[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 167 KB, 1341x463, flagella.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9427466 No.9427466 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Which of these was designed again?

>> No.9427501

The one on the right isn't very energetically favorable to have occurred without some kind of intelligent design- although it's not like we can totally discount the possibility. Thus, other context clues, such as the contextual age of the sediment it's found in can be used to create a probabilistic determination that leads us to believe it was designed.

On the far left- it's a drawing so of course it was designed. Jokes aside, in the molecular environment you often see things that are as perfectly "geometric" as you can get, whether that be an exact spiral, sphere, circle, etc- and so piston-like structures like the one imaged aren't too difficult to think it could arise. After all, evolution has been occurring for billions of years, and matters of optimization (a mutation that essentially increases efficiency- like, let's say making a structure more circular by a protein change increasing electronegativity in a counter-balance region to a part that was jutting out slightly) are always selected for over their wildtype counterparts.


This blog actually goes over the exact structure you seem to have doubts about, and explains some potential precursor structures.

Biology is such a complex and wonderful field- especially on the molecular or chemical basis- because you come to understand how amazingly complex systems arise from nothing more than the physical principles of reality.

>> No.9427503

Yeah but what good is 9/10 of a flagellar motor? You have to have something to select for, each step has to at least slightly increase survival

>> No.9427519

That's a really good question, and it leads to one of the busiest areas of research. There are certain issues of biogenesis that are more 'basal' than others, in trying to figure out how they arose. This situation, however, could be a little more simple.

There are proteins in the cell membrane that act sort of like pumps for import an export of nutrients and food. Now, imagine if one of the genes for the pumps got duplicated- a semi-common genetic error that occurs. Then, one of the copies of the pumps gains some kind of mutation, like some coding segment for a protein gets inserted in the gene for the second copy- thus, addng some strange protein structure or tail that flops when the pump is 'activated'.

If the cell already had some system for utilizing its pump if it ran into food particulates- which is fairly common- then the second copy of the pump would also work on that principle, likely. At this point, selection would occur- the pump action may cause the protein segment to spin, pushing it along faster, and causing some differential success rate at getting to food, causing the optimization to start.

Often times completely differently purposed structures are adapted for new purposes by chance. Feathers, for example, are great for flight- but the first evidence for feathers is on flightless creatures, indicating their primary purpose was not flight but probably warmth or something. Then, they were adapted for flight- it's shit like this which makes molecular evolution really fun to learn about.

>> No.9427522

Do you really not believe a sub-optimal propeller is better than no propeller at all?

>> No.9427526

Yeah but a sub-optimal propeller still requires all the components of a crude propeller be in place in the first place.

>> No.9427539
File: 218 KB, 1080x905, richod_dokkins-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Evolution is photo finish proof that the things alive today were bottlenecked down a path of failure. Theres no sense in believing evolution to be true and is just one more invention of the death cult trying to convince you to devalue your own life so you'd be liberal enough to play into their degenerate fantasies.
Its not about survival of the fittest or survival of the best, you're just confusing eugenics with evolution at that point. Its merely survival of what lived long enough to reproduce, and there is zero implication of that involving any aspect of predator vs prey or carnivore vs herbivore, zero implication of success vs failure without reducing success in entirety to simply how many children you have. Putting two niggers on an island left to continue for generations will produce nothing but more niggers. They will not spontaneously or over time develop white skin and blonde hair or larger skulls. Evolution is not real, if only in the same sense of an atheist believing god is not real: there might be books written about the subjects, but knowledge of either offer no beneficial impact towards your terrestrial life.

It is more likely that evolution has become confused with the concept of learning, bettaying brainlets who never take the next step of proof to remind themselves they were born knowing nothing.

>> No.9427543

Not really, that's what >>9427519 was talking about.

Irreducible complexity is just someone saying "we don't know how gravity works so it must be angels" but in biology.

>> No.9427559

Such craftsmanship, it contains every piece of bait that is used on /sci/ in the present moment. It is as though all the shitposting on this particular board has managed to form together into the penultimate shitpost. It's spectacular, bravo my man. Bravo.

-5 for not including climate change in there somewhere

>> No.9427563
File: 5 KB, 250x174, brainlets....jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

K enjoy dying.

>> No.9427570

>Yeah but what good is 9/10 of a flagellar motor?

tl;dr off-center microtubules stretching the cell wall forms a proto-flagella that can be used for motility and gathering food, and the all the substrates of the motor already existed in the cytoskeleton and had a purpose.

>> No.9427571

[math]\mathcal{THE\mbox{ }POST}[/math]

>> No.9427597
File: 66 KB, 500x667, 5fef4b_c0b7b76251e44d87866801113fef6331_mv2_d_2448_3264_s_4_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9427626

If evolution is real then why on a planet of 70% water, 30% land and nothing but air above, aren't at least half of all organisms adapted to breathing air and water? What evolutionary benefit is there to being a flightless bird? What evolutionary benefit is there to only breathing air as a creature that only lives in water, that must eat every hour of every day with a mouth the size of a bus only abled to sift 3 inch long fish and plankton?

>> No.9427633

evolution doesn't produce the perfect organism, just ones that will likely reproduce
you don't need to shoot lasers out of your eyes to fuck bitches

>> No.9427646
File: 8 KB, 363x364, 1514061519880.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Glad we've proven >>9427539 right

>> No.9427692

how do you explain the x-men then

>> No.9428790

>you don't need to shoot lasers out of your eyes to fuck bitches
I'll bet you 50 bucks right now that if you could shoot lasers out of your eyes you would at least double your pussy intake.

>> No.9428801

Yeah and then you would exponentially increase your intake of lead after the cops respond to your laser/rape spree.

>> No.9428804

This is true

>> No.9428809

To be fair most animals are invertebrates.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.