Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Show How Cellular Complexity Can Evolve

ananyo writes with an excerpt from a Nature news release: "By bringing long-dead proteins back to life, researchers have worked out the process by which evolution added a component to a cellular machine. ... In a paper published in Nature, researchers recreated an 'ancestral' version of a cellular machine called the V-ATPase proton pump, which channels protons across membranes and is vital for keeping cell compartments at the right acidity. Part of this machine is a ring of six proteins that threads through the membrane. Animals and most other eukaryotes have a ring composed of two types of protein component; fungi are alone in having a ring with three. The researchers used computational methods to work backwards and find the most likely sequences of these proteins hundreds of millions of years ago. The team inserted the DNA into yeast and found that just two mutations can turn the simple 2-protein ring into the more complex 3-protein ring."

7 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Re:inb4 by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just an example why you can't really 'argue' with a creationist. Anything you come up with, they can make a magic-fairy-dust argument that it's because God wanted it that way.

    It isn't science.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Re:inb4 by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm fine with people saying evolution is the method, with a deity being the driving force. The issue is when they say that god created everything from nothing in six days around 6,000 years ago and any evidence to the contrary was put here by the devil to lure us away from the truth.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  3. Re:Actually it not evolution but degeneration... by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Informative

    It may have had an advantage at one time (such as viral resistance).

    However it could also be a no-benefit/no-cost change, which can also happen, it isn't degeneration (a weakening of the creature), and even degeneration would be a subset of evolution, since it would involve changes over time which are influenced by natural selection, genetic drift, etc.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  4. Re:inb4 by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm fine with people saying evolution is the method, with a deity being the driving force. The issue is when they say that god created everything from nothing in six days around 6,000 years ago and any evidence to the contrary was put here by the devil to lure us away from the truth.

    So, you're saying, really that the Devil is in the details?

    (sorry)

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Wait for it... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pat Robertson: "Science perverting resurrection is an abomination, and God's wrath will strike us most likely in the form of a random earthquake or hurricane or tornado sometime within the 12 months."

    I'd add the /sarcasm tag just to show I'm just making fun of him, but I actually think my prediction of what will show up on YouTube from him next is pretty accurate.

    --
    I8-D
  6. Error in summary by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The V-ATPase generally has more than 6 proteins that cross the membrane. Depending on the species, it is usually more around 10-12 individual subunits that work together to form a ring for useful transport.

    From a biochemical perspective, it is also worthwhile to point out that the enzyme is powered by ATP hydrolysis - hence the name V-ATPase. It is a motor, and ATP is the fuel. Without ATP you get no useful work.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  7. Re:inb4 by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nonsense. Most models are wrong. They're still enormously useful compared to something that's more wrong. Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but it was -- and still is -- very useful for the overwhelming majority of situations.

    It is very wrong to say the earth is flat. There are many, many ways of demonstrating its wrongness and assuming the earth is flat will lead you to wildly incorrect conclusions for many problems.
    It is less wrong to say the earth is a sphere. However, it's harder to demonstrate that it's wrong, and you can do many useful calculations assuming a sphere for simplicity.
    It's also wrong, but not very much, to say the earth is a slightly squashed sphere. It requires very careful measurement to demonstrate this, and it's such an accurate approximation to make that it's rare to see someone actually model the earth's correct shape.