Plants may have a single ancestor

Discussion in 'Science' started by OldMercsRule, Feb 19, 2012.

  1. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    " (PhysOrg.com) -- An international group of scientists has analyzed the DNA of primitive microscopic algae, and their findings suggest that all plants on Earth may have had a single ancestor.

    3D Cell Culture - Synthetic extracellular matrix/gels and 3D cell culture plates - www.b-bridge.com

    There has been a debate among scientists since the 1960s about how the first plant species arose between 1 and 1.5 billion years ago. The most widely accepted idea is that the plant kingdom had a single ancestor that formed when a plastid joined in a symbiotic union with a cyanobacterium, and the new research lends weight to this hypothesis.

    Plastids are a class of organelles that includes chloroplasts. Chloroplasts produce the green color of plants and green algae because they contain the pigment chlorophyll, which is able to convert energy from light into energy useful to the cell, in a process known as photosynthesis.

    Plastids are found in all green plants, the glaucophytes, and in red algae, and are known as primary plastids. They were originally cyanobacteria, which became incorporated into the cell. The glaucophytes are a group of microscopic blue-green algae found in freshwater, and only 13 species are known, none of which is common. They have been little studied, even though some scientists have suggested they may be the most similar to the original algae that first incorporated a cyanobacterium.

    The research team was led by bioinformaticist Dana Price of the Bhattacharya Laboratory at Rutgers University in New Jersey in the US. Price’s team analyzed the DNA of plastids from the glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa, one of the most primitive algae known, and compared it to that of plastids from other algae, both red and green, and from various land plants.

    The DNA analysis of the C. paradoxa plastid showed it retains hints of its evolution from the earliest cyanobacteria, since it includes genes required for fermentation and starch biosynthesis, but they also found that the DNA includes genes similar to those from ancient bacteria similar to the Chlamydiae bacteria.

    The genes sourced from Chlamydiae-like bacteria enable the products of photosynthesis taking place in the plastid to be exported to the rest of the cell, and they also enable the photosynthate to be polymerized into polysaccharides for storage.

    The genetic analysis suggests the incorporation of the cyanobacterium must have occurred just once and that it required cooperation between the host cell, the photosynthesizing cyanobacterium, and a Chlamydia-like bacterium. The cyanobacterium (now called a plastid) provided food from sunlight, and the other bacterium made the products of photosynthesis available to the host.

    Dr Bhattacharya, after whom the laboratory at Rutgers University is named, said that the three components together formed the new organelle, but that genes would also have been recruited from multiple sources before cell walls were developed. Around 60 million years ago an amoeba called Paulinella also incorporated a photosynthesizing cyanobacterium, and the Bhattacharya Laboratory is now analyzing this amoeba to try to better understand the process.

    The paper was published in the journal Science.


    More information: Cyanophora paradoxa Genome Elucidates Origin of Photosynthesis in Algae and Plants, Science 17 February 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6070 pp. 843-847. DOI: 10.1126/science.1213561

    ABSTRACT
    The primary endosymbiotic origin of the plastid in eukaryotes more than 1 billion years ago led to the evolution of algae and plants. We analyzed draft genome and transcriptome data from the basally diverging alga Cyanophora paradoxa and provide evidence for a single origin of the primary plastid in the eukaryote supergroup Plantae. C. paradoxa retains ancestral features of starch biosynthesis, fermentation, and plastid protein translocation common to plants and algae but lacks typical eukaryotic light-harvesting complex proteins. Traces of an ancient link to parasites such as Chlamydiae were found in the genomes of C. paradoxa and other Plantae. Apparently, Chlamydia-like bacteria donated genes that allow export of photosynthate from the plastid and its polymerization into storage polysaccharide in the cytosol."

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-ancestor.html

    Hmmmmm.........
     
  2. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If we are to believe that life somehow just happened. That it started in some primordial soup...accidentally....And that flora and fauna are both living things. Then don't flora and fauna share a common ancestor?
     
  3. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Possibly. Or possibly life started multiple times. That is part of the point of the article, is narrowing down the possibilities.
     
  4. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As far as we know everything shares 1 common ancestor.
     
  5. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Or maybe one not so common GOD who established a specific set of rules that favor the creation/developement of life: eh? :sun:


    Jesus Christ? :above: :thumbsup: (It surely wasn't Allah)

    :cool:
     
  6. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,623
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who is this "God" person?

    In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again.

    When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and on the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth. According to some versions of the Pan Gu legend, his tears flowed to make rivers and radiance of his eyes turned into thunder and lighting. When he was happy the sun shone, but when he was angry black clouds gathered in the sky. One version of the legend has it that the fleas and lice on his body became the ancestors of mankind.
     
  7. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    God is Jesus Christ, not the myth you follow, sorry.

    In the beginning of this journey in this particular universe, Jesus created a "singularity" n' then he made the "big bang" happen with a set of very specific rules....... the rest is now unfolding...

    Hope that helps ya....
     
  8. dadoalex

    dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    10,623
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So. what? He changed his name or something? Legal problem? Ex-wife? Taxes? I've got a nephew like that. Can't trust the kid.

    Funny thing, I've read the "Holy Bible" and in the "Old Testament" they don't mention anyone named "Jesus Christ" and they sure don't talk about anything called a "singularity" or a "big bang."

    Guess you must have read a different bible. Well. if you happen to be in there saving souls or whatever could you look up one little thing for me? Should be pretty easy since, apparently your bible has more details than the others I've read.

    Could you kindly look up WHY?
    Why did "God" or "Jesus" or whatever name he's going by today create this "singularity" or "N", or "Big Bang?"

    Sure would be helpful to know such a thing.
     
    krunkskimo and (deleted member) like this.
  9. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The 'multiple times' part opens many doors. If life 'accidentally' occurred multiple times' on this tiny insignificant speck that barely amounts to anything in the vast universe. I'd lay odds that it has happened 'multiple times' on billions of other specks. And then is there some universal edict that permits only these two forms of life to occur? Could there also be some forms that we don't recognize as being either flora or fauna? What could these be?
     
  10. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So. what?

    Hmmmmmmm..... ya think?

    Who says the details are in any bible? I surely didn't.

    Hard ta know the answer to that question, maybe you should pray about it...... eh?

    Hard tellin'..... not knowin'....

    I hope it doesn't get yer undies in a big twist, ponderin' such deeeeep matters n' not knowin' the answers n' such......

    Carry on now.....
     
  11. webspider

    webspider New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hello friends,
    The conjunction of these two sentences belies your level of understanding. Evolution IS descent from common ancestors. You're suggesting that HGT disproves this. It doesn't. Are you suggesting that HGT is the dominant means of gene transfer? Are you suggesting that HGT somehow negates the consequences of vertical transfer?
    thanks
    bankruptcy attorney oakland
     
  12. spt5

    spt5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plants are the true passangers of this planet. All others are pranksters, and should be turned into plants too.
     
  13. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am fairly certain that there are indeed additional groups of recognized life forms. Granted- flora and fauna are not scientific terms but call it animal and plant, but as I recall there are indeed others.

    Looking it up I see listed:
    —plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—

    And then others such as virus's that I dont' know whether science has decided what they are yet.

    And I am open to the idea that at some cosmic level there might be some force- God or otherwise that may have established some rules or even started the ball rolling.

    This is seperate from the whole issue of evolution, which I consider a done deal.
     
  14. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yup, came here to post exactly this. The fact that we share a common ancestors is one of the important tenants of evolution.

    What baffles me is why someone who is so insistent upon remaining ignorant on the subject keeps posting threads about it. At some point you think it'd get old posting something then responding to every criticism with unreadable blather.
     
  15. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Huffy folks should try a fresh set of u-trau....... Might make ya more comfy.......... don't ya think? :fart:
     
  16. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Often, wish it were mutual.

    In either case, what were talking about is common decent:

    All species evolved from single cell
     
  17. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Even if the religion of evolution werks as advertized, (Darwin's theory has been modified many, MANY, MANY times), it surely doesn't mean that Jesus Christ didn't do the whole deal, eh: Einstein.......
     
  18. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's no religion. Religion requires faith, evolution does not. There is a great deal of quantitative evidence available to you and anyone else who wants to take the time to read it. Quite unlike most religions that only have a single, unverifiable source.


    I'd guess he didn't since he only lived about 2000 years ago and the planet is ~600 billion years old, whether some other super-terrestrial being set the entire universe and all of it's process in motion... well that's impossible to test or prove so hardly warrants discussion.
     
  19. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It's a religion alrighty......

    You wouldn't recognize a religion if it bit ya in the arse.
    :eyepopping:

    Wrong; yer religion of evolution/Darwinism takes a great deal more faith then mine does....

    I've read it, the "evidence" yer talkin' 'bout constantly shifts and proves/disproves major aspects of yer religion on a frequent basis.

    Darwin, (yer messiah, [of course, along with Obamaprompter]), theorizes that single cell life was "simple"........

    Modern science has blown that theory outta the water, butt: yer boat still floats jus' fine: eh: Einstein?



    Yasureyabetcha...... yer religion has multiple "unverifiable" sources..... lmao

    Wow yer way behind the times, eh? :eye:

    The planet earth is in the neighborhood of 4.5 Billion years old...... yer off by a factor of 700% give or take a bit, eh?

    Hit the books......
    :wierdface:

    Fine with me, try ta tell some posters the truth, n' they get in a big huff....

    Did ya try a fresh set of u-trau?
    :fart:
     
  20. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And yet you've offered nothing to support this assertion. Evolutionary science has a great deal of quantitative evidence to support it.

    Religion concerns itself with matters of spirituality, science concerns itself with find out the 'why', regardless of if it isn't in step with previously held beliefs, not something that can be said of religion and it's dogmatic requirements.

    Another accusation that lacks substance, evolutionary science has itself evolved and learned a great deal from research. The fact that it's changed is a sign that it's often being challenged and that our understanding of it grows constantly.

    Science requires no faith, only understanding and a willingness to learn. Got to wonder why you're so afraid.

    I can't prove whether you did or did not, but I can say with certainty that you didn't understand it, that's all over the "language" you use. You talk about it in terms of "proof", which is missing the point. It's a theory, with a lot of evidence and folks are constantly trying to disprove it and more often than not, failing at that goal.

    All you can do is tell me I'm wrong, you won't be able to produce a single piece of evidence that disproves what I'm saying.

    Please present this evidence, and I'd like some real science not a link to some evangelical site please. Failure to provide this solidifies the fact that your position is fabricated and unsupportable.

    They're verifiable and available for you to criticize, please do so and return to me with your refutation. See there's the thing with science and the scientific method again, it's set up to be proven wrong and to be challenged. I find it amazing that people will challenge conclusions reached by thousands of scientists with every reason to prove one another wrong, but won't stop for one second to question a flaming, speaking shrubbery or a man parting a river with a stick....

    Yup, was doing some other work this morning and got some numbers jumbled. About 4.5 billion years, but you didn't bother addressing the point I made.

    Truth is subjective, evolution is not. It's as simple as that. You want to reject something that has evidence to support it for something that is 100% reliant on faith.
     
  21. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Whatcha need, other then fresh u-trau? :smile:

    Yuppers, ^^^^^^ ya already said that..... The fact of the matter is, that the so called "evidence" has contradicted much of the theology of Darwinism/evolution, n' the theory has had to have a number of major revisions every few years fer you true believers ta stay on point, (at least my religion is fairly constant).

    A distinction of semantics.

    Yer religion is surely evolvin' alrighty.....

    Darwinism requires copious amouts of faith: Einstein. :eyepopping:

    Skeeeeeered yer sayin'? Not me.

    Ya need ta stick to readin' me werds not try ta readin' me simple mind.


    You have no idea what I understand or don't understand.

    Ya can't read minds, (even the mind of a hillbilly with only one functional brain cell), and you don't know me at all. Let's keep that clear: shall we?


    Theories and or a hypothesis are always tested and if they don't stand up they blow up: real simple, (takes only one functional [engaged] brain cell ta understand the process).

    Much, not all, of what ya say is wrong.

    You deny that single cell life is now known to be extremely complex contrary to Darwin's hypothesis, yer sayin'?

    What "evidence" of the complexity of single cell life do you need?

    Would you even understand said evidence, if it bit ya in the arse?


    Since yer not my momma, why don't you produce evidence of a fosil or some such that proves that all living things came from a single ancestor. I don't think a horse ever was a fish nor do I think you true believers have ever produced a record that proves such. Lack of said evidence proves yer Darwinism/evolutionism is in fact a religion.

    The verses in the old book may or may not be literal. Jesus Christ is God as a matter of faith and doesn't need proof. That is what faith is.

    N' here you have claimed I had never proved ya wrong. If ya admit yer wrong isn't that sufficient proof?

    I have adressed each "point" you have made sentence by sentence.
    :magnify:

    The religion of evolution is surely "subjective", Jesus Christ is not "subjective" at all.

    Who said I rejected the THEORY of evolution? I don't, (at least completely).

    Ya need to stick with me typed werds n' not attempt ta read me simple mind.

    I stated that yer Darwinism/evolution, (as a true believer), is a religion and it is.
    :eye:
     
  22. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Facts, evidence. The two essentials you're entire counter argument lacks.

    First, this is a flat out lie, yes there's been changes but they haven't been "major", but sadly for you most of the changes provide further evidence for the case. Learning must be a scary thing for you.

    Nonsense, willful ignorance is the only way to maintain your view on this.

    Then I can only deduce that you don't have the slightest idea what faith is.

    Especially you, you're terrified you might learn something that challenges your fragile world view.

    On the contrary, every word you right underscores my analysis.

    Agreed, so why keep bringing up that the theory changes? That's the nature of a theory, it changes as we learn more, that's exactly the point. We know the answer to this though, you're afraid of learning and education. Your world view is fragile and not up to being challenged.

    You're moving the fence posts, you challenged that life didn't evolve from a single ancestor and have presented no evidence to the contrary, not that anyone is surprised.

    For someone who claims to understand the scientific method, you keep using this word inappropriately. This is precisely the example I was looking for to prove just how little you understand.

    It's the defacto position you're assigned when you reject one of it's primary tenants.

    I'm not worried though, once upon a time folks thought the earth was flat an the sun revolved around it.
     
  23. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I've stated lots of facts, since yer not my momma: you can search fer yer own "evidence" to counter me facts, if ya wish.

    As I stated: facts have been presented.

    I don't lie, the changes have been both major and somewhat minor.

    Why would ya say that? I already told ya I'm not skeeeeeeered at all, n' I luv ta learn.

    I've never claimed ta be the sharpest tool in the ol' shed.... That said: me views are well supported, n' yer jus' so full of yer religion n' Commie kool aid ya can't see the obvious. :eye:

    I surely do know what faith is, I'm not a godless Commie. :nana:

    I'm not skeeeeeered at all...... n' me world view is anything butt: fragile. :roll:

    Nope the Commie kool aid has ya in a fog......., n' yer undies seem ta be in a big bunch......

    I'm not skeeeeered at all; I luv challenge; n' me views are not fragile at all..... burp....

    Nope never made such a statement, yer not good at all at readin' a simple mind, so I'd give it up.

    "Fence posts" yer sayin'? Yer tryin' ta build a box, butt: the Commie kool aid makes the edges reeeeeeeeeel fuzzy..... burp.... Me use of werds is perfectly appropriate......

    As I've stated: yer not my momma; nor me professor so yer not entitled ta assign chit.

    Do you believe in the tooth fairy? :eyepopping:
     
  24. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    More dishonesty.

    Nope, nor do I believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Your kind who condemn science for challenging your dogma get proven wrong every single time, history and science are both on my side. All you've got left is the sand, to bury your head in.
     
  25. OldMercsRule

    OldMercsRule Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If the truth bit ya in the arse ya wouldn't know what it was..... :eyepopping:

    Darn n' here I though you'd be a tooth fairy kinda feller..... :roll:

    You know less then zero about me: Einstein..... n' yer mind readin' skills aren't so hot...... :fart:

    I reeeeeeely like sand...... it's fun ta build castles in n' such....... or lay on n' watch purdy girls under me sun glasses......
    mmm...mmm...mmm
    :mrgreen:
     

Share This Page