomal proteins across different domains of life is evidence for separate creation events, rather than a common evolutionary origin. The existence of distinct and specific protein segments in different domains of life is an indicator of separate creation events. If each domain possesses unique features that are not shared, it implies intentional design rather than an evolutionary lineage. The presence of these distinct features signifies that each domain was individually crafted with its own characteristics, reflecting purposeful design rather than a gradual evolutionary process. The extensive structural variability observed in ribosomal proteins across different domains is evidence for distinct creations.

H. Philippe (1999): Several composite universal trees connected by an ancestral gene duplication have been used to root the universal tree of life. In all cases, this root turned out to be in the eubacterial branch. However, the validity of results obtained from comparative sequence analysis has recently been questioned, in particular, in the case of ancient phylogenies. For example, it has been shown that several eukaryotic groups are misplaced in ribosomal RNA or elongation factor trees because of unequal rates of evolution and mutational saturation. Furthermore, the addition of new sequences to data sets has often turned apparently reasonable phylogenies into confused ones. We have thus revisited all composite protein trees that have been used to root the universal tree of life up to now (elongation factors, ATPases, tRNA synthetases, carbamoyl phosphate synthetases, signal recognition particle proteins) with updated data sets. In general, the two prokaryotic domains were not monophyletic with several aberrant groupings at different levels of the tree. Furthermore, the respective phylogenies contradicted each others, so that various ad hoc scenarios (paralogy or lateral gene transfer) must be proposed in order to obtain the traditional Archaebacteria–Eukaryota sisterhood. More importantly, all of the markers are heavily saturated with respect to amino acid substitutions. As phylogenies inferred from saturated data sets are extremely sensitive to differences in evolutionary rates, present phylogenies used to root the universal tree of life could be biased by the phenomenon of long branch attraction. Since the eubacterial branch was always the longest one, the eubacterial rooting could be explained by an attraction between this branch and the long branch of the outgroup. Finally, we suggested that an eukaryotic rooting could be a more fruitful working hypothesis, as it provides, for example, a simple explanation to the high genetic similarity of Archaebacteria and Eubacteria inferred from complete genome analysis. 19

Comment: The establishment of a universal tree of life has been a journey marked by complexity and intricacies. Various attempts to root this tree by employing composite structures, connected through ancestral gene duplications, have predominantly led to a common point within the eubacterial realm. This finding, while consistent across multiple cases, has recently come under scrutiny, particularly when applied to ancient evolutionary relationships. Comparative sequence analysis, the cornerstone of these endeavors, has faced challenges, notably in the case of ancient phylogenies. The ever-changing pace of evolution and the saturation of mutations have caused distortions in our understanding. This has led to peculiar misplacements of certain eukaryotic groups in trees constructed from ribosomal RNA or elongation factor sequences. Even the addition of new sequences, ostensibly meant to refine our insights, has occasionally brought about bewildering outcomes. What once appeared to be reasonable and logical phylogenies have been thrown into confusion with the infusion of fresh data. As a result, a comprehensive reevaluation of all composite protein trees employed to root the universal tree of life has been undertaken, utilizing updated datasets. In a broader context, a pattern has emerged where the prokaryotic domains have not held onto their monophyletic status. Curious groupings have arisen at different levels of the evolutionary tree, subverting expectations. Additionally, the inherent contradiction among these distinct phylogenies has necessitated the introduction of ad hoc explanations – considerations like paralogy or lateral gene transfer – to salvage the conventional notion of the Archaebacteria-Eukaryota sisterhood. A pivotal revelation has emerged during this process – the markers used in constructing these phylogenetic relationships have reached a state of saturation regarding amino acid substitutions. This saturation complicates matters significantly, as phylogenies derived from saturated data sets are exquisitely sensitive to variations in evolutionary rates. This phenomenon has raised the specter of long-branch attraction, potentially skewing our inferences. Given that the eubacterial branch consistently emerges as the longest, its rooting might be influenced by an attraction between this branch and the extensive outgroup branch. Amidst this intricate landscape, an alternative hypothesis has been posited: an eukaryotic rooting. This approach not only offers a fresh angle but also yields insights into the uncanny genetic similarity observed between Archaebacteria and Eubacteria in complete genome analyses.

5. Laurie S. Kaguni: DNA Replication Across Taxa (Volume 39) (The Enzymes, Volume 39) 2016
6. Alan C. Leonard: DNA Replication Origins 2013 Oct; 5
7. Eugene V. Koonin: The replication machinery of LUCA: common origin of DNA replication and transcription 09 June 2020
8. Samta Jain: Biosynthesis of archaeal membrane ether lipids 2014 Nov 26
9. Franklin M. Harold:  In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks  page 96 October 29, 2014
10. B. Canback: The global phylogeny of glycolytic enzymes April 30, 2002
11. Sultan F Alnomasy: Insights into Glucose Metabolism Inarchaea and Bacteria: Comparison Study of Embden-MeyerhofParnas (EMP) and Entner Doudoroff (ED) Pathways August 2017
12. Keith A. Webster: Evolution of the coordinate regulation of glycolytic enzyme genes by hypoxia 01 SEPTEMBER 2003
12a. Wolfgang Nitschke: Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life 2013 Jul 19
13. Eugene V Koonin: The origin and early evolution of eukaryotes in the light of phylogenomics 05 May 2010
14. Eugene V Koonin: The origin and early evolution of eukaryotes in the light of phylogenomics 05 May 2010
15. Eugene V Koonin: Evolution of microbes and viruses: a paradigm shift in evolutionary biology? 2012 Sep 13
16. Prokaryotic vs. Eukaryotic Trancription
17. Ingo Ebersberger et.al.,:The evolution of the ribosome biogenesis pathway from a yeast perspective 2014 Feb; 4
18. Sergey Melnikov: Revising the Structural Diversity of Ribosomal Proteins Across the Three Domains of Life 2018 Feb 24
19. Herve´ Philippe: The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable 1999

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

273Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:59 am

Otangelo


Admin

//// i want the response to appear like this. Example:

After oocyte maturation is complete and fertilization ensues, which other intra- and extracellular systems does it collaborate or interlink with?

This voyage requires the coordinated efforts of both intracellular and extracellular systems. Here's an overview of these interconnected systems:

Intracellular Systems

Haptista: Comprising haptophyte algae and centrohelids, the Haptista likely emerged around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
CRuMs: As a recently proposed supergroup, the exact divergence timing for CRuMs is less well-defined. Tentative estimates suggest a divergence around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
Orphan Taxa: The evolutionary timeline for orphan taxa remains uncertain due to the lack of clear phylogenomic placement. Some might have ancient origins similar to Hemimastigophora, while others might have emerged more recently.


/////// do not use words like likely, could, probably, but use the words:  would, it is hypothesized, would have.  here an example: Neuronal pruning and synaptogenesis are complex processes that are intimately linked to the development and functionality of the nervous system. While the exact point in the evolutionary timeline when these processes first appeared is not definitively known, it's supposed that they emerged gradually as nervous systems became more sophisticated.

1 Haptista: Comprising haptophyte algae and centrohelids, the Haptista likely emerged around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
2 CRuMs: As a recently proposed supergroup, the exact divergence timing for CRuMs is less well-defined. Tentative estimates suggest a divergence around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
3 Orphan Taxa: The evolutionary timeline for orphan taxa remains uncertain due to the lack of clear phylogenomic placement. Some might have ancient origins similar to Hemimastigophora, while others might have emerged more recently.


The evolution of nervous systems would have been a gradual process that spans millions of years, making it challenging to pinpoint precise stages in which specific mechanisms like neuronal pruning and synaptogenesis emerged.

Early Nervous System Evolution: In the earliest multicellular organisms, nerve cells (neurons) would have started to form basic networks, allowing for simple sensory and motor responses. These early networks would have lacked the complex pruning and refinement mechanisms seen in more advanced nervous systems.
Emergence of Synaptic Connections: As nervous systems would have become more complex, the formation of synaptic connections would have became more important. Synapses, the junctions between neurons, would have allowed for communication and signal transmission between nerve cells. Over time, mechanisms that promoted the strengthening or weakening of synapses would have emerged to enhance the efficiency of signal transmission.
Refinement and Pruning: As nervous systems would have continued to evolve, mechanisms of neuronal pruning probably would have developed as a way to fine-tune neural connections. This would have been driven by the need for more efficient neural circuits, as well as the optimization of limited resources in the developing organisms.
Adaptation and Plasticity: The ability to form new synapses and adapt existing ones, which is a hallmark of synaptogenesis, would have provided significant evolutionary advantages. Organisms with the ability to adjust their neural circuits based on experiences and environmental changes would have been better equipped to survive and thrive in changing conditions.


Point out, why an evolutionary set-up, step by step, is extremely unlikely, faced on the complexity, the requirements to instantiate various codes, languages, signaling, and proteins that had to be operational right from the beginning, and intermediate stages would bear no function, and would not be selected. Explain how this interdependence could and would not have evolved in a stepwise fashion, because one mechanism, language, or code system, without the other, would bear no function, and therefore, they had to be instantiated and created all at once, fully operational, from scratch. write  from the perspective of a proponent of intelligent design. Do not write: " From an intelligent design standpoint ". Just say it.Do not put enumeration numbers at the beginning of the sentences. 


irreducibility and Interdependence of the systems to instantiate and operate . explain which of the manufacturing, signaling, and regulatory codes and languages in the process of creating, developing, and operating      are irreducible, and interdependent within each other, and how one would not bear function without the other. Explain which code and languages communicate with each other, crosstalk, and what communication systems are essential to have functional normal cell operation. Explain how this interdependence could and would not have evolved in a stepwise fashion, because one mechanism, language, or code system, without the other, would bear no function, and therefore, they had to be instantiated and created all at once, fully operational, from scratch. write from the perspective of a proponent of intelligent design. Do not write: " From an intelligent design standpoint ". Just say it. Do not put enumeration numbers at the beginning of the sentences. 


Once it is instantiated and operational, what other intra and extracellular systems is it interdependent with?
Do not put enumeration numbers at the beginning of the sentences. 

/// write a syllogism, poiting to a designed set up, since these systems are based on semiotic code, languages, are interdependent, and had to emerge together, interlocked

give a short overview, describe it, and point out the importance in biological systems, and  Developmental Processes Shaping Organismal Form and Function



=========================================

////  provide me with  BBCode formatted references on the topics mentioned above. I'd like them in chronological order, in the following format: 

McLaren, A. (2003). Primordial germ cells in the mouse. Developmental Biology, 262(1), 1-15. Link. (This seminal paper provides an overview of germ cell development in mice, a common model organism.)
Raz, E. (2003). Primordial germ-cell development: the zebrafish perspective. Nature Reviews Genetics, 4(9), 690-700. Link. (Offers a comparative look using zebrafish, highlighting the conserved and unique mechanisms across species.)


=============================================


take the above list, subdivide and list them in the below topics and categories, and if one category does not have a paper in the provided list, add up to 5 papers related to the category and topic to the list. do formatting exactly the same in this format:  "Please provide me with  BBCode formatted references on the topics mentioned above. I'd like them in chronological order, in the following format: standard citation format for academic papers, typically resembling the APA format.

"Please provide me with  BBCode formatted references on the topics mentioned above. I'd like them in chronological order, in the following format: standard citation format for academic papers, typically resembling the APA format.

Genetic Components
Epigenetic Components of
Signaling Pathways
Regulatory Codes
Evolution
Interdependency

1. Brown, J. R. & Doolittle, W. F. (1995). Root of the Universal Tree of Life Based on Ancient Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase Gene Duplications. PNAS, 92(7). Link.
2. Woese, Carl. (1998). The universal ancestor. PNAS, 95(12), 6854–6859. Link.
3. Forterre, P. (2002). The origin of DNA genomes and DNA replication proteins. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 5(5), 525-532. Link.



After oocyte maturation is complete and fertilization ensues, which other intra- and extracellular systems does it collaborate or interlink with?

This voyage requires the coordinated efforts of both intracellular and extracellular systems. Here's an overview of these interconnected systems:

Intracellular Systems

Haptista: Comprising haptophyte algae and centrohelids, the Haptista likely emerged around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
CRuMs: As a recently proposed supergroup, the exact divergence timing for CRuMs is less well-defined. Tentative estimates suggest a divergence around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
Orphan Taxa: The evolutionary timeline for orphan taxa remains uncertain due to the lack of clear phylogenomic placement. Some might have ancient origins similar to Hemimastigophora, while others might have emerged more recently.





What were the main findings or results of the study?
What are the main conclusions drawn from the results?
Are there any open questions or aspects of the topic that the paper suggests need further investigation?

respond in bbcode, like this: Intracellular Systems

Haptista: Comprising haptophyte algae and centrohelids, the Haptista likely emerged around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
CRuMs: As a recently proposed supergroup, the exact divergence timing for CRuMs is less well-defined. Tentative estimates suggest a divergence around 600 million to 800 million years ago.
Orphan Taxa: The evolutionary timeline for orphan taxa remains uncertain due to the lack of clear phylogenomic placement. Some might have ancient origins similar to Hemimastigophora, while others might have emerged more recently.

// give examples of observed rapid speciation.  

Just write the text. avoid repetitive words, like tapestry.

assume a framework of 7300 years for the creation event of the earth, and biodiversity, and 5300 years ago, noahs flood ( just work from this framework, no need to mention it)  

 write from a creationism/intelligent design perspective. Write as if a proponent of it would be written, but without mentioning it, ( like: from a creationist perspective, or: from an intelligent design perspective ).

========================================================================================================================================
The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) is believed to have been a complex organism with a comprehensive genetic machinery. While the exact nature and composition of LUCA remain speculative due to the vast evolutionary time that has passed since its existence, insights from shared genetic machinery among the three domains of life (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota) provide clues about what LUCA might have had.

Based on the data from studies and the inherent necessities of a genetic system, LUCA's genetic machinery would have likely included the following:




  • Compartmentalized Biochemical Reactions: Suggesting areas within the cell where specific reactions occurred in isolation.
  • Lipid Diversity: A variety of lipids that could hint at specialization of cellular membranes or membrane-bound organelles.
  • Presence of Symbiotic Relationships: Interactions with other entities, potentially setting the stage for the evolution of organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts via endosymbiosis.



//// write and explain that for a science book do not mention chapters etc. Using the same style and approach, like the following ( this is just an example, do not adopt anything specifically in the text, it just serves as template for the style to adopt) precise, technical, clear, elucidating, straight to the point, exhaustive, detailed, do not use repetitive words like TAPESTRY, INTRICATE. Don't do that. Do not mention evolution as explaining the origin of anything./////////: The traditional notion of a single, unique ancestor for all life is appealing in its simplicity, yet recent scientific investigations present a more complex picture. Several studies suggest that LUCA may not have been an isolated individual, but rather a colony or community of organisms. There are compelling reasons for this hypothesis. Firstly, the sheer complexity and diversity of metabolic pathways and cellular components that we find in today's organisms are difficult to reconcile with a single ancestral origin. Many of these pathways, especially those considered "core" to life, show signs of being ancient, and their divergence would suggest the presence of multiple primordial organisms sharing and exchanging genetic information. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), where genes are transferred between organisms rather than through descent, could play a pivotal role here. HGT is widespread among modern microorganisms, allowing them to adapt rapidly to changing environments by acquiring new capabilities from neighboring microbes. If LUCA were a consortium of interacting microbes, HGT among them could lead to a shared pool of genetic innovations and adaptations. This perspective of LUCA as a community rather than an individual brings forth new challenges in our understanding. If we accept the hypothesis of a consortium of early life forms, the immediate question arises: What was the origin of this primordial community? The genesis of such a community would necessitate an environment conducive to the simultaneous emergence and coexistence of diverse proto-life entities. Prebiotic Earth would have been a mosaic of micro-niches, each with its unique blend of chemical and physical conditions. It's plausible that different life-like entities could have emerged in various niches, eventually converging or cohabiting in spaces where conditions allowed mutual existence and interaction. The subsequent interplay between these entities, including cooperative and competitive interactions, could pave the way for the emergence of a unified, interconnected community - the hypothetical LUCA consortium. Understanding the genesis of this proposed LUCA community requires a deeper dive into the conditions of the early Earth, the mechanisms of abiogenesis, and the interplay of nascent life forms in those ancient ecosystems. It’s a challenging puzzle, but each piece we uncover brings us a step closer to deciphering the enigmatic origins of life on our planet.

==========================================================================================================================


Describe LBCAs   2. Horizontal Gene Transfer:
Horizontal gene transfer played a significant role in shaping the bacterial landscape, especially during the early phases of bacterial evolution. Such gene transfers often bring about biases in microbial evolution and are pivotal in understanding the origins and early diversification of bacterial life ([3] Andam & Gogarten 2011, [5] Fournier, Andam, & Gogarten 2015).


        write in this    in this format ( the following is just an example, do not rewrite again the same text, elucidate based on the topic to be described, beforementioned:

1. Genetic Machinery 

The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) is believed to have been a complex organism with a comprehensive genetic machinery. While the exact nature and composition of LUCA remain speculative due to the vast evolutionary time that has passed since its existence, insights from shared genetic machinery among the three domains of life (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota) provide clues about what LUCA might have had.

Based on the data from studies and the inherent necessities of a genetic system, LUCA's genetic machinery would have likely included the following:

Nucleic Acid Synthesis and Maintenance:
  • DNA Polymerases: Enzymes that synthesize DNA from deoxyribonucleotides.
  • DNA Gyrase and Topoisomerases: Enzymes that manage DNA supercoiling.
  • DNA Ligase: Enzyme that joins breaks in the DNA backbone.
  • Ribonucleotide Reductase: Enzyme that produces deoxyribonucleotides for DNA synthesis.
  • DNA Helicase: Enzyme that unwinds the DNA helix during replication.
  • Primase: Synthesizes RNA primers for DNA replication initiation.


Transcription (from DNA to RNA):
  • RNA Polymerases: Enzymes that synthesize RNA.
  • Transcription Factors: Proteins that regulate gene expression.


in bbcode

and describe the differences and supposed evolutionary trajectory from LUCA to LBCA in each case , write; it is hypothesized, it is claimed, supposedly, It is possible to have, it would, never it could, never write as if it happened as a fact



Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:31 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

274Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:17 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Polyphyletic Origin & Creation of Life as an Alternative to Monophyly

In the design alternative as proposed in Genesis, rather than the gradual emergence of life from a singular source, this perspective suggests a more orchestrated appearance of life on Earth. This viewpoint brings forth a narrative deeply rooted in the ancient texts, proposing a systematic creation of biodiversity within a specific timeframe, reminiscent of the creation week described in certain ancient scriptures. The narrative begins with the inception of the planet itself, its skies, waters, and lands being shaped and formed. Once these elemental foundations were established, the sequence of life's introduction was initiated. Firstly, light pierced the primordial darkness, setting the stage for life. It wasn’t just the introduction of photons; this light perhaps represented the necessary energy cycles and conditions conducive to life's flourish. Following this, the waters below were filled with diverse marine life, and winged creatures took to the skies. Each species, rather than evolving from a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), was distinct in its genesis. Their complexity and design, perfectly attuned to their habitats, speak of a thoughtful creation rather than random mutations over millions of years. On the vast stretches of land, vegetation appeared. Plants of all kinds, from towering trees to humble shrubs, covered the Earth, each with its unique purpose, design, and ecological role. The narrative then leads us to the creation of animals that tread the Earth. 

Majestic beasts, both large and small, roamed the lands. Each creature was uniquely crafted, with every detail of its anatomy, behavior, and role in the ecosystem thoughtfully considered. In this perspective, there's no LUCA, no tree of life branching out from a single point. Instead, life was likened to a forest, where each tree stands distinct from the others, representing different forms and domains of life. This forest of life, teeming with diversity from its inception, was not a product of eons of evolution but a result of a deliberate and systematic design. One of the most significant implications of this viewpoint is its take on the human species. Humans were not just another product of evolution but were introduced as stewards, with a role and purpose distinct from other creatures. Their creation was seen as the culmination of this week of wonder, with an inherent connection and responsibility to the world around them. This alternative perspective offers a radically different lens through which to view biodiversity. It paints a picture of intention, design, and purpose, proposing that the rich diversity of life on Earth was woven systematically, each thread carefully placed, rather than being the product of chance and time.

Perguntas .... - Page 11 Sem_dd12

The polyphyletic creation model, as alluded to in certain readings of the Genesis scriptures, takes a distinctly different approach to explaining the diversity and origins of life on Earth compared to the LUCA-based evolutionary model.
This creation-centered perspective presents life's vast array of organisms as independently arising phenomena, negating the need to trace them back to a single common progenitor. By asserting that life's varied forms emerged separately, it dispels the intricacies involved in unpacking the rise of complex metabolic pathways, cellular machinery, and the widespread occurrence of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) from a singular origin. Consider, for instance, the challenges posed by HGT in the LUCA model. HGT has the potential to blur the lines of descent, making it challenging to decipher a clear evolutionary lineage. By embracing the idea of independent origins, the polyphyletic creation model doesn't grapple with these blurred lines. There's no need to unravel how certain traits or genes moved between organisms if each was designed uniquely from the outset. Furthermore, the vast complexity and diversity of metabolic pathways in contemporary organisms raise questions in the LUCA paradigm. How could a single entity give rise to the multitude of pathways, especially those fundamental to life, that seem to have ancient roots? The polyphyletic model bypasses this concern. If each organism or kind was independently created, then the presence of diverse and complex pathways from the beginning is expected, not an anomaly. The landscape of early Earth, peppered with countless micro-niches, each fostering its own set of chemical and physical conditions, becomes less of an enigma in this creation-centered view. Rather than imagining various life-like entities originating in separate niches and then somehow converging or coexisting, each niche simply hosts its independently created form of life. There's no need to deduce how these entities cooperated, competed, or engaged in genetic exchanges to give rise to a unified community. The polyphyletic creation model also reframes our understanding of abiogenesis, the origin of life from non-living matter. Instead of delving into the mechanisms that might have sparked life in Earth's primordial environments, this model posits a divine or external intervention that breathed life into the world, bypassing the challenges of naturalistic explanations.

In the design alternative, it's essential to understand that the initial biodiversity, according to this perspective, was vastly more expansive than what we observe today. The initial creation was one of immense biological richness, teeming with species that we may have never encountered or studied. Each species, from the tiniest microorganisms to the colossal beasts, was uniquely tailored for its environment, thriving in a perfectly balanced ecological system. However, as time went on, several catastrophic events altered this original design. One of the most significant events hypothesized in this perspective is a global flood. Such a catastrophic inundation would not only have reshaped the geography and climate of the planet but would also have had a profound impact on its biodiversity. Marine ecosystems would have been disrupted by rapid changes in salinity, temperature, and pressure. Terrestrial environments would have been inundated, leading to the extinction of a vast number of plant and animal species. Only a fraction of the original species, those able to adapt or find refuge during these cataclysms, would have survived. Following the flood, the remnant species would have been faced with the immense task of recolonizing a drastically changed world. This post-catastrophe environment would be characterized by new challenges: competition for limited resources, rapidly changing climates, and the need to adapt to new habitats. While some species might have diversified in this new world, the genetic pool they emerged from would have been significantly restricted compared to the original creation. 

Beyond these cataclysmic events, the process of genetic entropy further exacerbated the decline in biodiversity. Genetic entropy, in this context, refers to the gradual deterioration of the genetic information within living organisms over time. As mutations accumulate in the genome, most being neutral or harmful, the overall fitness of species may decrease. Over successive generations, the compounded effect of these mutations can lead to a decline in population health, reduced adaptability, and, in extreme cases, extinction. Thus, rather than life evolving from a simple organism to the vast complexity we see today, this perspective posits a reverse trajectory – a devolution. The original, perfect design gradually deteriorated over time due to external catastrophic events and internal genetic degradation. The analogy of the "tree of life" is, in this viewpoint, inverted. Instead of a single trunk branching out into myriad forms over eons, life began as a vast, sprawling forest of biodiversity. Over time, many of these branches were pruned or lost entirely due to global catastrophes and genetic entropy. What remains today is but a remnant of the original design – a testament to both the initial grandeur of creation and the profound changes that have since shaped our planet. This lens provides a paradigm shift from the traditional evolutionary model, highlighting a world that began in perfection and has, over time, faced decline. It underscores the impermanence of life and the dynamic, ever-changing nature of our planet.

Here, an essential mechanism comes into play: inbuilt, preprogrammed adaptation. Each species, according to this perspective, was endowed with a genetic reservoir of adaptability. This inbuilt mechanism is not just about survival; it's about thriving in varied conditions. Through preprogrammed adaptation, organisms can adjust to different environments, making micro-evolutionary changes as necessary. Such adaptability allows for the manifestation of new traits suitable for altered ecosystems. This process, while operating within the confines of an organism's genetic potential, ensures survival and even diversification in the face of challenges. Post cataclysmic events, these preprogrammed adaptive capabilities kickstart new radiations of biodiversity. As environments stabilize, species begin to speciate, tapping into their genetic reservoir to adapt to the niches available to them. This results in bursts of speciation, filling the world with a new array of life forms, albeit a subset of the original grand design. This cycle of destruction followed by rejuvenation emphasizes the robustness of the initial design. Life, in its profound wisdom, persists, adapts, and diversifies, perpetuating itself against odds and ensuring the planet remains vibrant and alive. This perspective offers a delicate balance between the inherent perfection of the original creation and the dynamism of adaptive processes. It paints a picture of a world designed with forethought, where even in the face of cataclysmic events, life finds a way, tapping into its intrinsic adaptive capabilities. This narrative is a testament to the resilience and marvel of life, with its ability to rebound and renew itself, ensuring the continuation of the grand symphony of biodiversity.

Instances of rapid speciation shine a light on the remarkable adaptability of organisms. When faced with distinct environmental challenges or opportunities, some species have demonstrated an incredible propensity to diversify in relatively short timeframes. One of the most compelling illustrations of swift speciation is found in the waters of African rift lakes, specifically in Lake Victoria, Malawi, and Tanganyika. Here, hundreds of unique cichlid species have emerged, each boasting distinct colorations, behaviors, and ecological roles. This extraordinary diversification, occurring over just a few thousand years, is thought to have been driven by a combination of ecological niches and sexual selection pressures.  Darwin's finches serve as a classic emblem of nature's capacity for rapid adaptive change. A single ancestral species, within a concise period, branched off into several species, each acclimatized to different dietary niches, showcasing the intricate play of environmental pressures and genetic potential.  Darwin's finches, scattered across the Galápagos archipelago, offer a profound window into the dynamism of evolution. These small birds, differing primarily in beak form and function, reveal the robust interplay between genetic adaptation and the environment. 

Upon the first survey by Charles Darwin, it was initially believed that these finches were unrelated species. However, subsequent research indicated a common ancestral origin. Each island, with its unique set of challenges and resources, acted as a crucible for adaptation. Over time, the finches' beaks evolved in direct response to their dietary needs. Some developed stout, powerful beaks capable of cracking open seeds, while others possessed slender, pointed beaks adept at probing for insects or nectar. The rapidity of these changes is particularly striking. Within the span of just a few generations, noticeable variations in beak morphology could emerge, a testament to nature's ability to respond swiftly to changing conditions. This malleability in beak structure and the finches' ability to exploit diverse food sources ensured their survival amidst the fluctuating environments of the islands. The story of Darwin's finches emphasizes the nuanced relationship between an organism's genetic reservoir and its surroundings. It's a narrative of resilience, adaptability, and the ever-evolving dance of life, where even subtle shifts in the environment can pave the way for notable evolutionary strides.

Perguntas .... - Page 11 G42810

In the mid-19th century, during his voyage aboard the HMS Beagle, Charles Darwin landed on the Galápagos Islands, a remote archipelago located nearly 600 miles off the western coast of South America. This visit would prove pivotal not just for Darwin himself, but for the entire course of biological science. Although Darwin spent only five weeks on the islands, what he observed during this short span would deeply influence his thinking. Among the myriad unique creatures he encountered, it was a modest group of birds, which we now call "Darwin's finches", that held a particular intrigue. To the untrained eye, these birds, scattered across different islands, might seem unrelated due to their varied beak shapes and sizes. However, Darwin began to suspect that these birds, despite their differences, shared a common lineage. After returning to England, Darwin collaborated with the ornithologist John Gould, and together they made a startling discovery. These seemingly disparate bird species were not a collection of unrelated birds as initially presumed, but rather different species that had evolved from a single ancestral species. The different beak shapes, they deduced, were adaptations to the specific dietary needs of each bird, shaped by the unique environments of the islands they inhabited. This observation was instrumental in Darwin's development of the theory of natural selection. He posited that species could change over time, adapting to their environments. Those with advantageous traits would have a better chance of surviving and reproducing, thereby passing those beneficial traits on to subsequent generations. Over time, this process could give rise to entirely new species. 

The finches became emblematic of this evolutionary process. The variation in beak morphology, driven by the different food sources available on each island, served as a tangible example of how species might adapt and diversify in response to environmental pressures. Darwin's experiences on the Galápagos Islands, combined with his observations from other parts of his voyage, culminated in his groundbreaking work, "On the Origin of Species". Published in 1859, this book laid out the theory of evolution by natural selection, radically reshaping our understanding of the natural world and our place within it. In the Galápagos Islands, Darwin's observations led him to a pivotal understanding of adaptive changes in species. He recognized the power of environmental pressures to shape the characteristics of organisms in ways that enhanced their survival. This microevolutionary process, where organisms undergo minor changes in response to their environment, is well-documented and widely accepted in the scientific community. The finches, with their varied beak morphologies suited to different dietary needs, provided a textbook example of this. While Darwin's insight into adaptive changes was groundbreaking, he took a bold leap in suggesting a broader, macroevolutionary process. He proposed that, given enough time, these small, adaptive changes could accumulate and lead to the emergence of entirely new species, genera, and even higher taxonomic groups. Essentially, Darwin extrapolated from his observations of microevolution to hypothesize a grand tree of life, with all organisms stemming from a universal common ancestor. Over the 160 years since the publication of "On the Origin of Species", extensive research has been conducted in fields ranging from paleontology to molecular biology. While the concept of adaptive microevolution is firmly established, the notion of a universal common ancestor and the complete interconnectedness of all life remains a topic of debate. Some argue that the genetic, fossil, and biogeographical evidence supports Darwin's grand vision of interconnectedness. However, others believe that the evidence does not conclusively corroborate the idea of a single origin for all life forms. Darwin's genius lay in his ability to observe nature and derive from it broad, revolutionary concepts about the mechanisms driving the diversity of life. Yet, as with all scientific theories, it is crucial to distinguish between observations and extrapolations, ensuring that each claim is evaluated based on the weight of evidence supporting it. While Darwin's ideas about microevolution and adaptation have stood the test of time, the broader implications of a universal common ancestry remain a point of continued exploration and discussion in the scientific community.

The sequestered Hawaiian islands harbor a diverse range of honeycreeper species. These birds, believed to have sprung from a solitary finch-like ancestor, have branched out to occupy varied ecological roles, be it nectar feeders with slender, curved bills or robust seed-crackers. This divergence, given the framework in question, hints at an astonishing pace of adaptation and diversification. Closer to the ground, the apple maggot fly provides another example. Originally feeding on hawthorn fruit, some populations have switched to feeding on apples, a relatively new food source. This shift in diet is linked to genetic changes and is viewed as an early stage of speciation, as these flies are now mostly mating within their respective groups based on the fruit they consume. These instances not only attest to the versatility and resilience of life but also suggest that the mechanisms for diversification might be more intricate and swift than previously thought. The speed at which these species have diversified, especially within the given framework, challenges traditional timelines and underscores the need for a deeper understanding of life's evolutionary dynamics.

The evolution of complex reproductive traits in the Mabuya skinks, especially over a short period, challenges conventional evolutionary narratives. Among the fascinating stories of evolutionary change, the rapid evolution of viviparity and placental structures in the skinks of the genus Mabuya stands out prominently. In what seems to be a blink in evolutionary time, these lizards transitioned from laying eggs to giving birth to live young, accompanied by the development of intricate placental structures. Such rapid evolution of complex traits raises a fundamental question: How can these shifts occur in such a condensed timeframe? Traditional views might suggest natural selection acting on random mutations over long periods, but the timeline of Mabuya's transformation doesn't align neatly with this perspective. Instead, the story of Mabuya skinks may point towards an intricate dance of pre-programmed genetic mechanisms, poised and ready to be activated under the right conditions. This isn't to say that natural selection played no role. However, the speed at which these reproductive changes occurred suggests that the skinks may have been drawing from a pre-existing genetic "toolbox". Such a toolbox could consist of latent genetic pathways, dormant but ready to be activated when environmental or internal triggers are met. When activated, these pathways could lead to profound morphological and physiological changes over relatively few generations. The idea of pre-programmed mechanisms isn't new, but the Mabuya skinks provide a compelling case study. Rather than relying solely on the slow accrual of beneficial mutations, these lizards may have tapped into an ancient reservoir of genetic potential, enabling them to adapt swiftly to changing conditions or ecological niches. Such pre-existing genetic frameworks could explain the seemingly rapid jump from egg-laying to viviparity and the concurrent development of mammalian-like placentas.

While natural selection remains a fundamental force in shaping the tapestry of life, the story of the Mabuya skinks underscores the potential role of pre-programmed genetic mechanisms in driving rapid evolutionary change. Their tale serves as a testament to the complexities and wonders of the evolutionary process, where the boundaries of possibility continually expand and surprise.

Viviparity and Convergent Evolution: A Case for Pre-programmed Adaptation

Viviparity, the act of giving birth to live young as opposed to laying eggs, is an exemplary testament to convergent evolution. From the Mabuya skinks to diverse other life forms, this reproductive strategy has made its mark in the annals of evolutionary biology. But when we witness this trait cropping up in distinct groups, from reptiles to fish to insects, it prompts us to ponder: Is there more to this story than just random mutations and environmental selection?

Reptiles: While Mabuya skinks are in the spotlight, let's not forget other reptilian players. Several species of snakes and lizards, despite their varied genetic lineages, have transitioned to viviparity. Each emergence of viviparity appears tailored to the creature's environment, but the frequency of this adaptation suggests a deeper underlying mechanism.
Fish: The aquatic realm isn't far behind. Certain sharks and rays, with their evolutionary history distinct from reptiles, have adopted viviparity. The intricate adaptations, from the development of placental structures to the very way they retain and nurture eggs, seem too orchestrated to be merely chance-driven.
Insects: The world of insects, with its vast diversity, has its own viviparous champions. Aphids, for instance, in certain life stages or environmental contexts, exhibit viviparity. Their evolutionary path to this point is distinctly separate from reptiles and fish.

This recurrence of viviparity across such diverse taxa points to a possible underlying mechanism: pre-programmed adaptation or micro-evolution. Rather than relying solely on the conventional view of random genetic mutations followed by natural selection, could it be that organisms possess an inherent, pre-designed toolkit that allows them to tap into specific adaptive strategies when environmental cues arise? Consider a smartphone with various apps. The phone's user doesn't design a new app every time a new need arises; instead, they select from an existing suite of apps tailored to various tasks. Similarly, the repeated emergence of viviparity might be akin to different species "selecting" from a set of pre-existing genetic "apps" or modules, activating them in response to specific environmental signals. This perspective doesn't negate the role of natural selection. Instead, it suggests that natural selection operates on a suite of pre-existing adaptive options, rather than solely on random mutations. It paints a picture where life forms aren't just passive players in the evolutionary game, subject only to external pressures. They come equipped, designed with a versatile toolbox of adaptive strategies, ready to meet the ever-changing challenges of their environments. Such a view marries the observed realities of biological diversity with the possibility of a more orchestrated, pre-programmed adaptive mechanism at play. The convergence we witness in nature, as seen with viviparity, might just be the tip of the iceberg, hinting at the profound wisdom and versatility embedded within the very fabric of life.

Convergence and the Argument for Design

Convergent evolution refers to the phenomenon where unrelated organisms independently evolve similar traits or adaptations in response to comparable environmental challenges. A classic example is the development of wings in bats, birds, and certain extinct reptiles, all of which have distinct evolutionary lineages. Such recurrent patterns in nature have piqued the curiosity of biologists and philosophers alike. Is it a result of sheer coincidence, driven by unguided evolutionary processes, or is there a more orchestrated design at play? The sheer frequency with which convergent traits arise across disparate lineages can seem astronomically improbable under a framework that assumes evolution is purely a game of chance. For example, the independent development of echolocation in both bats and dolphins to navigate and hunt, despite their vast evolutionary distance, is remarkable. From a design perspective, this repeated emergence of the same solution across unrelated groups might indicate an underlying blueprint or common set of genetic "tools" that different organisms can access. 

Convergence often results in optimal solutions to environmental challenges. For example, the streamlined bodies of sharks (fish) and dolphins (mammals) are perfectly suited for swift movement in water, despite their different ancestries. This consistent arrival at the "best" solution, rather than a wide array of suboptimal ones, hints at a guidance mechanism rather than random chance. Some convergently evolved traits are incredibly complex. The eyes of cephalopods (like squids) and vertebrates, for instance, have intricate structures and mechanisms that are remarkably similar. Such complexity emerging independently through a series of random mutations in multiple lineages seems less probable than the idea of a pre-programmed design being activated in response to environmental cues. For many convergent traits, the fossil record doesn't always provide a clear series of gradual intermediate stages. This absence is sometimes used to argue that the trait appeared relatively swiftly and purposefully, more in line with a design model than a slow, unguided evolutionary process.

The critique that invoking a higher power to explain natural phenomena shifts the conversation from empirical science to theology has been a longstanding point of contention between certain factions of the scientific and religious communities. However, a creation model can be inferred directly from scientific evidence, and not solely from religious or theological grounds.  One of the primary critiques against naturalistic evolutionary models is the perceived gaps or lacunas in their explanatory power. Certain complex biological features, such as the intricacies of the cell, the rapid emergence of phyla in the Cambrian explosion, and certain finely-tuned physiological systems, are implausible to have arisen through the gradual, undirected processes of mutation and natural selection alone. Life on Earth operates on a network of integration and interdependence. At the micro-level, cellular processes are intricately interwoven, with each component relying on others to function correctly. This interdependence is mirrored at the macro level, in ecosystems where species are interconnected in complex webs of relationships. Such intricate dependencies make it difficult to envision how these systems could have developed piecemeal. 

For instance, certain plants and their pollinators are so finely tuned to each other's requirements that it challenges the idea of a slow, independent evolution. In these cases, it appears as though both entities would need to emerge simultaneously, with their mutualistic features already in place, for both to thrive. Beyond the cellular level, entire ecosystems seem to function based on mutual dependencies. Predator-prey dynamics, symbiotic relationships, and the delicate balance of producers and consumers in various ecosystems suggest a level of orchestration that is hard to reconcile with the randomness intrinsic to naturalistic evolution. The observed evidence of complexity, fine-tuning, and interdependence in nature seems better explained by an intelligent design or creation model. Such a model can offer more direct and adequate explanations for the phenomena we observe, as opposed to the often circuitous and multi-step explanations proposed by evolutionary models. The debate between naturalistic evolution and creation models isn't merely about the evidence itself but also about how one interprets and gives weight to different pieces of evidence.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

275Perguntas .... - Page 11 Empty Re: Perguntas .... Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:18 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Unresolved issues and open questions related to LUCA

In the grand narrative of life's genesis, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, often abbreviated as LUCA, stands as a pivotal moment, a starting point for the diverse branches of life we see today. Yet, peeling back the layers of time to truly understand LUCA is a daunting endeavor. Contemplate an organism, the wellspring from which all extant life has sprung. Many facets of LUCA, notably its genomic composition, baffle our scientific minds. We're drawn to theories like the RNA World Hypothesis, which posits that in a time before our current biological framework, LUCA was predominantly reliant on RNA, using it to fulfill roles that today are apportioned between DNA and proteins. While this theory has its allure, it's not devoid of pitfalls. RNA's inherent instability is a major concern. Unlike DNA, which provides a stable genetic platform, RNA is susceptible to rapid degradation. Given the probably volatile environments of early Earth, how could RNA reliably store the genetic blueprint of nascent life? And while it's evident that RNA plays myriad roles in contemporary cells, ribozymes - those RNA variants with enzymatic activities - have their limits. The multitude of processes required to maintain even the simplest life forms seem overwhelming for ribozymes. Would they be adept enough to navigate the maze of life's chemical intricacies? Transitioning from an RNA-dominated world to the DNA-protein framework we recognize today adds another layer of complexity. This isn't just about swapping one molecule for another. It's a significant evolutionary leap. Crafting DNA from RNA involves a series of sophisticated processes, often necessitating advanced enzymes. Take ribonucleotide reductase as an example. This enzyme, crucial for the RNA-to-DNA transition, has a multifaceted structure and function, seemingly incongruent with a rudimentary RNA-dominated realm. How did such evolved proteins come to be in a world where RNA held the reins? This brings us to another obstacle: the establishment of the detailed biosynthesis pathways pivotal to life. Developing these pathways, where each phase is so dependent on the next, casts doubt on the RNA World Hypothesis, and indeed on our broader understanding of life's beginnings. As we explore these hypotheses, it's essential to remain critical, scrutinizing every aspect. Dig deeper into LUCA's cellular machinery. Picture its cellular framework. What shielded its internal components? Today, many cells are encased in lipid membranes, but we cannot confidently state LUCA had the same protective layer. Delving into its cellular interior, did LUCA have rudimentary organelles or specialized compartments? Reflect on LUCA's existence. How did it sustain itself? Was it an autonomous unit, crafting its own sustenance? Alternatively, might it have relied on its surroundings, drawing in organic molecules to nourish itself? Theories abound about LUCA's preferred habitat, with some suggesting it thrived near hydrothermal vents deep in the primordial seas. Such speculations lead to another intriguing query: Was our primeval forerunner adapted to extreme conditions, or did it favor milder climes? As we consider its genetic machinery, we must ask: Did LUCA interpret genetic codes as modern organisms do? The precise codon-to-amino acid mappings we see today, were they a part of LUCA's genetic language? The origins of LUCA, its precursor environments, and possible predecessors remain profound puzzles. As we navigate the evolutionary landscape, we're faced with a pressing query: Was LUCA a lone entity, a singular starting point? Or, in the vast expanse of evolutionary history, could there have been multiple ancestral forms, each contributing to the tree of life in its unique way?

The understanding of LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, oscillates between the simplistic idea of a single primordial entity and the intricate possibility of a collective of primordial organisms. While the allure of a lone progenitor remains strong, recent scientific probes paint a multifaceted portrait. For starters, the intricate web of metabolic processes and cellular machinery seen in present-day life forms is a challenge to trace back to a singular source. Numerous pathways integral to life bear the imprints of time, pointing to an ancient lineage, and it's arguable whether a solitary ancestor could give rise to such profound complexity. This diversity in life's mechanics hints at the likelihood of multiple early life forms that possibly swapped and merged genetic blueprints. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a process by which genes are exchanged outside the parent-offspring relationship, emerges as a central player in this narrative. Given its prevalence among modern microbes and its role in facilitating rapid adaptation, envisioning LUCA as a dynamic consortium of microbes engaged in HGT isn't far-fetched. This consortium, with its shared genetic pool, could have birthed the extensive repertoire of life's functions we see today. However, this view, while solving some puzzles, ushers in a host of fresh questions. If we lean into the idea of an early consortium, it begs the question: How did this ancient community come into being? The birth of such a collective necessitates conditions favoring the spontaneous emergence of varied life forms. The early Earth, a patchwork of diverse micro-environments, could it have harbored various life precursors that eventually coalesced where circumstances allowed? The dynamics among these nascent life forms, a mixture of cooperation and competition, could it have forged the proposed LUCA consortium?  This line of reasoning rests on a bedrock of assumptions about early Earth, abiogenesis mechanisms, and ancient ecosystems, each of which is a research frontier of its own. The LUCA model, despite its appeal, is fraught with complexities and uncertainties.

At Least 14 Major Hurdles to get to a LUCA

The challenge of understanding the transition from non-living to living entities has long intrigued scientists. Imagine trying to replicate life's beginnings by introducing a mixture of raw materials—some vital for life and others not—into a controlled environment, and then observing the interplay of natural forces. Such an experiment, relying on purely unguided processes, has yet to be attempted, let alone achieved. John von Neumann was a Hungarian-American mathematician, physicist, and computer scientist, widely regarded as one of the foremost mathematicians of the 20th century. He made seminal contributions to a variety of fields, including functional analysis, quantum mechanics, computer science, and game theory. Among his diverse achievements, von Neumann delved into the concept of self-replicating machines, which are theoretical constructs capable of autonomously reproducing themselves using raw materials from their environment. These ideas not only laid foundational concepts for future studies in robotics and artificial intelligence but also posed intriguing questions about the nature of life and the potential for machines to mimic biological processes.

Perguntas .... - Page 11 Von_ne10

He reflected deeply on the complexity of life, positing that the mere existence of memory-stored controls that can convert symbols into physical states is nothing short of a wonder. John von Neumann's musings on the complexity of life, particularly on the memory-stored controls converting symbols into physical states, were deeply rooted in his studies on self-replicating machines and the burgeoning field of computer science. When von Neumann spoke of "memory-stored controls," he was alluding to the way that information, stored in a specific format or code, can be translated into actionable commands or physical processes. This principle is readily apparent in both modern computers and biological systems. For instance, a computer translates binary code (a series of 1s and 0s) into complex operations, graphics, and processes. Similarly, in biological systems, the genetic code stored in DNA is transcribed and translated to produce proteins, which are the workhorses of the cell. Von Neumann marveled at this intricate dance of information storage, retrieval, and transformation. He considered it a marvel because it encapsulates a foundational concept: that abstract symbols, whether in binary or genetic code, can give rise to tangible, physical realities. In the case of computers, this means software giving rise to specific operations and outputs. In biology, it means genetic information giving rise to organisms with specific traits. His reflections underscored the profundity and complexity of both designed systems, like computers, and living systems, like biological cells. He implicitly raised questions about the origins and nature of such systems, emphasizing the awe-inspiring aspect of the existence of coded information directing the operation of cells, and its transformative power.

Paul Davies, too, marveled at life's complexity, pondering how seemingly basic atoms could, on their own, generate intricate information systems. The prevailing understanding suggests no known physical law can generate complex information from mere nothingness. At the cellular level, this marvel manifests itself in the transformation of genetic blueprints into tangible, three-dimensional forms. The digital data within genes gets converted, with precision, into its analog counterpart, a true-to-form physical representation. Drawing parallels from human-made systems, Joyce and Orgel emphasized the complexity of this transformation. Consider a vehicle's blueprint: on its own, it's incapable of producing a car. The blueprint, while detailed, requires a coordinated assembly process—much like how RNA, with all its instructions, needs the orchestration of various cellular components to produce proteins. This raises a profound question: where does the cause of such orchestrated functionality originate? Just as a machine's design is conceived in an engineer's mind, might there be a guiding principle or intelligence behind the intricate workings of life? As emphasized by Jack W. Szostak, the riddle of how cellular machinery, particularly protein-centric enzymes, could have spontaneously emerged remains one of the most profound questions in our quest to understand life's origins.

General hurdles of the Origin of Life by unguided means

1 Natural Forces: In the primeval environment, directed selection mechanisms were absent. Complex systems in contemporary organisms produce the building blocks of life.
2 Chronology: Some chemical activities are so indiscriminate that, over time, achieving the desired result becomes implausibly challenging.
3 Purity Dilemma: Unlike the controlled environments of labs that use pure substances, the early Earth likely presented an impure chemical setting.
4 Energy Conundrum: Prebiotic entities would need innovative methods to acquire Gibbs free energy, essential for entropy reduction.
5 Activation Processes: Monomers require activation for polymerization to transpire, enabling the synthesis of amino acid chains and genetic material.
6 Information: Genes store complex, specific information in digital form, guiding the assembly of molecular machines.
7 Polymerization: The spontaneous polycondensation of amino acids and nucleotides in early Earth's diverse solutions presents a puzzle.
8 Eigens Paradox: This paradox challenges the conception of the origins of life, questioning the size limits of self-replicating molecules.
9 Muller's Ratchet: It posits that smaller asexual populations will inevitably accrue detrimental mutations due to genetic drift.
10 Protected Environments: UV exposure, temperature extremes, or incorrect atmospheric conditions could jeopardize chemical reactions.
11 Reaction Sequence: Cellular metabolic pathways necessitate properly sequenced enzymes. Spontaneous events must have guided this organization.
12 Order from Chaos: How did the chaotic prebiotic environment transform into organized systems exhibiting characteristics like growth and evolution?
13 Irreducible Complexity: Cells, as life's minimal units, possess components that are functional only when integrated.
14 Homeostasis: Managing metabolism is vital for life, and disruptions to this balance can result in various pathologies.

Obstacles in Probability Assessment: To gauge the likelihood of a specific event occurring, it's crucial to discern which odds are significantly low to rule out mere chance as the cause. Evaluating the odds becomes especially pertinent when discussing the probability of an outcome with minimal chances of success. Prebiotic synthesis presents multiple challenges that render the spontaneous emergence of life through undirected processes highly implausible.

1. Natural Selection: Before life as we know it flourished, the early Earth was a blank canvas, devoid of the guiding hand of natural selection. Imagine a world where meticulously orchestrated molecular symphonies of the present day did not exist. Instead of precise, deliberate formations of nucleic acids and the twenty amino acids, there existed a cacophonous chaos of molecules. Within the sophisticated cellular machinery of modern life, missteps such as right-handed amino acids are meticulously corrected. Nucleobases, phospholipids, and carbohydrates, now with such definite roles, were lost amidst a sea of countless molecular contenders. One must wonder: in a world teeming with chemical randomness, how did unguided processes sift through and pick the molecular elite that constitutes life today?

2. Time: The ticking clock of the prebiotic world wasn't necessarily an ally. While modern enzymes act as time-benders, accelerating vital reactions to breakneck speeds, their ancient counterparts lacked such luxury. Think of the OMP decarboxylase enzyme, a temporal miracle worker that hastens a pivotal reaction from a 78 million-year marathon to mere moments. In an era without such enzymatic marvels, the likelihood of stumbling upon the right chemical reaction could easily dwarf even the grandiosity of the universe's atom count.

3. Getting Pure Materials: Today's chemist, with flasks and pipettes in hand, often begins with pure ingredients. But the primitive Earth’s laboratory wasn’t so sterile. Rather than a clear elixir of select compounds, early Earth was more akin to a murky concoction brewed from a hodgepodge of elements. The challenges faced by the first molecules weren't just about the right reactions but navigating through this messy molecular mélange. True comprehension requires an acceptance of this impure, chaotic beginning.

4. Getting Free Gibbs Energy: Gibbs free energy, the touchstone of spontaneity in reactions, presents yet another enigma. Imagine rocks, through some innate urge, rolling uphill, or rusty nails spontaneously donning a protective zinc armor. The nascent molecules of early Earth faced an analogous task: drawing from their surroundings the needed energy to defy their natural tendencies, and channeling it with precision. These pioneers had to not only harness energy but devise ways to direct it purposefully, laying the foundation for the intricate life processes we observe today.

5. Activation and Repetitive Processes: The very birth of life's long chains, be they amino acid strands or genes, hinges on a dance of activation and repetition. While contemporary cells boast sophisticated machinery, like the RNA or DNA polymerase protein complexes, to orchestrate this dance, their primeval predecessors lacked such luxury. They faced the daunting task of consistently and accurately binding monomers, all without the refined tools and structures of modern biology. It's a mystery that remains unsolved: how, in the vast expanse of early Earth, did the first molecules manage this monumental feat?

6. genetic code, remains enshrouded in mystery. Picture this: a cause trying to architect a factory complex housing over a thousand unique machines, executing 1500 reactions concurrently. This cause lacks engineering intellect and is devoid of directed energy, relying solely on raw natural forces. The statistical odds for such a system to emerge by sheer chance are staggeringly low, akin to hitting a singular marked molecule among all molecules representing the universe's atoms.

Statistical Challenge: In the vast expanse of the molecular world, proteins emerge as fascinating architectures of life, sculpted with precision according to the script laid out by DNA. The depth of this design is such that the exact sequence of amino acids determines the functional three-dimensional folds of these proteins. This orchestration lies at the intersection of sheer improbability and meticulous specification, a crossroads that has sparked numerous debates regarding the likelihood of such a phenomenon arising by chance. Venturing into the world of the minuscule, we encounter the simple yet fascinating bacterium, Pelagibacter ubique. Despite its modest stature, this organism stands as a testament to nature's efficiency. With a streamlined genetic content of about 1,300 genes and just over 1.3 million base pairs, it codes for 1,354 proteins, each playing a unique role in the dance of life. This bacterium, in its simplicity, manages to cover the complete biosynthetic pathways for all 20 amino acids. Broadening our perspective to encompass the wider biological realm, it emerges that the average protein length hovers around 400 amino acids for both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Now, this brings us to a realm of astronomical probabilities. Each position in a protein chain can be filled by any of the 20 amino acids, leading to an almost unfathomable number of permutations. The odds of randomly assembling a functional protein from this vast sea of possibilities is akin to 1 in a staggering 10^520. Considering the breadth of proteins needed to construct even the most rudimentary free-living cell, this probabilistic challenge amplifies. The mathematics of chance thus pushes us into realms far beyond comprehension. If one were to accumulate the number of amino acids required for a basic cell, you'd be dealing with over half a million amino acids. These would need to be sequenced perfectly, with the added complexity of choosing only left-handed amino acids, further stretching the odds to an unimaginable 10^722,000,000. Even when imagining multiple universes, each teeming with planets shuffling sequences continuously for eons, the likelihood remains infinitesimal. To further illustrate this, let's consider Mycoplasma genitalium, another contender for the title of the simplest organism. Despite being deemed 'simple', its genome encompasses a substantial 580,000 base pairs. This organism, with its 470 genes, codes for proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds stack high against the random emergence of just a single protein of this length. As we extend our calculations to encompass the entire array of proteins this bacterium needs, the probabilities continue to defy comprehension. This narrative paints a picture of a molecular realm where randomness seems an unlikely architect, given the staggering complexities and precise requirements of life's building blocks. The mathematical tapestry woven around the emergence of life pushes our understanding and challenges us to reflect deeper on the nature of our origins.

7. Polymerization: In the profound depths of the primordial soup, where the basic building blocks of life tried to find their way into complex structures, a series of challenges stood as gatekeepers to the formation of life as we know it. The art of polymerization emerges as one of these foundational challenges. The early Earth, devoid of biological catalysts, had to conjure a way to efficiently bind amino acids and nucleotides into functional biopolymers. This dance, which led to the formation of polypeptides and polynucleotides, had to somehow take place in the fickle environment of aqueous solutions or watery interfaces, without the delicate touch of enzymatic magic.

8. Eigen's Paradox: Amidst these initial struggles, Eigen's Paradox presents a riddle of an even more perplexing nature. Life on Earth has woven its story around vast genetic encodings that stretch far beyond mere hundreds of digits. Yet, the theoretical limits set by the error threshold suggest self-replicating molecules should be capped at modest lengths, maybe even just a few hundred digits. The very existence of these longer chains relies on the vigilant oversight of enzymes that correct errors, ensuring the integrity of genetic information. But here's the enigma: these error-correcting enzymes themselves are encoded within the large genomes they protect. It's a molecular version of the classic "chicken or the egg" puzzle, challenging us to fathom whether the expansive genome or its protective enzymes came first.

9. Muller's Ratchet and the Need for Diverse Microbes: Muller's Ratchet further complicates the puzzle of early life. Small, asexual populations, as posited by this theory, face an uphill battle against the inevitable accrual of harmful mutations. As these mutations gather, they exert a downward pressure on the population, making them more prone to the very genetic drift that facilitates further deleterious mutations. This grim cycle, termed the mutational meltdown, ensnares these populations in a tightening noose, pushing them closer to the brink of extinction. Given these formidable barriers, the genesis of life paints an even more astonishing picture. The emergence of life would require not just a solitary pioneer but an ensemble of diverse microbes. This cast of microbial characters would have to harbor varied genetic toolkits, organize themselves into specialized compartments, and master the art of sharing genetic materials, all while navigating the harsh realities of their primeval world. This intricate interplay of cooperation, competition, and innovation would be fundamental for survival. Only in such a diversified setting, replete with the potential for both genetic exchange and recombination, could life hope to outpace the challenges thrown its way, setting the stage for the wondrous complexity and diversity we witness today.

10. Protected Environments: The setting where life’s chemical ballet played out couldn't be just anywhere. The relentless UV radiation, the mercurial shifts from scalding heat to bone-chilling cold, or the fluctuations between acidity and alkalinity could halt life's march before it even began. As Shapiro pointed out in 2006, replicating life's genesis isn't simply about chemical reactions. Just like an intricate dance, it requires the right stage, the right environment. Laboratory recreations might involve isolated steps under controlled conditions, but on the primordial Earth, these steps would have to seamlessly thread together in a coherent sequence against the backdrop of an ever-shifting environment.

11. The Right Sequence of Reactions: Today, our cells house a well-orchestrated assembly line of enzymes. Each enzyme is a maestro, taking the baton from its predecessor, working on an intermediate product, and then passing it to the next enzyme in line. But before enzymes, Earth would have relied on simpler catalysts, like clay or ions. How, then, in this more primitive setting, could the reactions align in the precise sequence necessary for life? It strains belief to think that sheer randomness could dictate the order, timing, and succession of these vital events.

12. Organized Systems from Prebiotic Soup: Life's origin story isn’t just about individual components but their collective dance. The real mystery lies in how a 'soup', potentially teeming with millions of diverse compounds, each in dilute concentration, somehow rallied into organized systems. Systems that could grow, reproduce, process information, and evolve. How did such diverse and minute components come together, self-organize, and march towards the first glimmers of life?

13. Irreducible Complexity: Life, in its core, is an intricate mosaic of interdependence. Individual parts, in isolation, are like unassembled pieces of a puzzle – they make sense only when part of a larger whole. A functional protein isn't just about having amino acids, it’s about having the right sequence in the right length. A living cell isn't just about having molecules; it's about having a complete system to generate energy, process information, and maintain functionality. The cell's essence underscores a profound riddle: how did each part, each molecule, come to be, when their purpose and function is realized only in the complete, irreducible complexity of the whole?

14. Homeostasis: A defining signature of life is balance – homeostasis. Amidst the chaotic external world, cells maintain a serene internal environment, ensuring metabolic processes remain in harmony. But achieving this isn't trivial. Any imbalance could spell disease or death. So, how did the first cells manage? A simplistic, stepwise emergence of such a delicate balance seems unfathomable. Life’s ability to maintain this harmony suggests a complexity that had to be intrinsic from the very start, challenging the very notion of a slow, step-by-step genesis. The emergence of life, it seems, was an all-or-nothing affair.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 11 of 19]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 7 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 15 ... 19  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum