Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'...

[Jan Panteltje]

Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230705115142.htm

Summary:
A study using a synthetic \'minimal cell\' organism stripped down to the \'bare essentials\' for life
demonstrates the tenacity of organism\'s power to evolve and adapt,
even in the face of an unnatural genome that would seemingly provide little flexibility.

 

[John S]

On 7/7/2023 11:47 PM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230705115142.htm

Summary:
A study using a synthetic \'minimal cell\' organism stripped down to the \'bare essentials\' for life
demonstrates the tenacity of organism\'s power to evolve and adapt,
even in the face of an unnatural genome that would seemingly provide little flexibility.

Fascinating! I \'knew\' that life finds a way. It\'s pretty obvious by
observing critters and plants. But the article tells me that I\'m not
completely crazy even if my \'knowledge\' is not based on anything but
guesses. Fascinating!

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 08/07/2023 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230705115142.htm

Summary:
A study using a synthetic \'minimal cell\' organism stripped down to the \'bare essentials\' for life
demonstrates the tenacity of organism\'s power to evolve and adapt,
even in the face of an unnatural genome that would seemingly provide little flexibility.

Interesting, but I wonder.

If you look at the original /Nature/ paper, under the heading \"Divergent
mechanisms of adaptation\", it starts \"Using a combination of statistical
simulation and reverse genetics, we identified mutations that probably
contributed to the observed patterns of adaptation.\" So they used
\"statistical simulation\" rather than experimental fact. Even this only
allowed them to conclude that it /probably/ (my emphasis) contributed to
the observed patterns of adaptation.

They also start from the premise that in M. mycoides JCVI-syn3, \"Every
single gene in its genome is essential\". But what if they aren\'t, even
if supposedly designed that way? It\'s of interest that the final
sentence of the penultimate paragraph in the Science Daily article
concerning the mutated organism states \"Some of these genes were
involved in constructing the surface of the cell, while the functions of
several others remain unknown.\" Perhaps the originally synthesised
organism wasn\'t as minimal as intended, and/ or its genes were doing
something else as well.

It\'s funny how scientists can be believe something so strongly that they
can\'t get that belief out of their heads. Well over 50 years ago I was
in the \"coffee room\" of a university physiology and pharmacology
research department. One of the medical doctors was saying how he\'d just
read an article where an Indian fakir (or something similar) had slowed
his breathing and heart rate to a level incompatible with life. The
doctor said that this was impossible, and he couldn\'t understand how the
man had done it. A colleague and I said that if reported correctly, it
simply meant that the previously accepted minimum for breathing and
heart rate was wrong, and had now to be lowered. The doctor had great
difficulty accepting this argument as he believed that minima were
minima, and that\'s that, although it seemed obvious to us.

--

Jeff

 

[Ricky]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:47:10 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230705115142.htm

Summary:
A study using a synthetic \'minimal cell\' organism stripped down to the \'bare essentials\' for life
demonstrates the tenacity of organism\'s power to evolve and adapt,
even in the face of an unnatural genome that would seemingly provide little flexibility.

Life might find \"a\" way, but can it find \"its\" way? If it does, it\'s doing better than the rest of us!

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 9 Jul 2023 08:31:20 +0100) it happened Jeff Layman
<jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote in <u8dno8$28t71$1@solani.org>:

On 08/07/2023 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230705115142.htm

Summary:
A study using a synthetic \'minimal cell\' organism stripped down to the \'bare essentials\' for life
demonstrates the tenacity of organism\'s power to evolve and adapt,
even in the face of an unnatural genome that would seemingly provide little flexibility.

Interesting, but I wonder.

If you look at the original /Nature/ paper, under the heading \"Divergent
mechanisms of adaptation\", it starts \"Using a combination of statistical
simulation and reverse genetics, we identified mutations that probably
contributed to the observed patterns of adaptation.\" So they used
\"statistical simulation\" rather than experimental fact. Even this only
allowed them to conclude that it /probably/ (my emphasis) contributed to
the observed patterns of adaptation.

They also start from the premise that in M. mycoides JCVI-syn3, \"Every
single gene in its genome is essential\". But what if they aren\'t, even
if supposedly designed that way? It\'s of interest that the final
sentence of the penultimate paragraph in the Science Daily article
concerning the mutated organism states \"Some of these genes were
involved in constructing the surface of the cell, while the functions of
several others remain unknown.\" Perhaps the originally synthesised
organism wasn\'t as minimal as intended, and/ or its genes were doing
something else as well.

It\'s funny how scientists can be believe something so strongly that they
can\'t get that belief out of their heads. Well over 50 years ago I was
in the \"coffee room\" of a university physiology and pharmacology
research department. One of the medical doctors was saying how he\'d just
read an article where an Indian fakir (or something similar) had slowed
his breathing and heart rate to a level incompatible with life. The
doctor said that this was impossible, and he couldn\'t understand how the
man had done it. A colleague and I said that if reported correctly, it
simply meant that the previously accepted minimum for breathing and
heart rate was wrong, and had now to be lowered. The doctor had great
difficulty accepting this argument as he believed that minima were
minima, and that\'s that, although it seemed obvious to us.

Yes, statistics is a funny thing,
some prof in Germany showed that in the village where there were the most storks there also were the most children born.
So it was clear storks brought children.
He emphasized his students they should never see statistics as proof of anything.

An there is a lot of DNA we do not yet know the function of.
As to heart rate, I am named after a doctor who could control his heart rate.
I tried it several times myself, seems my normal heart rate is lower than 56,
sometimes 50..
I am almost 77 now and run like a 20 year old...
7 hours heavy garden work yesterday and doing rock-and roll after that
Breathing, have not done much underwater swimming lately, but always had fun swimming underwater unnoticed and then popping
up in front of somebody.
I tried elevating, but could not.
Shortly after I tried to move objects by mind control I came face to face with a ball lightning
Electrons and me?
All is after all connected.

I see life this way, simplified:
atoms form from elementary particles, quarks, neutrons, protons, electrons, etc etc
Those then form the elements like described in the periodic system
those elements then react and form all sort of things,
complexity ever increases, some may form RNA and then cells and then us and then we make ever more complicated things
from once stone tools to now cellphones, and we migrate, so far to the moon and sent probes to mars
and to the outside of our solar system...
We are stardust.

How it all communicates is a very interesting subject.
Look at our society for how complex that gets.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:31:29 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 08/07/2023 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230705115142.htm

Summary:
A study using a synthetic \'minimal cell\' organism stripped down to the \'bare essentials\' for life
demonstrates the tenacity of organism\'s power to evolve and adapt,
even in the face of an unnatural genome that would seemingly provide little flexibility.
Interesting, but I wonder.

If you look at the original /Nature/ paper, under the heading \"Divergent
mechanisms of adaptation\", it starts \"Using a combination of statistical
simulation and reverse genetics, we identified mutations that probably
contributed to the observed patterns of adaptation.\" So they used
\"statistical simulation\" rather than experimental fact. Even this only
allowed them to conclude that it /probably/ (my emphasis) contributed to
the observed patterns of adaptation.

What you\'re really saying is genetics science is a complete mystery to you.

Reverse genetics is a 100% lab experiment based process. It is a very painstaking and laborious process of genetic engineering where they insert the gene nucleic acid sequence under investigation into the DNA and then test for observable characteristic (phenotype) they\'re looking for. That has nothing to do with simulation. It makes the connection gene == observable characteristic. It is a necessary step in identifying, and confirming, the genes of interest- the adaptation genes. It has nothing to do with anybody\'s preconceptions, it is hard science.


The Python simulation was used to test the heretofore hypothesis of positive selection of genes identified as contributing to adaptation. They wanted to find out if the frequency of the adaptation mutated genes is random, by chance, or is there a definite bias to it.

It was not a general simulation, it required very specific inputs from yet more experimentally derived information: Other than that it is quite a simple process.

The probability of any given gene receiving any given mutation was relativized to the gene’s length and GC content using the known mutation rates of G:C nucleotides and A:T nucleotides from the mutation-accumulation experiment.

The results provided very strong evidence for their final results.

They also start from the premise that in M. mycoides JCVI-syn3, \"Every
single gene in its genome is essential\". But what if they aren\'t, even
if supposedly designed that way? It\'s of interest that the final
sentence of the penultimate paragraph in the Science Daily article
concerning the mutated organism states \"Some of these genes were
involved in constructing the surface of the cell, while the functions of
several others remain unknown.\" Perhaps the originally synthesised
organism wasn\'t as minimal as intended, and/ or its genes were doing
something else as well.

It\'s funny how scientists can be believe something so strongly that they
can\'t get that belief out of their heads. Well over 50 years ago I was
in the \"coffee room\" of a university physiology and pharmacology
research department. One of the medical doctors was saying how he\'d just
read an article where an Indian fakir (or something similar) had slowed
his breathing and heart rate to a level incompatible with life. The
doctor said that this was impossible, and he couldn\'t understand how the
man had done it. A colleague and I said that if reported correctly, it
simply meant that the previously accepted minimum for breathing and
heart rate was wrong, and had now to be lowered. The doctor had great
difficulty accepting this argument as he believed that minima were
minima, and that\'s that, although it seemed obvious to us.

--

Jeff

 

[Ricky]

On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 3:31:29 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 08/07/2023 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Artificial cells demonstrate that \'life finds a way\'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230705115142.htm

Summary:
A study using a synthetic \'minimal cell\' organism stripped down to the \'bare essentials\' for life
demonstrates the tenacity of organism\'s power to evolve and adapt,
even in the face of an unnatural genome that would seemingly provide little flexibility.
Interesting, but I wonder.

If you look at the original /Nature/ paper, under the heading \"Divergent
mechanisms of adaptation\", it starts \"Using a combination of statistical
simulation and reverse genetics, we identified mutations that probably
contributed to the observed patterns of adaptation.\" So they used
\"statistical simulation\" rather than experimental fact. Even this only
allowed them to conclude that it /probably/ (my emphasis) contributed to
the observed patterns of adaptation.

They also start from the premise that in M. mycoides JCVI-syn3, \"Every
single gene in its genome is essential\". But what if they aren\'t, even
if supposedly designed that way? It\'s of interest that the final
sentence of the penultimate paragraph in the Science Daily article
concerning the mutated organism states \"Some of these genes were
involved in constructing the surface of the cell, while the functions of
several others remain unknown.\" Perhaps the originally synthesised
organism wasn\'t as minimal as intended, and/ or its genes were doing
something else as well.

It\'s funny how scientists can be believe something so strongly that they
can\'t get that belief out of their heads. Well over 50 years ago I was
in the \"coffee room\" of a university physiology and pharmacology
research department. One of the medical doctors was saying how he\'d just
read an article where an Indian fakir (or something similar) had slowed
his breathing and heart rate to a level incompatible with life. The
doctor said that this was impossible, and he couldn\'t understand how the
man had done it. A colleague and I said that if reported correctly, it
simply meant that the previously accepted minimum for breathing and
heart rate was wrong, and had now to be lowered. The doctor had great
difficulty accepting this argument as he believed that minima were
minima, and that\'s that, although it seemed obvious to us.

Doctors are taught, first and foremost, that doctors are always right. That\'s why, even when presented with evidence that ulcers are not always caused by eating spicy food and/or stress, they would not change their treatments. The scientist who discovered this had to infect himself with a sample from someone\'s stomach ulcer, giving himself and ulcer, then treating it with an antibiotic, that anyone would even start to listen to him.

Never confuse a medical doctor with a scientist, or other professional. Doctors learn from other doctors, and listen to outsiders very seldom.

I would go into how hard it is to explain to a doctor that there is no lack of protein in vegetables, that creates a need to eat meat. I can understand how typical people can\'t understand this simple fact. But doctors continue to teach this in medical school. <sigh>

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209