Posted on 01/14/2002 3:01:36 PM PST by Karl_Lembke
Microtubules, which play a part in moving parts of the cell from place to place, turn out to share a common ancestor with another protein which a key player in bacterial cell division in bacteria, and chloroplast division in plants. A similar protein has been found in the mitochondria of at least one alga.
The components of microtubules and the earlier proteins "are clearly related, judging from similarities in three-dimensional structure. And although the proteins share only about 15 percent amino acid sequence identity overall, they're much more similar at the local level, particularly at the domain responsible for binding and cleaving GTP."
This is only to be expected from evolution -- the sites that interact with other molecules will be more sensitive to changes, and amino acid sequences are expected to be conserved there. Changes away from these sensitive regions are less significant, as long as the overall shape of the protein remains the same.
Actin is another essential component of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton--a globular protein that binds nucleotide, in this case ATP. In the cell, it cleaves ATP into ADP and phosphate. (It is also a major component of muscle tissue, forming part of the machinery that allows muscle fibers to contract.)
Actin turns out to be related to a whole family of proteins, including one which is involved in glycolysis, the basic metabolic process in anaerobic life. Another related protein generates and maintains the rod shape of bacilli. Structural similarities hint that actin is more closely related to the bacterium Thermotoga maritima, and may share a common ancestor with the protein in that bacterium.
Interestingly enough, we have many sets of protein which are very similar in shape and function, but which differ more than a little in the details of their composition. The differences that turn up are orderly enough to look like family resemblances, and can seem to indicate a family of descendants of a common ancestor. Again, evolution would predict this sort of distribution. One member of the family was incorporated into eukaryotic cells, and its protein was passed down to all its descendants. Other members of that ancestral family were already slightly different from the ancestor of eukaryotes, and to these differences were added other mutational changes.
The protein in the nearest relative, Thermotoha maritima, has slight differences from modern actin because, although the ancestral bacillus protein and the ancestral actin were once identical twins, they have diverged through random mutations.
When scientists investigate the intricate molecular machinery in cells, they find that these machines, rather than springing up fully-formed out of nowhere, there are numerous relatives and precursors in other organisms, and sometimes in the same cell. The development of cellular machinery is not so much an account of complicated machinery appearing out of nowhere, but more of existing bits and pieces being fitted together to solve different problems.
And once again, pay particular notice to how evolution is treated in this article. It is in no way a sense of "Hey, guys! It happened!". Instead, it's a matter of, "We've been pretty darn sure it happened; this is how it happened in this case." The only people caught up in whether evolution can be "proven" seem to be the Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin crowd and the Creationists.
Osteryoung states unequivocally that these eukaryotes descended from prokaryotes. Yet there is no proof of this contained in the article, which only points to certain protein similarities. "Looks like" is not the same thing as "comes from."
Notice the tacit assumption? The very first sentence of the article does not ponder whether this occured or how it might have occured, but takes it as a given, the only task being how to demonstrate the mechanism.
The very next paragraph demonstrates the same confusion between what has been demonstrated and what has merely been theorized. The author even admits that the "evolution" of the chloroplast only "most likely" from the ana-protobacterium. Doesn't sound like much of an "answer" to me. Sounds more like theory or conjecture being represented as a settled matter.
Aren't they all so silly, those biologists?
Of course, Earth just happened to be in the right location and distance from the Sun; geologic processes just happened to be in the correct sequence; just the right amount of "star matter" and radiation was allowed to fall upon proto-Earth; just the right amount and mixtures of chemical "soup" happened to occur on Earth. ad nauseum.
Yes, it all happened just right and "POOF!" Life, as we 'know' it............evolved!
WOW!
No where else(?) can evolved sentient creatures ponder their own existence and "creation".
It's freaking amazing, eh?
Why provide a number when it shows a difference and only a vague "much more" when the similarity is purported to be important? It seems to me that the number, if significant should be at least 30%, given my interpretation of much and the general chimp/human genome simularity of ~98%. (it also matters as to the definition of local)
And although the proteins share only about 15 percent amino acid sequence identity overall, they're much more similar at the local level, particularly at the domain responsible for binding and cleaving GTP.
Why provide a number when it shows a difference and only a vague "much more" when the similarity is purported to be important? It seems to me that the number, if significant should be at least 30%, given my interpretation of much and the general chimp/human genome simularity of ~98%. (it also matters as to the definition of local)
It's very easy to count matching and non-matching amino acids. How do you quantify similarity of shape and structure?
I don't think they meant to quantify those attributes, rather I thought they meant the sequence of the proteins local to the active parts of the structure, the bonding sites for instance. At those critical points the sequence would be more sensitive to change and likely to be selected out/in.
Yes. After the first one, I got a message telling me the page was not available. It didn't appear when I refreshed the forum, so I paged back and hit "post" again.
Pile on as much irony as you like. The point is, real scientists, doing real research, don't care what you believe. Evolution works. Intelligent Design/Intelligent Origin Theory (IDIOT) doesn't.
Real scientists don't waste their time proving quantum mechanics, general relativity, the germ theory of disease, or the notion that the earth is round, either.
How do you quantify similarity of shape and structure?
I don't think they meant to quantify those attributes, rather I thought they meant the sequence of the proteins local to the active parts of the structure, the bonding sites for instance. At those critical points the sequence would be more sensitive to change and likely to be selected out/in.
I suspect you're right. But your original question was,
Why provide a number when it shows a difference and only a vague "much more" when the similarity is purported to be important?
The point is, it's very easy to quantify amino acid substitutions, and the differences and similarities involved. It's considerably less easy to quantify differences in shape and configuration.
For example, how would you handle the task of rating clouds to see whether they look more like Thomas Jefferson or Madonna? How would you assign a numerical value?
ahem cough snicker.
[CLICK HERE] for the other thread with more responses.
So, why is it that an infinitely more complicated pattern and structure in biology must have happened by chance?
Evolution, while claiming to be intellectual and logical, seems very illogical to me.
The simplest would be a 2D ratio of the area covered by the purported image to a circle circumscribed about a central point determined by the midpoint of the long axis of the image in the cloud. This ratio would be compared to a like ratio determined for the image of each (in)famous persona. The closest match determining the Madonna-esness or Jefferson-esness of the cloud image. (you actually are stating the problem as it relates to the proposed automatic airport identity software. The problem is definitely solvable)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.