PDA

View Full Version : Mitochondrial genes suggest panpsychism (pandualism)


wogoga
11th September 2007, 07:50 AM
"In cell biology, a mitochondrion (plural mitochondria) is a membrane-enclosed organelle that is found in most eukaryotic cells."

"Endosymbiotic theory suggests that eukaryotic cells first appeared when a prokaryotic cell (a bacterium) was absorbed into another cell without being digested. These two cells are thought to have then entered into a symbiotic relationship forming the first organelle. This organelle would eventually become today's mitochondrion, and the genome of that first absorbed bacterium would have given rise to today's mitochondrial DNA as evolution progressed."

"In the cells of current organisms, the vast majority of the proteins present in the mitochondria (numbering approximately 1500 different types in mammals) are coded for by nuclear DNA, but the genes for some of them, if not most, are thought to have originally been of bacterial origin, having since been transferred to the eukaryotic nucleus during evolution."

"Currently, human mtDNA is present at 100-10,000 separate copies per cell, with each circular molecule consisting of 16,569 base pairs with 37 genes, 13 proteins (polypeptides), 22 transfer RNA (tRNAs) and two ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs)." (All quotes from Wiki)

So the very convincing 'endosymbiotic theory' implies that the vast majority of the mitochondrial genes migrated from the mitochondria to the cell nuclei. This is easily understandable within panpsychism, because genes can be animated by psychons (e.g. during recombination the gene psychons are obviously active). Therefore genes can behave in a way similar to animals. If gene psychons feel confortable in company of other genes, it becomes understandable that a mitochondrial gene, after having accidently left a mitochondrion and entered a cell nucleus, gets integrated in the nuclear DNA. This fact may still be explainable in a superficial way within reductionist materialism.

But what about the proteins being coded by these genes? How could they find back to their workplaces in a mitochondrion? These proteins even have to pass both the outer and the inner membrane of the mitochondrion before reaching their destinations. And it doesn't help if from time to time some mitochondrial proteins accidentally reach their working places, as it was the case for the gene, having accidentally migrated from mitochondrial DNA to nuclear DNA. A substantial part of the proteins must be able to find their now far-away working places, otherwise there are not enough proteins working in the mitochondrion.

So we must ask: How probable is it that hundreds of mitochondrial genes received during or after their transfer into the nucleus by random mutations (blind chance) exactly such specific sequences which direct their corresponding enzymes back to the mitochondria?

BTW, how could such genetic information, telling the proteins to enter a mitochondrion look like? Consistent logical reasoning is enough to conclude that such an information cannot exist in form of DNA. So the information must come from elsewhere.

Cheers, Wolfgang
members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja6.html


One of the simplest refutations of neo-Darwinism:

The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones with each several traits.

So let us make the completely unrealistic simplification that one 'progressive' single-step mutation in the genetic factor of each (i.e. bone, muscle and tendon) structure is enough to entail a relevant increase in fitness.

Let us further assume that the probability of such progressive mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5. So we conclude that among 10^15 newborns (i.e. a billion newborns of a million generations), only one indivudual will carry all three necessary mutations.

Because a change in only one or two of the three involved structures cannot lead to a relevant increase in fitness (rather the contrary), it becomes obvious that the upright gait cannot have evolved in a neo-Darwinian way.

dannagain
11th September 2007, 08:03 AM
psyhons? what's wrong with just the neurons on their own? what do psychons add to our understanding? occams razor?

also please provide evidence that psychons exist since you assume their existence in your argument.

please also explain how 'psychons' are capable of having emotions :confused:


"So the information must come from elsewhere."


yes it's probably Quetzalcoatl or Shiva. They're the most likely candidates

JoeEllison
11th September 2007, 08:06 AM
I think it is all made-up.

Complexity
11th September 2007, 08:13 AM
Nonsense.

Dancing David
11th September 2007, 08:57 AM
Uh, morphology of bones could be modified by an enzyme change very easily if it regulated the groth cycles, variation with the genoem could also provide the room for transition.

What if the possibility of change is as high as 5%.

Yiab
11th September 2007, 09:37 AM
But what about the proteins being coded by these genes? How could they find back to their workplaces in a mitochondrion? These proteins even have to pass both the outer and the inner membrane of the mitochondrion before reaching their destinations. And it doesn't help if from time to time some mitochondrial proteins accidentally reach their working places, as it was the case for the gene, having accidentally migrated from mitochondrial DNA to nuclear DNA. A substantial part of the proteins must be able to find their now far-away working places, otherwise there are not enough proteins working in the mitochondrion.

So we must ask: How probable is it that hundreds of mitochondrial genes received during or after their transfer into the nucleus by random mutations (blind chance) exactly such specific sequences which direct their corresponding enzymes back to the mitochondria?

BTW, how could such genetic information, telling the proteins to enter a mitochondrion look like? Consistent logical reasoning is enough to conclude that such an information cannot exist in form of DNA. So the information must come from elsewhere.

Perhaps I'm just being naive, but doesn't the mitochondrion have its own protein synthesis apparatus? In this case, the mitochondrial DNA and RNA don't need to leave the mitochondrion and so the proteins built from them don't have to re-enter. The membrane(s) of the mitochondrion being selectively permeable is more than sufficient to account for the significantly higher presence of proteins created from mitochondrial DNA within the mitochondrion than in the generic cell interior.

Even if this is not the case it would be simple enough to push the proteins created from mitochondrial RNA back into the mitochondrion; if there is a protein in the larger cell which cannot penetrate the mitochondrial wall and repels mitochondrial proteins, statistical mechanics tells us that most of the mitochondrial proteins will end up inside the mitochondrion.
In other words, such information most definitely can exist in the form of DNA. Whether or not it does is something I am not knowledgable enough to answer, but I suspect that mitochondrial proteins are not typically even created outside the mitochondrion.

members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja6.html


One of the simplest refutations of neo-Darwinism:

The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones with each several traits.

So let us make the completely unrealistic simplification that one 'progressive' single-step mutation in the genetic factor of each (i.e. bone, muscle and tendon) structure is enough to entail a relevant increase in fitness.

Let us further assume that the probability of such progressive mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5. So we conclude that among 10^15 newborns (i.e. a billion newborns of a million generations), only one indivudual will carry all three necessary mutations.

Because a change in only one or two of the three involved structures cannot lead to a relevant increase in fitness (rather the contrary), it becomes obvious that the upright gait cannot have evolved in a neo-Darwinian way.

So this is basically a claim that the step from ape-like movement to erect posture is an irreducibly complex one?

Just so you know, orangutansWP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan) are the great apes which walk most like us and they are also the ones who spend the most time in trees. This is one of the reasons that it is widely believed human ancestors were once tree-dwellers - it gave us the sense of balance and posture needed to walk upright as well as the manual dexterity needed to maneuver among branches. When the trees in Africa became more scarce we would run between trees that were too far apart. Eventually we stopped bothering to climb trees and found that our hands, not needed for navigating the ground, could be used for other things like tools.

Bones, muscles and tendons will evolve together since, after all, they are all made up of cells with the same genes. Therefore the "number of mutations" necessary for the posture change to occur cannot accurately be split this way. Rather, each successive mutation will make slight changes to all three anatomical structures, gradually making it easier for our tree-dwelling ancestors to reach that branch above their head.

Realizing that the change to an upright posture probably happened before we came down from the trees, we now see that we have a lot more generations available to play with - not just the ones since we became "homo sapiens", thus making even such incredibly unlikely small mutations likely enough to be plausible if not inevitable.

strathmeyer
11th September 2007, 09:52 AM
One of the simplest refutations of neo-Darwinism:

What is neo-Darwinism?

TV's Frank
11th September 2007, 10:06 AM
What is neo-Darwinism?

It's Latin for "new-Darwinism".:D

Silly Green Monkey
11th September 2007, 12:21 PM
For an example of the structural change NOT working smoothly, look at the bulldog. Bred to bite and never let go, their jaws are short and blocky. The bones are right, the ligaments and tendons hold the altered bones properly, the blood vessels and nerves support it properly. The skin still grows to fit a long muzzle.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
11th September 2007, 04:05 PM
So the very convincing 'endosymbiotic theory' implies that the vast majority of the mitochondrial genes migrated from the mitochondria to the cell nuclei. This is easily understandable within panpsychism, because genes can be animated by psychons (e.g. during recombination the gene psychons are obviously active). Therefore genes can behave in a way similar to animals. If gene psychons feel confortable in company of other genes, it becomes understandable that a mitochondrial gene, after having accidently left a mitochondrion and entered a cell nucleus, gets integrated in the nuclear DNA. This fact may still be explainable in a superficial way within reductionist materialism.
Say what?

~~ Paul

Taffer
11th September 2007, 11:47 PM
So the very convincing 'endosymbiotic theory' implies that the vast majority of the mitochondrial genes migrated from the mitochondria to the cell nuclei. This is easily understandable within panpsychism, because genes can be animated by psychons (e.g. during recombination the gene psychons are obviously active). Therefore genes can behave in a way similar to animals. If gene psychons feel confortable in company of other genes, it becomes understandable that a mitochondrial gene, after having accidently left a mitochondrion and entered a cell nucleus, gets integrated in the nuclear DNA. This fact may still be explainable in a superficial way within reductionist materialism.



But what about the proteins being coded by these genes? How could they find back to their workplaces in a mitochondrion? These proteins even have to pass both the outer and the inner membrane of the mitochondrion before reaching their destinations. And it doesn't help if from time to time some mitochondrial proteins accidentally reach their working places, as it was the case for the gene, having accidentally migrated from mitochondrial DNA to nuclear DNA. A substantial part of the proteins must be able to find their now far-away working places, otherwise there are not enough proteins working in the mitochondrion.

So we must ask: How probable is it that hundreds of mitochondrial genes received during or after their transfer into the nucleus by random mutations (blind chance) exactly such specific sequences which direct their corresponding enzymes back to the mitochondria?

BTW, how could such genetic information, telling the proteins to enter a mitochondrion look like? Consistent logical reasoning is enough to conclude that such an information cannot exist in form of DNA. So the information must come from elsewhere.

Cheers, Wolfgang
members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja6.html


One of the simplest refutations of neo-Darwinism:

The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones with each several traits.

So let us make the completely unrealistic simplification that one 'progressive' single-step mutation in the genetic factor of each (i.e. bone, muscle and tendon) structure is enough to entail a relevant increase in fitness.

Let us further assume that the probability of such progressive mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5. So we conclude that among 10^15 newborns (i.e. a billion newborns of a million generations), only one indivudual will carry all three necessary mutations.

Because a change in only one or two of the three involved structures cannot lead to a relevant increase in fitness (rather the contrary), it becomes obvious that the upright gait cannot have evolved in a neo-Darwinian way.

You need to brush up on your cellular biology. And your evolutionary theory. And your genetics. And your zoology. And your anatomy.