All plants are chimeras?

[mad librettist]

I was just reading a fascinating article on the origins of the chloroplast. Apparently it did not evolve through simple selection and mutation, but rather via horizontal gene transfer and symbiosis. The original "wild" cyanobacteria was in effect domesticated by a single alga to achieve heterotrophy. A third entity, probably a parasite similar to legionella, allowed the pair to become a single organism able to reproduce.

This would essentially make every plant a chimera cobbled together from genes of various species!


Since I was a kid, I always had a sneaking suspicion that infectious diseases are left over from a time when the separation between organisms was not so distinct, and that the pathogens are left over vehicles for trading genes.

 

[fungzyme]

You might want to check your mitochondria - they're not really yours, you know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

 

[mad librettist]

here is the artice

By studying the genetics of a glaucophyte—one of a group of just 13 unique microscopic freshwater blue-green algae, sometimes called "living fossils"—an international consortium of scientists led by molecular bioscientist Dana Price of Rutgers University, has elucidated the evolutionary history of plants. The glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa still retains a less domesticated version of this original cyanobacteria than most other plants.

According to the analysis of C. paradoxa's genome of roughly 70 million base pairs, this capture must have occurred only once because most modern plants share the genes that make the merger of photosynthesizer and larger host cell possible. That union required cooperation not just from the original host and the formerly free-ranging photosynthesizer but also, apparently, from a bacterial parasite. Chlamydia-like cells, such as Legionella (which includes the species that causes Legionnaire's disease), provided the genes that enable the ferrying of food from domesticated cyanobacteria, now known as plastids, or chloroplasts, to the host cell.

 

[lost in a sea]

at some point one photosynthesising single celled organism invaded another that couldnt photosynthesise and became what we now know as chloroplasts within the cell obviously through a symbiotic relationship,, the same is true for mitochondria, they have their own mdna,, and then eukaryotes were "born" with their membrane bound internal organelles,,

all probably originated with one early algal cell,,

 

[mad librettist]

pretty fucking cool.

 

[SeaMaiden]

I just read an article on a new paper that is suggesting that life came not from the oceans, but from freshwater pools and then migrated to the primordial seas.

 

[lost in a sea]

well i dont know why scientists concern themselves with things they can only really speculate about,, that is not supposed to be their jobs,,

it wont help anything/anyone guessing where life started,, its interesting obviously but irrelevent to whats important, and that is what we have here today in the present,,

they will still be flip flopping on those sorts of theories in 50 years time,,

quite frankly it is ridiculous, and is what makes science increasingly a religion or cult,,,

 

[SeaMaiden]

Seriously....? Wow. I could NOT disagree with you more.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

You might want to check your mitochondria - they're not really yours, you know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

It bothers me sometimes to think that the tails on all those little sperm were originally independent spirochetes. Makes me shudder just to think of it.

 

[paulo73]

Inspiring stuff.
From time to time i end up in this pipe dream, what if animals, human race included, managed to upgrade their photosynthesis processes?!
Can you guys imagine the range of possibilities?!
Thanks for sharing the article Mad Librettist

 

[lost in a sea]

Seriously....? Wow. I could NOT disagree with you more.

well ive heard all the theories so far repeated back and forth ad nauseum, and though some are interesting in the reasoning behind them,, in reality not one of them would really make any difference to anything even if it could be proven which they cant really,, we simply will not know that kind of question conclusively,,

just like the big bang (that will annoy some fool im sure),, it is not provable and imo is a waste of "scientific" "thought" and efforts,, i see at as just speculation on top of more speculation to attempt to shift away from some other speculation,, its not productive at all,,

i would rather more important(= relevent) questions be answered by scientists than rival gangs of preachers with their own theories going around forcing some dogma on people, because that is what science arose to be antagonistic of..

just my opinion,, who cares what i think,,

 

[SeaMaiden]

I don't know... do you vote? At that point it sort of matters to a lot of people, a wider sphere if you will, even if on a local level.

 

[TribalSeeds]

I think inflation is a pretty good reason to believe the big bang theory.

 

[lost in a sea]

yeah i used to vote,,,, but it seems no matter who i voted for people are murdered in cold blood in my name,,

so i stopped being complicit in a system that just promotes pain on me and my brothers and sisters,, and at least i dont have to feel trapped and guilted by the fake psychopathic duopoly that wants to trick me into thinking i have a choice,,

choice is artificially manufactured to control sales/votes

I think inflation is a pretty good reason to believe the big bang theory.

you bit the bait but im not going into that here,, if you would like to better understand why what you said is wrong then look at work done and theories presented by electric universe scientists such as wal thornhill and david talbott and many others,,

most people have been sold a big big lie,,, its all part of the "principle of uniformity",,

but joyfully the worthwhile elements of the scientific community are converting in their droves

 

[trichrider]

well ive heard all the theories so far repeated back and forth ad nauseum, and though some are interesting in the reasoning behind them,, in reality not one of them would really make any difference to anything even if it could be proven which they cant really,, we simply will not know that kind of question conclusively,,

just like the big bang (that will annoy some fool im sure),, it is not provable and imo is a waste of "scientific" "thought" and efforts,, i see at as just speculation on top of more speculation to attempt to shift away from some other speculation,, its not productive at all,,

i would rather more important(= relevent) questions be answered by scientists than rival gangs of preachers with their own theories going around forcing some dogma on people, because that is what science arose to be antagonistic of..

just my opinion,, who cares what i think,,

I give two shits.
whether proven or not, it is considered prima facie when someone suggests it and others agree.
not that it can be proven/disproven, but lacking in any other explanation provides belief or agreement.
when science proves/disproves the existence of God (through CERN) we will know the dogma was false(j/k).

i find this perfectly fascinating.

 

[SeaMaiden]

Back on topic:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-scientist-life-began-freshwater-pond.html

Scientist suggests life began in freshwater pond, not the ocean



(PhysOrg.com) -- For most everyone alive today, it's almost a fundamental fact. Life began in the ocean and evolved into all of the different organisms that exist today. The idea that this could be wrong causes great discomfort, like discovering as an adult that you were adopted as a child. Nonetheless, a team of diverse scientists led by Armen Mulkidjanian is suggesting that very thing; instead of life beginning in deep thermal vents in the ocean, the prevailing view, they say it perhaps instead started in landlocked freshwater pools created by thermal vapor. Their theory is based, as they explain in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, mostly on the idea that the sea is just too salty to provide the ideal conditions necessary to spur life into existence.

Mulkidjanian and his colleagues argue that in looking at the way cells are made today, it’s hard to imagine they got their start in water that was far saltier than it is now. They point out that cells in all living organisms have a much higher proportion of potassium to sodium, whereas the ocean is the reverse. Such high levels of salt would have made it difficult for cells to synthesize proteins, they say, making it extremely difficult for them the form into the molecular machines with strong walls seen today. Such thick walls would not have existed when cells were just starting to form, making it almost impossible for them to get started, grow and mature.

In contrast, they say, the conditions found on land during the time period when life is believed to have started, was likely far more conducive. In addition to the existing pools of fresh water created by the condensation and cooling of geothermal vapor, there were the higher temperatures that are believed to have existed worldwide. In addition, they say that those pools of water, or mud, likely had many of the same ingredients found in modern cells: phosphate ions, zinc, manganese and especially potassium. Thus the newly forming original cells would not have had to work hard to keep out harmful sodium ions. Also, to counter arguments that newly developing cells on land would be stopped in their tracks by harmful UV radiation from the sun, the team notes that both RNA and DNA have been shown to be stable under such exposure.

Despite the team’s compelling arguments, there are likely to be many doubters, and rather than converting most in the scientific community, this new idea is likely to spark debate that will almost certainly continue for many years to come.

More information: Origin of first cells at terrestrial, anoxic geothermal fields, PNAS, Published online before print February 13, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1117774109

Abstract
All cells contain much more potassium, phosphate, and transition metals than modern (or reconstructed primeval) oceans, lakes, or rivers. Cells maintain ion gradients by using sophisticated, energy-dependent membrane enzymes (membrane pumps) that are embedded in elaborate ion-tight membranes. The first cells could possess neither ion-tight membranes nor membrane pumps, so the concentrations of small inorganic molecules and ions within protocells and in their environment would equilibrate. Hence, the ion composition of modern cells might reflect the inorganic ion composition of the habitats of protocells. We attempted to reconstruct the “hatcheries” of the first cells by combining geochemical analysis with phylogenomic scrutiny of the inorganic ion requirements of universal components of modern cells. These ubiquitous, and by inference primordial, proteins and functional systems show affinity to and functional requirement for K+, Zn2+, Mn2+, and phosphate. Thus, protocells must have evolved in habitats with a high K+/Na+ ratio and relatively high concentrations of Zn, Mn, and phosphorous compounds. Geochemical reconstruction shows that the ionic composition conducive to the origin of cells could not have existed in marine settings but is compatible with emissions of vapor-dominated zones of inland geothermal systems. Under the anoxic, CO2-dominated primordial atmosphere, the chemistry of basins at geothermal fields would resemble the internal milieu of modern cells. The precellular stages of evolution might have transpired in shallow ponds of condensed and cooled geothermal vapor that were lined with porous silicate minerals mixed with metal sulfides and enriched in K+, Zn2+, and phosphorous compounds.

Here is an example of new research providing a scientific viewpoint that flies in the face of 'conventional wisdom'. While not so pertinent when this was first posted, I think it's a pertinent concept now.

Also, how might this relate to the concept of plants being monsters (chimeras)?

 

[lost in a sea]

I give two shits.
whether proven or not, it is considered prima facie when someone suggests it and others agree.
not that it can be proven/disproven, but lacking in any other explanation provides belief or agreement.
when science proves/disproves the existence of God (through CERN) we will know the dogma was false(j/k).

i find this perfectly fascinating.

well just like back in school, there are the popular kids, and they usually have the most money behind them,, because as we all know money talks in this current billshit system we identify ourselves with,,

they dont know shit, but still what they say goes over everyone else,,

and science is now like this,,

 

[TribalSeeds]

Yea, scientists all lie. Just read the bible, that proves scientists are just wasting their time trying to disprove the world is flat and is the center of the universe. Worthless bunch of quacks

 

[lost in a sea]

what the hell are you rambling about ?

btw i dont believe in organised religion and never have

im attacking them as a scientist,,(a real one) who asks questions and doesnt just swallow rhetoric,,

if you want to go over the top and look an arse then go for it,, but im not what you think i assure you,,

its simple,, science used to be good, and then it got perverted off its course..

now it is a mockery..

your reply smacks of ignorance about histroy, science and religion all in one, well done..

 

[trichrider]

scientific minds created religion.

what we are going on about is the symbiosis of algae and cyanobacteria evolving into eukorotes et al.

not much of a stretch to imagine the "scientists' wanting to mystify creation.