This is one of the most fundamental mysteries of evolution and the origins of multicellular life often called endosymbiosis, which is supposed to explain the origin of eukaryotic cell.
It doesn’t! Here is why…
What I found perplexing, or even disturbing, is that although it is presented as scientific fact of evolution, as evolution itself often is, there is absolutely not one fact to support that endosybiosis happened or could have happened…
And this the fact…
How could that be?
First of all, the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell is so staggering that even proposing such quantum leap in evolutionary change goes beyond macroevolutionary claim…
Here are some facts:
Prokaryotic cell above vs Eukaryotic cell below
Dr. Gauger at evolutionnews.org wrote a really good article on the miraculous appearance of the many structures in eukaryotic cells not found in prokaryotic cells that had to have evolved if endosymbiosis were true, such nucleus, mitochondria, etc…
“…There is no single proposed mechanism for the evolution of the nucleus or the other structures…” – wrote Dr. Gauger
However disturbing the theory of endosymbios already is, which makes one wonder how far and how deep preconceived ideology can reach, and the acceptance of evolution, common descent, the tree of life…right or wrong…
However…there is even more to it…
In his paper “Uprooting the Tree of Life” W. F. Doolitle destroys the preconceived and fundamental dogma of evolutionary theory – the so called Darwin’s Tree of Life (which is worth another OP). His ammunition is mainly the horizontal gene transfer…but there is another thing that is very profound…
You can read about it here:
http://labs.icb.ufmg.br/lbem/aulas/grad/evol/treeoflife-complexcells.pdf
On page marked 94 of the paper I linked above, Doolitle writes about the origin of eukaryotic genes:
“…Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of
any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.”
So, if eukaryotic cell evolved from prokaryotic cells, via the process of endosymbiosis, as evolutionists claim, not only there is not a single evolutionary mechanism to explain rather miraculous appearance of the many structures not found in prokaryotes, that exist in eukaryotes, like nucleus, mitochondria etc. they don’t have many genes to account for in the supposed evolution of eukaryotes…
This is not a joke! It’s real...
Will these very facts overturn the evolutionary thinking and bring down the theory of evolution? One would hope… but of course not…
If it were to happen, it would have happened in 2000 when Doolitle published the world acclaimed findings about the horizontal gene transfer and the mysterious genes nowhere to be found if endosymbiosis is true…
Why?
As someone once said:
“…No amount of evidence disproving evolution will convince it’s faithful followers that the theory is wrong…”
If you don’t believe these words, just watch the comments below on how the faithful will post excuses to make them feel good and secure in their preconceived set of beliefs…
Let Darwin of the gaps begin…
God help us!
BTW: I’m willing to bet all my money that nobody can experimentally prove that endosymbiosis of prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic is possible… How could it be possible if many of the genes aren’t accounted for? Maybe gene-spermia happened? 😉
I’m pretty sure that Darwin’s faithful are willing to believe any nonsense… as long as they can pretend that the-long-dead theory of evolution is alive and kept on the respirator…for as long as possible…lol
LoL. I love it!
What now Allan?
Fault him for not taking it at face value?
Ditto.
The likelihood of any meaningful insight appearing is already known to be low, very low.
Glen Davidson
Endosybiosis is probably the largest factor in the explanation for the properties of the eukaryotic cell, but it is not the totality of that explanation. Case in point would be genes that were not transferred from the endosymbiont, or inherited from the archeal ancestor. Such genes would be genes that had to evolve de novo following the endosymbiotic “event”. But if those genes evolved because the host now had to adapt to it’s endosymbiont, are they not still part of the endosymbiosis explanation?
Which brings us to a philosophical question regarding where exactly we define the limits of the endosybiosis “event”. Is that merely when the bacterial cell invades the cytoplasm of the host, or would that also include that long period of mutual adaptation to each other between the host and parasite? If it is the former, then endosymbiosis explains almost nothing other than the mere existence of mitochondria(and whatever other symbiont organelles there are).
But if endosymbiosis also includes that long period of mutual adaptation, then endosymbiosis explains a lot more. Is the HGT of mitochondrial genes to the nucleus part of the endosybiosis explanation? If the nucleus emerged because mitochondrial ancestor genes were horizontally transferred to the host genome and the localized expression gradually lead to the emergence of a nucleus, is that then part of endosymbiotic theory for the explanation of this aspect of eukaryotes? Or is that HGT it’s own explanation we should not lump in with endosymbiosis, even though the genes were transferred from the endosymbiont?
How do we determine whether something constitutes an aspect of endosybiotic theory as part of the process of eukaryogenesis?
It seems to me one can argue endlessly about whether endosymbiosis “explains” eukaryogenesis if we don’t first try to define very precisely what it is we seek to explain, and what exactly we can fit into the term ‘endosymbiosis’. And even the thought of arguing about that makes me sleepy.
The Origin and Evolution of Eukaryotes
WTF Allan?
Someone who can dispassionately analyze their own contributions (or lack thereof). How refreshing. An example for us all.
I disagree.
See Chapter 15 of Perry Marshall’s book Evolution 2.0
Missing Pieces of an Ancient Puzzle: Evolution
of the Eukaryotic Membrane-Trafficking System
“…More recently, components with a “patchy” distribution have become more commonly observed. These proteins are not only absent from many eukaryotes, but they have been omitted from our understanding of eukaryotic membrane-trafficking evolution and function making them missing pieces of both our cell biological and evolutionary pictures…”
http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/6/10/a016048.full
Is that what you were referring to Mung? 😉
(Mung is quoting from a source he links).
I’ll question that. There’s probably very little in biology that is universally accepted. Maybe widely accepted, but not universally.
When you want to quote from a web site, do the courtesy of putting in a link. That way we can see if you’re quote mining. From what you quote, one might, if being charitable, suppose that they were using sloppy language rather than that they had no idea what they were talking about. Any elaboration in the unquoted part of the text might help to decide between those alternatives.
That’s a relief…one could get the universally accepted mixed up with the evidence for lol
It’s pretty amazing that John Harshman isn’t aware of the UC Berkeley website on evolution. Next we’ll be hearing that he knows nothing about birds.
colewd,
Yep, turns out it’s the first alternative: sloppy language. If you look at that page, the only thing they enlist endosymbiosis to explain is mitochondria and plastids. No claim that it explains any other feature of eukaryote evolution. So the charitable explanation is correct. I will be charitable in turn and assume you didn’t notice that you were quote-mining. But now you do, right?
This is a red herring.
The point is the source and what it says about the relationship between the origin of eukaryotes and symbiosis. Allan Miller would have us believe that no evolutionist has ever made the mistake of equating the two, and yet we’ve now seen two sources that clearly provide us with good reason to call into question Allan’s judgment.
Another red herring. So what if they used sloppy language?
Origin of eukaryotes from within archaea, archaeal eukaryome and bursts of gene gain: eukaryogenesis just made easier?
Koonin
The origin of eukaryotes is a fundamental, forbidding evolutionary puzzle. Comparative genomic analysis clearly shows that the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) possessed most of the signature complex features of modern eukaryotic cells, in particular the mitochondria, the endomembrane system including the nucleus, an advanced cytoskeleton and the ubiquitin network. Numerous duplications of ancestral genes, e.g. DNA polymerases, RNA polymerases and proteasome subunits, also can be traced back to the LECA. Thus, the LECA was not a primitive organism and its emergence must have resulted from extensive evolution towards cellular complexity. However, the scenario of eukaryogenesis, and in particular the relationship between endosymbiosis and the origin of eukaryotes, is far from being clear. Four recent developments provide new clues to the likely routes of eukaryogenesis. First, evolutionary reconstructions suggest complex ancestors for most of the major groups of archaea, with the subsequent evolution dominated by gene loss. Second, homologues of signature eukaryotic proteins, such as actin and tubulin that form the core of the cytoskeleton or the ubiquitin system, have been detected in diverse archaea. The discovery of this ‘dispersed eukaryome’ implies that the archaeal ancestor of eukaryotes was a complex cell that might have been capable of a primitive form of phagocytosis and thus conducive to endosymbiont capture. Third, phylogenomic analyses converge on the origin of most eukaryotic genes of archaeal descent from within the archaeal evolutionary tree, specifically, the TACK superphylum. Fourth, evidence has been presented that the origin of the major archaeal phyla involved massive acquisition of bacterial genes. Taken together, these findings make the symbiogenetic scenario for the origin of eukaryotes considerably more plausible and the origin of the organizational complexity of eukaryotic cells more readily explainable than they appeared until recently.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26323764
“…symbiogenetic scenario for the origin of eukaryotes considerably more plausible and the origin of the organizational complexity of eukaryotic cells more readily explainable than they appeared until recently…”?
I guess eukaryogenesis seems more universally acceptable…but that is not the same thing as there is evidence for…
or that he isThe Blind Birdwatcher… lol
Those popped up tabs on Allan’s computer must be really interesting … 😉
John Harshman,
This is a very clear sentence and stands on its own. Based on what we know it is claiming that we don’t have a clue about the origin of the eukaryotic cell.
The most charitable thing I can say is they don’t have a clue about problems with this “transition”. The least charitable is they are intentionally misleading students. Neither situation is ok for a top university.
There is nothing mentioned about the very complex structures that endosymbiosis does not explain like chromatin structure, the nucleus, the eukaryotic ribosome, the nuclear pore complex and the spliceosome. I am very disappointed in my university.
colewd,
University websites are not the only and probably not the best sources of information…My 14 year old can find the info that endosymbiosis = eukaryogenesis…
Maybe you can take some courses at son’s middle school on that?
While you are at it, bring Harshman along…He can’t even find a quote-mine to support his preconceived ideas…lol
That’s the very definition of a quote-mine here at TSZ. 🙂
Such is the rationalization of the quote-miner. I withdraw my charitable assumption.
You aren’t very good at charity. The page in question is all about endosymbiosis as origin of mitochondria and plastids, not about every feature of eukaryotes. One piece of one sentence, considered out of context, doesn’t change the subject.
Yes, nor does it discuss the price of melons in Muskogee, for the same reason: that is not the subject of the page.
I suspect that they would return the compliment, if they knew anything about you.
If you will satisfy my curiosity, when and in what did you graduate from Berkeley?
Yet another red herring. I’m thinking John should spend more time studying fish.
But John is blind as a bat! What if he gets the flying fish mixed up with a bird? Evolution; the theory and fact could collapse … Y’now…;-)
So you see colewd, if you fail to take what an evolutionist actually says at face value you lose and if you do take what an evolutionist actually says at face value you lose.
Ain’t skepticism grand!
So what? So then the people who write with sloppy language are in part responsible for the fact that some people get confused about what explains eukaryogenesis.
I like how you take this complete irrelevancy as an opportunity to take a snipe at skepticism. What the hell does the two have to do with each other?
No, rather because it is sloppy it seems to be claiming that the explanation for everything in eukaryotes is endosymbiosis.
Also incorrect. A charitable thing you can say is that they are simply sloppy in their language. In fact that isn’t even particularly charitable, as it is an entirely reasonable interpretation.
Yes that article is very much lacking on detail (though your explicit claim that endosymbiosis does not explain any of the entities you mention isn’t really correct). Partly because it’s a resource for the average public and if you want details, you have to go to the professional literature. And Partly because there is still lots of disagreement about which of many different proposed explanations is the right one.
J-Mac,
They are.
Mung,
I would question whether colewd had that view first, inspired entirely by the U of B passage, or whether he went scuttling to the internet to find someone, somewhere, who conflates the two. My guess is the latter. Amazing how people suddelnly remember how to Google when there’s an evolutionist to pick holes in.
He literally describes the evidence for it in that paper. You’ll have to be deliberately blind not to see it.
The archaeal domain is still extremely undersampled and understudied compared to eukaryotes and prokaryotes, though it has seen some progress lately. Last I saw numbers on this we had gene sequences from ~38.000 eukaryotes and bacteria (mostly bacteria), but somewhere around two hundred archaea.
>38.000 Eukaryotes + bacteria
~200 archaea
(see https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201648/figures/1)
But the endosymbial host was an archaeon, so many of the genes currently lacking phylogenetic signal are very likely still out there and yet to be discovered. To make matters worse it is estimated we still have only sampled about one percent of the bacterial (and of course much less of the archaeal) diversity out there. This issue can’t just be handwaved away, as we could technically be missing as much as 99.9% of the genetic diversity of prokaryotes. Which in turn very likely would go a long way towards explaining many eukaryotic genes and structures as there’s little rational doubt that yet to be discovered ancestral relationships for many eukaryotic genes are still out there in the bacterial and archaeal domains.
Still, as a larger fraction of archaeal diversity of sampled there has been progress lately and some of this progress in explaining aspect of eukaryogenesis is what Koonin reports. This is just the beginning.
Mung,
Stupid game Mung. One can always find someone who contradicts absolutely anything one says. See also ‘code’, ‘selection’, ‘fitness’, ‘the definition of evolution’ and so on.
I – that’s me, over here, not that other guy – defined eukaryogenesis as origination of the full panoply of differences between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. If someone defines it otherwise, then of course our statements will not match.
Mung,
Twisting words like a good ‘un. I said that I doubted they got their misunderstandings from an evolutionist. I didn’t rule it out. But my bet is that Bill Cole reads more about evolution on Creationst websites than he does on biological ones.
Mung,
I’m borrowing that. So what if I said that no evolutionist evah regarded endosymbiosis as synonymous with the origin of the eukaryotic cell? So what, for that matter, if I didn’t?
I’d hate to seem like I’m deflecting here, but would people trying to make something from various sentences on the internet care to lay out clearly the sense they mean when they use the terms
a) eukaryotic cell
b) eukaryogenesis
c) endosymbiosis
I’ll start:
a) Eukaryotic cell: Cells with most or all of the following: a nucleus, mitochondria, plastids, endoplasmic reticulum, a cytoskeleton, Golgi apparatus, separation of transcription and translation, linear chromosomes, telomeres, multiple origins of replication, mitotic replication, spliceosomal introns, histones … uh … other stuff (not exhaustive!).
b) Eukaryogenesis: The process of obtaining the constituents of the list above
c) Endosymbiosis: a system in which smaller cells take up residence in a larger, either temporarily or permanently, to mutual benefit.
Now, armed with the above, one can readily see why I would say endosymbiosis /= eukaryogenesis. There is a defensible position that would see eukaryogenesis as being that moment of mitochondrial symbiosis. a) then becomes “any cell with a mitochondrion”, and b) “becoming-a-cell-with-a-mitochondrion”.
I would disagree, but in any case I would hope that adult readers could distinguish when that sense was being used, and when it wasn’t. But, I have my doubts.
Mung,
Browser tabs, I’m sure you realised. The original joke was better, though you’d have to be sitting where I’m sitting to see why!
My daughter reverse engineered this a bit back. Hope it helps.
Allan Miller,
Ach – sloppy writing! Too late to edit. I don’t mean the differences that have accumulated in both lineages. Can a guy catch some charity?
You could even say that endosymbiosis might be when the process of eukaryogenesis begins, but that the following process of eukaryogenesis is not itself endosymbiosis. In fact I’d say most of what follows is “standard” evolutionary processes, as in adaptation by mutation, horizontal gene transfer, genetic drift, and natural selection.
Rumraket,
I don’t think it’s at all clear when in the sequence endosymbiosis occurred, though given the far-reaching consequences of a massive increase in energetic surface area, I’d agree it’s more likely to be early. But, there was likely a loss of cell wall first, in the archaeon, which implies a cytoskeleton for both structural and replicative reasons (cell wall growth moves replicated chromosomes apart in prokaryotes). I’d make a case for sex being pretty early, too.
It’s amazing the amount of time and energy Mung, phoodoo and J-Mac spend on something they think is wrong.
I wonder why that is….
A quibble: that would be endomutualism. For endosymbiosis, just leave out the last three words.
That isn’t the article Bill quoted. It’s the next page, with the title “Evidence for Endosymbiosis”. Oddly enough, that page spends all its time talking about evidence for endosymbiosis in the origin of mitochondria and plastids. Period.
And none of the three have the cajones to explain what is right.
John Harshman,
Quibble sustained.
I may have a solution to the problem…the third way of the origins of eukaryotes….
“… It’s definitely a problem. It gets embedded in the education system. There’s no one who takes a biology course that does not believe archaea plus bacteria make eukaryotes. It’s a rule now. It’s beyond criticism now. Well, let’s see if we can change that…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/part-2-kurland-harish-rethink-deep-evolution_us_58b35ea3e4b0658fc20f9738
But who to believe?
How about doing a lab experiment and ending all speculations? I mean we have so many clever guys here…I’m sure some of therm can do better than the dumb luck apparenty did and can prove that their faith in mindless evolution is not better than them…. 😉
BTW: The Blind Birdwatcher can be exuded from this experiment after his flop with endosymbiosis /= eukaryogenesis lol
Clicked link. Noticed the author is charlatan Suzan Mazur…
In my defense, I actually own a copy of the book that I linked to.
And why couldn’t you simply restrain yourself from challenging my comment until you did a simple Google check yourself?
You’ve already admitted that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t keep you from talking anyways, does it.
The fantastic thing about science is that it’s open to everyone. Why don’t you do that experiment? You know you can both prove and disprove things with science, right?
There are several organisations who are looking to give money to people like you to spend on doing exactly the sort of experiment you are proposing. People like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation who are looking to fund such research.
I’m sure there are people here who could help you write such a proposal, if you are up for it. I’ll certainly help where I can. I’d love to see some ID ideas tested in the lab, with proper results and everything.
The flowchart is a quick guide as to what you might have to do to get funding. http://theprofessorisin.com/2011/07/05/dr-karens-foolproof-grant-template/
What step will you get to I wonder….
On global warming, do you believe the >99% or the <1%?