how quickly do proteins evolve ?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Meh... I could be convinced. Convince me.

They are of the clade archosaurs. This group excludes snakes and lizards.

It's a finer point. I wouldn't throw you out of class.

Birds are birds.

*and dinosaurs

They are of the archosaur and dinosaur clades

Kind of how humans are humans, but also they are apes.

Note how scientist speak of the extinction of "nonavian" dinosaurs.

 

[Leo123]

Finally, the right question.

Gee, it only took 5 pages.

Well, why? Stop evading and lying.

 

[Leo123]

They have chaperones until they're married ...

Funny, shallow, but no. You don't know so you joke, I get it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Funny, but no. You don't know so you joke, I get it.

Considering you are here out of abject ignorance, begging for information, maybe you should dial back the attitude.

 

[ReinyDays]

Funny, shallow, but no. You don't know so you joke, I get it.

Proteins evolve as improvements ... one out of however millions or trillions of mutations is actually helpful for the organism ... by the measure of progeny ...

It's the DNA coding that changes, that evolves ... love songs written in the letters A G T and C ... that's what passed on to the progeny ... the protein made in the ribosome is just metabolized after it's no longer needed ... more of a de-evolution process reverting back to her carbon dioxide origins ...

 

[scruffy]

Well, why? Stop evading and lying.

I told you, I only get 10 minutes at a time. I run a business, I'm not in a nursing home. The best time to catch me is late at night when I'm too tired to sleep.

I wish I had time to educate y'all about math. Some of y'all don't even seem to know what "random" means. Two of the most important words in science are SCALE and SCOPE.

"WHY" do proteins evolve? I don't know, they just do. I can give you mechanisms but that might not answer your question. Proteins probably evolve for the same reason DNA does - combinatorial complexity. Although the "success" of a protein is defined a little differently.

See if this makes sense to you - a biological (molecular) "need" is an attractor. Selection works by following trajectories along attractors. When conditions change (either mutations or niches) the attractors change too. An attractor can be stable or unstable. For instance there are about 40 or so proteins that "never" change, they're practically identical in all life forms. And there are some that "deliberately" change, they're programmed to change by the DNA. These latter ones "evolve", rapidly. If I have time I'll find the Dutch study for you, that looks at protein evolution in roadside weeds. It talks a lot about post translational modification, which is an evolutionary path that doesn't necessarily depend on DNA.

How rapid evolution is selected is still a mystery. In our own brains there are some areas that are evolving rapidly and others that are highly conserved. It "seems like" the evolution is occurring for a reason, and has a goal. But we probably won't find out in my lifetime, it takes longer than that just to observe the process.

I can only address "why" mechanically, not metaphysically. Ultimately everything boils down to universal symmetries, "why" those are we can only guess. Everything we see around us is a direct result of those symmetries, including the shapes of proteins. If I have time I'll talk with you about randomness, and what exactly it means. Protein evolution is distinctly non random. There's very little randomness to it. It is carefully controlled in the cell.

 

[Leo123]

I told you, I only get 10 minutes at a time. I run a business, I'm not in a nursing home. The best time to catch me is late at night when I'm too tired to sleep.

I wish I had time to educate y'all about math. Some of y'all don't even seem to know what "random" means. Two of the most important words in science are SCALE and SCOPE.

"WHY" do proteins evolve? I don't know, they just do. I can give you mechanisms but that might not answer your question. Proteins probably evolve for the same reason DNA does - combinatorial complexity. Although the "success" of a protein is defined a little differently.

See if this makes sense to you - a biological (molecular) "need" is an attractor. Selection works by following trajectories along attractors. When conditions change (either mutations or niches) the attractors change too. An attractor can be stable or unstable. For instance there are about 40 or so proteins that "never" change, they're practically identical in all life forms. And there are some that "deliberately" change, they're programmed to change by the DNA. These latter ones "evolve", rapidly. If I have time I'll find the Dutch study for you, that looks at protein evolution in roadside weeds. It talks a lot about post translational modification, which is an evolutionary path that doesn't necessarily depend on DNA.

How rapid evolution is selected is still a mystery. In our own brains there are some areas that are evolving rapidly and others that are highly conserved. It "seems like" the evolution is occurring for a reason, and has a goal. But we probably won't find out in my lifetime, it takes longer than that just to observe the process.

I can only address "why" mechanically, not metaphysically. Ultimately everything boils down to universal symmetries, "why" those are we can only guess. Everything we see around us is a direct result of those symmetries, including the shapes of proteins. If I have time I'll talk with you about randomness, and what exactly it means. Protein evolution is distinctly non random. There's very little randomness to it. It is carefully controlled in the cell.

Yeah, I get it, I ran my own business 24/7 for 30 years until I 'retired' to do something else. Yes I understand you are explaining the mechanics of molecular biology. My interest is in why things work the way they do. Where did the code come from? I applaud your knowledge of evolution and appreciate your explanations of already programmed molecular movements, it's really fascinating. But, I can't help but see intellect in the design.

 

[Leo123]

Proteins evolve as improvements ... one out of however millions or trillions of mutations is actually helpful for the organism ... by the measure of progeny ...

It's the DNA coding that changes, that evolves ... love songs written in the letters A G T and C ... that's what passed on to the progeny ... the protein made in the ribosome is just metabolized after it's no longer needed ... more of a de-evolution process reverting back to her carbon dioxide origins ...

From what do proteins evolve? Who codes the DNA? Evolution does not explain the origin of life.

 

[scruffy]

Yeah, I get it, I ran my own business 24/7 for 30 years until I 'retired' to do something else. Yes I understand you are explaining the mechanics of molecular biology. My interest is in why things work the way they do. Where did the code come from? I applaud your knowledge of evolution and appreciate your explanations of already programmed molecular movements, it's really fascinating. But, I can't help but see intellect in the design.

Well, you're apparently not one of the evolution deniers battling the obvious. For that I applaud you.

I see the design more in the numbers, the symmetries. I don't believe God sneezed and made a man, such a thing seems ludicrous to me. If He had done it that way, it certainly wouldn't have taken 4 billion years.

It seems to me that information is a lot more fundamental than photons or gravity waves. We have yet to discover how important it is. It's another one of those words like "life", that people have a vague intuitive understanding of but can't really define. A "bit" is kind of like a magnetic monopole, it doesn't want to exist in isolation.

In 50 years of math I've come to believe there's no such thing as a closed system. And empty space isn't empty. I tend towards the belief that living energy is universal, there is no photon and no galaxy that's devoid of it. To define it though, takes smarter people than me. That's why I prefer building circuits to theorizing about God, it seems a quicker path to reality.

 

[Leo123]

Well, you're apparently not one of the evolution deniers battling the obvious. For that I applaud you.

I see the design more in the numbers, the symmetries. I don't believe God sneezed and made a man, such a thing seems ludicrous to me. If He had done it that way, it certainly wouldn't have taken 4 billion years.

It seems to me that information is a lot more fundamental than photons or gravity waves. We have yet to discover how important it is. It's another one of those words like "life", that people have a vague intuitive understanding of but can't really define. A "bit" is kind of like a magnetic monopole, it doesn't want to exist in isolation.

In 50 years of math I've come to believe there's no such thing as a closed system. And empty space isn't empty. I tend towards the belief that living energy is universal, there is no photon and no galaxy that's devoid of it. To define it though, takes smarter people than me. That's why I prefer building circuits to theorizing about God, it seems a quicker path to reality.

Correct, I do not deny evolution. To me symmetries must result from intelligent design of some kind. I wonder, for instance, where the 1st living cell came from. Just the motor of one cilia in an E Coli cell has at least hundreds of specialized molecules working together to spin the cilia and there are several cilia in the cell along with mytochondria, and thousands of other dedicated molecules with specialized functions. IMO, there is too much there to be coincidence even over long time spans. You would not attribute happenstance to the design and function of a gas powered engine, for instance. Even if you had all the parts in a box over billions of years you still would not have a fully functional car.

 

[scruffy]

Correct, I do not deny evolution. To me symmetries must result from intelligent design of some kind. I wonder, for instance, where the 1st living cell came from. Just the motor of one cilia in an E Coli cell has at least hundreds of specialized molecules working together to spin the cilia and there are several cilia in the cell along with mytochondria, and thousands of other dedicated molecules with specialized functions. IMO, there is too much there to be coincidence even over long time spans. You would not attribute happenstance to the design and function of a gas powered engine, for instance. Even if you had all the parts in a box over billions of years you still would not have a fully functional car.

The parts go into the box in about a week

Miller and Urey proved that. Mix a little water, some methane and ammonia, zap it with a little electricity, and out comes a dipeptide.

Once you have a dipeptide you can add a little copper to your mixture, and in another week you'll have octapeptides and the beginnings of icosahedral symmetry.

After that you add some phosphate, and then you have micelles.

That's all In about 4 weeks

 

[ding]

That's what they said about Einstein too.

It's more like, no amount of truth will change your erroneous preconceptions.

You're like, don't bother me with the facts, I've made up my mind.

Did you just compare yourself to Einstein?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I told you, I only get 10 minutes at a time. I run a business, I'm not in a nursing home. The best time to catch me is late at night when I'm too tired to sleep.

I wish I had time to educate y'all about math. Some of y'all don't even seem to know what "random" means. Two of the most important words in science are SCALE and SCOPE.

Some people even think that chaotic systems are random.

 

[scruffy]

Some people even think that chaotic systems are random.

Some people don't even know what random means.

 

[scruffy]

Did you just compare yourself to Einstein?

We have common ancestors.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Some people don't even know what random means.

Some people - like me - can provide credible sources for their claims, you have provided no sources, not a single source for the claim you made that "chaos is random", why is it that nobody else makes that claim...I wonder...

 

[ReinyDays]

From what do proteins evolve? Who codes the DNA? Evolution does not explain the origin of life.

Is your argument that we don't understand enough about the process of evolution ... so it must be wrong? ...

A scientific theory is a framework ... a set of assumptions we agree on ... from this framework, then, we create testable hypotheses ... and then test ... honest science will change the theory if the test fails ... so we write our scientific theories in pencil, and keep an eraser handy ... in case you missed the news, the Big Bang Theory has been all but completely re-written these past 25 years ...

The origin of life relies on a trick of the statistical arts ... it doesn't matter how tiny the odds are of an event occurring in any given year; the odds of this event occurring at least once approaches certainty as the years go by ... this "event" in evolution would be the spontaneous creation of a catalytic molecule ... which then fills all the world's oceans with whatever chemical that was catalyzed ... then we wait until the next step happens no matter how many years it takes ...

One thing we have in great abundance here is years ...

It's a theory, okay, we assume "once is enough" ... no better than assuming "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" ... I believe God wants us to use the Bible for guidance dealing with the homeless, but He's fine if the farmer uses ToE for better crop yields ... why He gifted us with His knowledge in the matter ...

Humans are semi-evolved hairless rodents whose only evolutionary advance is an unpalatable flesh and a stench to warn off the carnivores ... we're total hypocrites saying skunks smell bad ... and booze is required for reproduction because we're butt ugly ... that's what folks don't like about ToE ...

 

[scruffy]

Some people - like me - can provide credible sources for their claims, you have provided no sources, not a single source for the claim you made that "chaos is random", why is it that nobody else makes that claim...I wonder...

PREDICT THE OUTCOME or shut up and go away.

Why can't you predict the outcome of a deterministic system?

Duh....

You're not a good engineer. Good engineers can predict outcomes.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

PREDICT THE OUTCOME or shut up and go away.

Why can't you predict the outcome of a deterministic system?

Because it's chaotic.

 

[ding]

Because it's chaotic.

Lots of variables, lots of complexity, lots of interconnected relationships.