Design inference Evolution News Plants

Algae already possessed genes for land, while in water

Spread the love
green algae/Michael Melkonian

From ScienceDaily:


Ancient alga knew how to survive on land before it left water and evolved into the first plant

Up until now it had been assumed that the alga evolved the capability to source essential nutrients for its survival after it arrived on land by forming a close association with a beneficial fungi called arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM), which still exists today and which helps plant roots obtain nutrients and water from soil in exchange for carbon. The previous discovery of 450 million year old fossilised spores similar to the spores of the AM fungi suggests this fungi would have been present in the environment encountered by the first land plants. Remnants of prehistoric fungi have also been found inside the cells of the oldest plant macro-fossils, reinforcing this idea. However, scientists were not clear how the algal ancestor of land plants could have survived long enough to mediate a quid pro quo arrangement with a fungi. This new finding points to the alga developing this crucial capability while still living in the earth’s oceans!

Dr Delaux and colleagues analysed DNA and RNA of some of the earliest known land plants and green algae and found evidence that their shared algal ancestor living in the Earth’s waters already possessed the set of genes, or symbiotic pathways, it needed to detect and interact with the beneficial AM fungi.

The team of scientists believes this capability was pivotal in enabling the alga to survive out of the water and to colonise the earth. By working with the fungi to find sustenance, the alga was able to buy time to adapt and evolve in a very different and seemingly infertile environment.

Dr Delaux said: “At some point 450 million years ago, alga from the earth’s waters splashed up on to barren land. Somehow it survived and took root, a watershed moment that kick-started the evolution of life on earth. Our discovery shows for the first time that the alga already knew how to survive on land while it was still in the water. Without the development of this pre-adapted capability in alga, the earth could be a very different place today. More.

I wonder if these people realize that their hypothesis, if supported, is an argument for front-loaded evolution, a form of design?

At least, it certainly sounds/reads that way.

Here’s the abstract:

Colonization of land by plants was a major transition on Earth, but the developmental and genetic innovations required for this transition remain unknown. Physiological studies and the fossil record strongly suggest that the ability of the first land plants to form symbiotic associations with beneficial fungi was one of these critical innovations. In angiosperms, genes required for the perception and transduction of diffusible fungal signals for root colonization and for nutrient exchange have been characterized. However, the origin of these genes and their potential correlation with land colonization remain elusive. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of 259 transcriptomes and 10 green algal and basal land plant genomes, coupled with the characterization of the evolutionary path leading to the appearance of a key regulator, a calcium- and calmodulin-dependent protein kinase, showed that the symbiotic signaling pathway predated the first land plants. In contrast, downstream genes required for root colonization and their specific expression pattern probably appeared subsequent to the colonization of land. We conclude that the most recent common ancestor of extant land plants and green algae was preadapted for symbiotic associations. Subsequent improvement of this precursor stage in early land plants through rounds of gene duplication led to the acquisition of additional pathways and the ability to form a fully functional arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. (PDF available.) – Pierre-Marc Delaux, Guru V. Radhakrishnan, Dhileepkumar Jayaraman, Jitender Cheema, Mathilde Malbreil, Jeremy D. Volkening, Hiroyuki Sekimoto, Tomoaki Nishiyama, Michael Melkonian, Lisa Pokorny, Carl J. Rothfels, Heike Winter Sederoff, Dennis W. Stevenson, Barbara Surek, Yong Zhang, Michael R. Sussman, Christophe Dunand, Richard J. Morris, Christophe Roux, Gane Ka-Shu Wong, Giles E. D. Oldroyd, Jean-Michel Ané. Algal ancestor of land plants was preadapted for symbiosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015; 201515426 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1515426112

16 Replies to “Algae already possessed genes for land, while in water

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this claim:

    “Subsequent improvement of this precursor stage in early land plants through rounds of gene duplication led to the acquisition of additional pathways and the ability to form a fully functional arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis.”

    Maybe in Darwinian imagination it can happen that way, but not in the real world:

    Michael Behe finds Loss of Function Mutations Challenge the Darwinian Model – Casey Luskin – August 24, 2013
    Excerpt: “Because of the many ways in which a gene can be altered to lose function, the LOF mutation would have a rate several orders of magnitude greater than that of the GOF mutation for the duplicated gene.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75591.html

    The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway – Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe – April 2011
    Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2011.1

    Michael Behe Hasn’t Been Refuted on the Flagellum!
    Excerpt: Douglas Axe of the Biologic Institute showed in one recent paper in the journal Bio-complexity that the model of gene duplication and recruitment only works if very few changes are required to acquire novel selectable utility or neo-functionalization. If a duplicated gene is neutral (in terms of its cost to the organism), then the maximum number of mutations that a novel innovation in a bacterial population can require is up to six. If the duplicated gene has a slightly negative fitness cost, the maximum number drops to two or fewer (not inclusive of the duplication itself).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....44801.html

    Evolution by Gene Duplication Falsified – December 2010
    Excerpt: The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around, but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original.
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110103a

    Of related note:

    Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Design
    Excerpt: The mutual relationship between vascular plants (flowering plants) and arbuscular mycorrihizal fungi (AMF) is the most prevalent known plant symbiosis. Vascular plants provide sites all along their root systems where colonies of AMF can assemble and feed on the nutrients supplied by the plants. In return, the AMF supply phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon in molecular forms that the vascular plants can readily assimilate. The (overwhelming) challenge for evolutionary models is how to explain by (unguided) natural means the simultaneous appearance of both vascular plants and AMF.
    http://www.reasons.org/Arbuscu.....ngiDesign2

    Roots and Microbes: Bringing a Complex Underground Ecology Into the Lab – August 2012
    Excerpt: As many as 120 different types of bacteria might reside inside the root of a single plant, Dangl says, and the composition of that community is distinct from the microbial population in the local soil. “We want to know the molecular rules that guide the assembly of a community of microbes on the roots that helps a plant grow. Ecologists see this as a 120-variable problem.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132440.htm

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    Adaptation for the win! Top down design is exactly what we observe.

  3. 3
    Alicia Cartelli says:

    The algae encountered fungi and formed a symbiotic relationship before either colonized land. After fungi colonized land, the algae could use the “land-fungi” as a crutch to move themselves onto land.

    Or

    “Algae already possessed genes for land, while in water.”

    Yeah the second one has more of a ring to it, but it’s also a good combination of equivocation and bias.
    Which is exactly what I’d expect from UD.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    as to “a good combination of equivocation and bias.
    Which is exactly what I’d expect from UD.”

    Like the overt bias witnessed when Darwinists assume that common ancestry is true prior to their analysis of sequences and then assume that their biased analysis of sequences is proof of common ancestry? Even though they have not one shred of empirical evidence that unguided material processes can generate nor fundamentally transform proteins?
    Yes I guess that would make Darwinists experts on equivocation and bias! 🙂

  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    “The algae encountered fungi and formed a symbiotic relationship before either colonized land.”

    So, fungi also had the “land gene” while living in water, Alicia. Fascinating.

    “Which is exactly what I’d expect from UD.”
    Actually, that is from the link not UD. And the paper had an exclamation point to boot. Design!

  6. 6
    Alicia Cartelli says:

    It’s not a bias, BA.
    Not when there is mountains of evidence supporting common ancestry.
    It’s a fact.

    There is nothing to suggest the fungi “had the land gene while living in water.”
    Current thinking is that the “land genes” developed from genes that allowed “shallow-water fungi” to tolerate dessication.
    And what I said I have come to expect from UD, is “the equivication/bias combination in everything posted.”

  7. 7
    Virgil Cain says:

    Alicia Cartelli:

    Not when there is mountains of evidence supporting common ancestry.

    Nonsense. The concept isn’t testable. There isn’t a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and you have to start with populations of prokaryotes.

    Endosymbiosis only gets you to prokaryotes with mitochondria/ chloroplasts. At a minimum eukaryotes require a nucleus.

    Your “common ancestry” is a non-starter, sweetie.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    “Not when there is mountains of evidence supporting common ancestry.”

    A single protein cannot even be transformed into another similar protein of a different function by unguided material processes.

    Your supposed ‘mountain of evidence’ for common ancestry isn’t even a molehill of evidence.

    “Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
    Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
    Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn’t test the right mutation(s), and that we didn’t use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF’s entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine.
    Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It’s because modern enzymes can’t be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don’t evolve!
    That is precisely the point we are making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91701.html

  9. 9
    Alicia Cartelli says:

    I didn’t realize you were a leading biologist who got to decide what is and is not a eukaryote, Virgy. The defining characteristic of eukaryotes are membrane-bound organelles. Of course, when eukaryotes first evolved there was no black-and-white difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

    BA, we can look at thousands of examples, in living species or in the fossil record, all of which support common ancestry.
    Either organisms share common ancestry, or your god designed organisms to look like they evolved from common ancestors. But why would he do such a thing?

    I’m impressed at your ability to ignore all the evidence behind evolution, evidence that is constantly staring you in the face. I guess when you have no idea what you are talking about though, it’s much easier.

    Don’t expect me to respond to either of you again, unless something intelligent comes across the screen.
    I won’t hold my breath.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    “unless something intelligent comes across the screen.”

    What? An atheist actually admits that intelligence is detectable? Heresy I tell you! Call an atheist inquisition. 🙂

    AC, contrary to what you imagine to be true, you have ZERO real time empirical evidence that common descent is true.

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Besides you not having any real time empirical evidence, both the fossil record and genetic evidence are very antagonistic to your Darwinian claims and are very friendly to Theistic claims.

    “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.”
    -Dr. Mark McMenamin – 2013
    Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    Logged Out – Scientists Can’t Find Darwin’s “Tree of Life” Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin – Winter 2013
    Excerpt: the (fossil) record shows that major groups of animals appeared abruptly, without direct evolutionary precursors.
    Because biogeography and fossils have failed to bolster common descent, many evolutionary scientists have turned to molecules—the nucleotide and amino acid sequences of genes and proteins—to establish a phylogenetic tree of life showing the evolutionary relationships between all living organisms.,,,
    Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance:
    • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that “different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s].”6
    • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”7
    • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that “the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be.”8
    Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled “Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life.”9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that “the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” but “today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” According to the article, “many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.”,,,
    Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?” ,,,
    “battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life,” leaving readers with a stark assessment: “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”10,,,
    A 2012 paper noted that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception,” since “incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”12,,,
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....ed-out.php

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    There isn’t a mechanism capable of getting beyond populations of prokaryotes and you have to start with populations of prokaryotes.

    Not if eukaryotes came first. Or if the two arrived independently. But if Alicia want’s to believe in magic, who are you to say no?

  12. 12
    Alicia Cartelli says:

    Mungy, sorry but I think you have it backwards.
    I’m certainly not person here who believes in “magic.”

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    “I’m certainly not person here who believes in “magic.””

    Actually, as an atheist who believes that undirected random chaos brought the entire universe, and everything in it, into existence, you believe in far more ‘magic’, i.e. miracles, than any Christian Theist ever has. You just don’t believe in the miracle maker:

    The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_sNyGNSko

    Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video:
    The End Of Materialism?
    * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
    * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
    * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe – Reasonable Faith
    https://youtu.be/Q3jvfvho3CE?t=251

    Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher
    Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28)
    http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”
    In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    Although the term “chance” can be defined as a mathematical probability, such as the chance involved in flipping a coin, when Darwinists use the term ‘random chance’, generally it’s substituting for a more precise word such as “cause”, especially when the cause, i.e. ‘mechanism’, is not known. Several people have noted this ‘shell game’ that is played with the word ‘chance’.

    “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent,” notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.”

    Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”

    The Universal Determinism Dichotomy (UDD) – David L. Abel – 2015
    Excerpt: We sometimes appeal to yet-to-be-discovered laws when trying to explain what appears to be chance phenomena. Most theorists, however, attempt to reduce Chance Contingency to unknown and/or very complex physical causation, as summarized by Peale.12 Thus Chance Contingency as a true cause may be only “apparent.”
    Sproul argues effectively that chance is not a cause of anything. Chance is nothing more than a statistical description of unknown or complex physical causation. Chance, therefore, cannot have any physical effects, since it is not a physical cause. 13,,,
    13. Sproul RC. – Not a Chance: the Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; 1994
    https://www.academia.edu/12267097/The_Universal_Determinism_Dichotomy_UDD_

    Thus to say ‘it happened by chance’, as it is usually used by Darwinists, is in reality a ‘placeholder for ignorance’ instead of being an appeal to a known cause.
    Thus, when an atheist states that something happened by chance, we have every right to ask, as Talbott pointed out, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”

    Quote, Music, Verse:

    “we live on a blue planet that circles a ball of fire next to a moon that moves the sea, and you don’t believe in miracles?”
    http://www.listofimages.com/wp.....-other.jpg

    Pilot – Magic (1975 – HD)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzlK0OGpIRs

    Mark 11:23
    “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them.

  14. 14
    Virgil Cain says:

    Alicia Cartelli:

    I didn’t realize you were a leading biologist who got to decide what is and is not a eukaryote, Virgy. The defining characteristic of eukaryotes are membrane-bound organelles.

    THE defining characteristic is a membrane-bound nucleus. If you only have the organelles and no nucleus you don’t have a eukaryote. However if you have a nucleus and no organelles you still have a eukaryote.

    Of course, when eukaryotes first evolved there was no black-and-white difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

    Of course you don’t have any evidence that eukaryotes evolved. So there isn’t any difference between your version and a cartoon.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    It takes extraordinary faith to be an atheist. Even though atheist have ZERO evidence that undirected material processes can produce even a single protein, none-the-less, the atheist still believes, apparently with all his/her heart and soul, that undirected material processes can construct the human brain, made up of trillions upon trillions of precisely placed protein molecules, the result of which is, far, far more complex than the entire internet combined.
    The level of blind faith that atheists have in undirected material processes to do such a unbelievable thing simply puts the faith that many Christians have in God to shame.

    Yockey and a Calculator Versus Evolutionists – Cornelius Hunter PhD – September 25, 2015
    Excerpt: In a 1977 paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Hubert Yockey used information theory to evaluate the likelihood of the evolution of a relatively simple protein.,,,
    Yockey found that the probability of evolution finding the cytochrome c protein sequence is about one in 10^64. That is a one followed by 64 zeros—an astronomically large number. He concluded in the peer-reviewed paper that the belief that proteins appeared spontaneously “is based on faith.”
    Indeed, Yockey’s early findings are in line with, though a bit more conservative than, later findings. A 1990 study of a small, simple protein found that 10^63 attempts would be required for evolution to find the protein.
    A 2004 study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and a 2006 study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required.
    These requirements dwarf the resources evolution has at its disposal. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70.
    Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assumes the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ersus.html

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    The Half-Truths of Materialist Evolution – DONALD DeMARCO – 02/06/2015
    Excerpt: but I would like to direct attention to the unsupportable notion that the human brain, to focus on a single phenomenon, could possibly have evolved by sheer chance. One of the great stumbling blocks for Darwin and other chance evolutionists is explaining how a multitude of factors simultaneously coalesce to form a unified, functioning system. The human brain could not have evolved as a result of the addition of one factor at a time. Its unity and phantasmagorical complexity defies any explanation that relies on pure chance. It would be an underestimation of the first magnitude to say that today’s neurophysiologists know more about the structure and workings of the brain than did Darwin and his associates.
    Scientists in the field of brain research now inform us that a single human brain contains more molecular-scale switches than all the computers, routers and Internet connections on the entire planet! According to Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, the brain’s complexity is staggering, beyond anything his team of researchers had ever imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief. In the cerebral cortex alone, each neuron has between 1,000 to 10,000 synapses that result, roughly, in a total of 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies!
    A single synapse may contain 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A synapse, simply stated, is the place where a nerve impulse passes from one nerve cell to another.
    Phantasmagorical as this level of unified complexity is, it places us merely at the doorway of the brain’s even deeper mind-boggling organization. Glial cells in the brain assist in neuron speed. These cells outnumber neurons 10 times over, with 860 billion cells. All of this activity is monitored by microglia cells that not only clean up damaged cells but also prune dendrites, forming part of the learning process. The cortex alone contains 100,000 miles of myelin-covered, insulated nerve fibers.
    The process of mapping the brain would indeed be time-consuming. It would entail identifying every synaptic neuron. If it took a mere second to identify each neuron, it would require four billion years to complete the project.
    http://www.ncregister.com/dail.....evolution/

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    Component placement optimization in the brain – 1994
    As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy … the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length.
    http://www.jneurosci.org/conte.....8.abstract

    The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain – Dec. 17, 2010
    Excerpt: In recent years, a growing body of evidence shows that photons play an important role in the basic functioning of cells. Most of this evidence comes from turning the lights off and counting the number of photons that cells produce. It turns out, much to many people’s surprise, that many cells, perhaps even most, emit light as they work.
    In fact, it looks very much as if many cells use light to communicate. There’s certainly evidence that bacteria, plants and even kidney cells communicate in this way. Various groups have even shown that rats brains are literally alight thanks to the photons produced by neurons as they work.,,,
    ,,, earlier this year, one group showed that spinal neurons in rats can actually conduct light.
    ,, Rahnama and co point out that neurons contain many light sensitive molecules, such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores and aromatic amino acids. In particular, mitochondria, the machines inside cells which produce energy, contain several prominent chromophores.
    The presence of light sensitive molecules makes it hard to imagine how they might not be not influenced by biophotons.,,,
    They go on to suggest that the light channelled by microtubules can help to co-ordinate activities in different parts of the brain. It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,,
    (So) It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....the-brain/

    Of related note to “It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained”, the following paper and video comments on ‘zero time lag’ in synchronous brain activity:

    ,,, zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays – 2008
    Excerpt: Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas. However, the axonal conduction delays among such distant regions can amount to several tens of milliseconds. It is still unclear which mechanism is giving rise to isochronous discharge of widely distributed neurons, despite such latencies,,,
    Remarkably, synchrony of neuronal activity is not limited to short-range interactions within a cortical patch. Interareal synchronization across cortical regions including interhemispheric areas has been observed in several tasks (7, 9, 11–14).,,,
    Beyond its functional relevance, the zero time lag synchrony among such distant neuronal ensembles must be established by mechanisms that are able to compensate for the delays involved in the neuronal communication. Latencies in conducting nerve impulses down axonal processes can amount to delays of several tens of milliseconds between the generation of a spike in a presynaptic cell and the elicitation of a postsynaptic potential (16). The question is how, despite such temporal delays, the reciprocal interactions between two brain regions can lead to the associated neural populations to fire in unison (i.e. zero time lag).,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2575223/

    Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video (1:58 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=117

  16. 16
    Mung says:

    The term “prokaryote” is a designation based on exclusion. That is, an organism qualifies as a prokaryote based on something it does not posses, namely a nucleus.

    – T. Ryan Gregory

    Back to biology school for you Alicia Cartelli.

Leave a Reply