okay i didnt actually mean they were your papers...just the ones you sent me. Yes, but you see, just beucase you dont know and admit that, that doesnt stop these guys writing the paper from already deciding what happened and going from there!
Are you sure they're not suggesting a possibility and exploring the potential consequences?
Perhaps you could give an example?
you see, before they write up the paper, the should(maybe they did who knows eh) reevaluate the mechanisms they are charging with "bringing about" the enzyme, along with its initiator at the same time, along with its binding site for atp and all at just the right time.
Who do you mean, specifically?
Who has said that a particular enzyme and associated machinery appeared at exactly the same time as it was required?
They even come to teh conclusion that it originated multiple times in many forms separatly
Yes. That part isn't guesswork, but detective work.
and ALL of these "origination events" occured extremly early in the FIRST ancestor!
No, that's doesn't match what I've read. Who came to that conclusion?
Not only is this guesswork but its absolutly stretching the boundaries of specualtion to their limit. This enzyme is mind blowing and i cannot simply ascribe the blind mechanisms of evolution to its "creation"..(not yet anyway!)
Probably because you've mislearned the supposed evolutionary origins from creationist sources.
Well, of course there were 1 or 2 i think i couldnt acess
Which ones? I'll email them to you if you like.
But of course I am also reading alberts molecular biology of the cell and watching youtube lectures and not even those two sources addressed it. They certainly addreseed its importance in maintaning DNA's fidelity at replication and repair but nothign about its co evolution of parts and its "timely arrivel" on the scene....
A molecular biology text is chiefly concerned with molecular biology as it is *now*, not as it was 4 billion years ago. And Youtube? Needles and haystacks spring to mind.
And once again, you're looking for knowledge that we don't have. We don't know and perhaps can't know the details of what happened. All we can do is speculate, and examine whether those speculations are consistent with what we see now.
Infact, there is NO reason for anythign to have existed unless you already think you know how it came about.
I don't know what you're thinking. We can look at something and see the reason for its existence in it's apparent purpose, its function. No origin theories required.
And of course, saying there must have been a reason just brings the same question backwards in tme, becuase as soon as it was needed, it was there! we have to ask ourselves, before we consider how it originated through evolutions proceses, rather could it!
and could it "on time"...its like the evolution of the sexes or the anchor fish mating ritual or girrafes neck etc, co evolution on such a scale as to be basically impossible!(opinion subject to change )
No, it doesn't work that way. That's a typical creationist caricature of evolution.
Actual evolution is about combinations and subtle changes in existing machinery or its environment, that sometimes results in new useful functions.
The idea that some amazing biological functions seen today sprang into existence fully formed is creationism. It is no part of evolution.
Well infact i have heard that they did indeed "appear" and have heard that same term in reference to the origin of many cellular parts.
Where did you hear it? In what context?
So if, as you say, its is ludacris(which i wholeheartedly agree with), then what did DNA do the first time it replicated, or repaired itself and needed to releive super coiling. (this is forgetting about the gobsmackngly complex replication and repair holoenzymes!)....what did it do? did it "recruit" other proteins at just the right time? now that would be a miracle...
Like I said, the required machinery must have been there already, and performing some pre-existing function. Why is that miraculous?
We may never no what the reason was.....but ther WAS a reason right?
there....MUST have been.....BECAUSE its here now?
Absolutely correct.
personally i wouldnt make any claims to know ANYthign about its origin, so i wont even speculate.
Then why are we having this discussion?
I think you
do very much want to speculate on origins.
Isn't that what creationism is?
How long a section of double stranded DNA can be replicated at least some of the time without a topoisomerase?
To my knowledge, none, because as soon as you have 2 strands with 2 full turns of about 20 base pairs, coling insues...but anyway im not saying such a state of DNA couldnt have existed, i am referign to the tiem when it did need to be negativley supercoilded to relieve,well, positive suepercoiling!
Are you confusing coiling with supercoiling? Or are you only thinking of circular DNA?
Many full turns of non-circular DS DNA can be replicated before supercoiling becomes a problem, because the tension in the double helix can be relieved by twisting the whole molecule. It would have to be pretty long before that twisting results in a supercoiled tangle.
What are the advantages of double-stranded over single stranded DNA
what releveance does this have to the topoisimerase?
The relevance is that there would have been a reason for DNA manipulation before long DS DNA existed.
What functions does topoisomerase have that would be useful for maintaining a single-stranded DNA genome?
mayve its cleavage function? or its ligase like function for sealing breaks..
Right, so the functions of DNA topoisomerase might have been performed less efficiently by other enzymes, at least for short DNA segments.
Can you see the potential for gradual change? As DNA maintenance machinery gradually becomes more efficient, it can gradually maintain longer and longer DNA strands.
There is no point at which development is halted unless several things appear at once.
