Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Darwinian Basis of the Prokaryote-to-Eukaryote Transition Collapses

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The question of the evolution of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic ones has long been a topic of heated discussion in the scientific literature. It is generally thought that eukaryotes arose by some prokaryotic cells being engulfed and assimilated by other prokaryotic cells. Called endosymbiotic theory, there is some empirical basis for this. For example, mitochondria contain a single circular genome, carry out transcription and translation within its compartment, use bacteria-like enzymes/components, and replicate independently of host cell division and in a manner akin to bacterial binary fission.

Despite such evidence, however, when assessing the causal sufficiency of unguided processes, they — predictably — come up short. After all, it is all-too-easy to lapse into a long-discredited Lamarckian “inheritance-of-acquired-characteristics” mentality. It is important to bear in mind that, even if a cooperative assemblage of prokaryotes did by some fluke of luck arise, such an arrangement is of no evolutionary significance unless there is a genetic basis to ensure its propagation.

A second problem with this scenario is that mitochondria use a slight variation on the conventional genetic code (for example, the codon UGA is a stop codon in the conventional code, but encodes for Tryptophan in mitochondria). This implicates that the genes of the ingested prokaryotes would need to have been recoded on their way to the nucleus. The situation becomes even worse when one considers that, in eukaryotic cells, a mitochondrial protein is coded with an extra length of polypeptide which acts as a “tag” to ensure that the relevant protein is recognised as being mitochondrial and dispatched accordingly. The significant number of specific co-ordinated modifications which would be required to facilitate such a transition, therefore, arguably make it exhibitive of irreducible complexity. Read More>>>

Comments
"A second problem with this scenario is that mitochondria use a slight variation on the conventional genetic code (for example, the codon UGA is a stop codon in the conventional code, but encodes for Tryptophan in mitochondria)." So, even before the discovery of the 21st and 22nd amino acids, the "universal genetic code" wasn't universal.Ilion
November 17, 2010
November
11
Nov
17
17
2010
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
"The eukaryotic cell only evolved once because the union of two prokaryotes, in which on gains entry to another, is truly a rare event, a genuinely fateful encounter." pg. 112, Life Ascending by Nick Lane I just finished reading this book so your discussion is timely for me. Thank you! One should read the above quote as "Evolution happened, so this must be true.", as some one said. Could someone address the issue of "jumping genes", which Lane makes ample use of in explaining how rapid evolution can occur?smordecai
November 17, 2010
November
11
Nov
17
17
2010
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
further note on the difference between prokaryote and eukaryote energy production: An enormous gap exists between prokaryote (bacteria and cyanobacteria) cells and eukaryote (protists, plants and animals) type of cells: Excerpt: A crucial difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the means they use to produce ATP. All life produces ATP by three basic chemical methods only: oxidative phosphorylation, photophosphorylation, and substrate-level phosphorylation (Lim, 1998, p. 149). In prokaryotes ATP is produced both in the cell wall and in the cytosol by glycolysis. In eukaryotes most ATP is produced in chloroplasts (for plants), or in mitochondria (for both plants and animals). No means of producing ATP exists that is intermediate between these four basic methods and no transitional forms have ever been found that bridge the gap between these four different forms of ATP production. The machinery required to manufacture ATP is so intricate that viruses are not able to make their own ATP. They require cells to manufacture it and viruses have no source of energy apart from cells. ...prokaryotes and eukaryotes are profoundly different from each other and clearly represent a marked dichotomy in the evolution of life. . . The organizational complexity of the eukaryotes is so much greater than that of the prokaryotes that it is difficult to visualize how a eukaryote could have arisen from any known prokaryote (Hickman et al., 1997, p. 39). Some of the differences are that prokaryotes lack organelles, a cytoskeleton, and most of the other structures present in eukaryotic cells. Consequently, the functions of most organelles and other ultrastructure cell parts must be performed in bacteria by the cell membrane and its infoldings called mesosomes. http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp An enormous gap exists between prokaryote (bacteria and cyanobacteria) cells and eukaryote (protists, plants and animals) type of cells: Excerpt: A crucial difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is the means they use to produce ATP. All life produces ATP by three basic chemical methods only: oxidative phosphorylation, photophosphorylation, and substrate-level phosphorylation (Lim, 1998, p. 149). In prokaryotes ATP is produced both in the cell wall and in the cytosol by glycolysis. In eukaryotes most ATP is produced in chloroplasts (for plants), or in mitochondria (for both plants and animals). No means of producing ATP exists that is intermediate between these four basic methods and no transitional forms have ever been found that bridge the gap between these four different forms of ATP production. The machinery required to manufacture ATP is so intricate that viruses are not able to make their own ATP. They require cells to manufacture it and viruses have no source of energy apart from cells. ...prokaryotes and eukaryotes are profoundly different from each other and clearly represent a marked dichotomy in the evolution of life. . . The organizational complexity of the eukaryotes is so much greater than that of the prokaryotes that it is difficult to visualize how a eukaryote could have arisen from any known prokaryote (Hickman et al., 1997, p. 39). Some of the differences are that prokaryotes lack organelles, a cytoskeleton, and most of the other structures present in eukaryotic cells. Consequently, the functions of most organelles and other ultrastructure cell parts must be performed in bacteria by the cell membrane and its infoldings called mesosomes. http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706 The ATP Synthase Enzyme - exquisite motor necessary for first life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4bornagain77
November 17, 2010
November
11
Nov
17
17
2010
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
So far endosybiosis only explains mitiochandria and plasmids. And it cannot be teted- meaing w cn't go ito a lab and see one bacteria engulf another nd have the engulfed transfom into an energy producer. There isn't anyting for he nucleus of eukaryotes- noting beyond guesswork. Some imagine the cells membrne folding and encapsulating some genetic material. So perhaps it in't so much that the allged transtion collapses- I say it is a non-starter.Joseph
November 17, 2010
November
11
Nov
17
17
2010
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
JonathanM, you're going to like this new animated video from Biovisions: Powering the Cell: Mitochondria http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2uROUjK4bornagain77
November 17, 2010
November
11
Nov
17
17
2010
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
To accent the 'information problem' between eukaryotic cells and prokaryotic ones a little more, DNA is thought to have evolved TWICE! ,,,Moreover, the protein machinery that replicates DNA is found to be vastly different in even the most ancient of different single celled organisms: Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? - Koonin Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/17/3389 There simply is no smooth 'gradual transition' to be found between these most ancient of life forms, bacteria and archaea, as this following articles and video clearly point out: Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,... Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?page=1 Problems of the RNA World - Did DNA Evolve Twice? - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 Bacteria Too Complex To Be Primitive Eukaryote Ancestors - July 2010 Excerpt: “Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes,” wrote Alan Wolfe for his colleagues at Loyola. “Obviously, this misperception must be modified.... There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to.”,,, For one thing, Forterre and Gribaldo revealed serious shortcomings with the popular “endosymbiosis” model – the idea that a prokaryote engulfed an archaea and gave rise to a symbiotic relationship that produced a eukaryote. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100712b and yet the origination of the DNA code just one time is admitted to be possible only in a former age of miracles, which we'll never see again in the modern world. ,,, Ode to the Code - Brian Hayes The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code. It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we'll never see again in the modern world. https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/ode-to-the-code/4 further note: Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Lifebornagain77
November 16, 2010
November
11
Nov
16
16
2010
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Jonathan M: Thank you for the very interesting post on a problem (the emergence of eukaryotes) which is often underestimated, as though the "bacterial origin of mytochondria hypothesis" had explained everything. This part is particularly significant, for me, given the emphasis I have always put on the problem of the emergence of protein superfamilies: The paper describes the invention of new protein folds in eukaryotes as being "the most intense phase of gene invention since the origin of life." The problems associated with the chance-based origin of novel genes is only accentuated by the bioenergetic dilemma described here. Granting a satisfaction of the energy demands required for those new genes and protein folds, does neo-Darwinism gain any traction? It seems very clear that it does not. I would like to remind that, according to the recent paper, often quoted by me, "The Evolutionary History of Protein Domains Viewed by Species Phylogeny": a) out of 3464 protein domains (at the family level) in the SCOP classification (now 3902 in the last revision), 1984 (more than half) were probably already present at the root of evolution (in LUCA). This is the huge mystery of "OOL to LUCA" (a process which, let's remember, should have taken place in at most a few hundred million years) b) after that, the biggest "leap" in quick emergence of new domains is indeed the transition to eukaryotes: 492 new domains (more than 14% of the total). So, "the most intense phase of gene invention since the origin of life" is the absolute, quantitative truth. These are facts, and it is encouraging that at least some "mainstream" biologists are trying to define the problems for what they are.gpuccio
November 16, 2010
November
11
Nov
16
16
2010
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply