Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

180 million fossil -preserved chromosomes

slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:24:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Exerpts:

Researchers from Lund University and the Swedish Museum of Natural History have made a unique discovery in a well-preserved fern that lived 180 million years ago. Both undestroyed cell nuclei and individual chromosomes have been found in the plant fossil, thanks to its sudden burial in a volcanic eruption.
..........................

"The preservation happened so quickly that some cells have even been preserved during different stages of cell division," said Vivi Vajda, Professor of Geology at Lund University.

..........................

In modern times, royal ferns grow in the wild in Sweden and are also a common garden plant. Living representatives of this family are very similar in appearance to the Jurassic fossil, which suggests that only limited evolutionary change has taken place over the millennia. By comparing the size of the cell nuclei in the fossilised plant with its living relatives, the researchers have been able to show that the royal ferns have outstanding evolutionary stability.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:28:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not certain what dating technique was used to date the sample, but assuming it is that old, this demonstrates:

1. That dna can be preserved for extremely long times.
2. Stability in a species over millions of years fits within the theory of evolution. It does not disprove the theory.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:27:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can't believe nobody commented on this especially when the decay rate of dna is often brought up in evolution discussions.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 6:33:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 4:27:26 PM, slo1 wrote:
Can't believe nobody commented on this especially when the decay rate of dna is often brought up in evolution discussions.

As far as I understand from the paper, the DNA itself was not sequenced (presumable because its been long destroyed), but the chromosomes themselves fossilized. The DNA analysis was a superficial one based off the volume of the chromosomes (and therefore the total genetic content can be estimated) and also the number of chromosomes fossilized.

They concluded that not much has changed in these speciments form then to today's offspring. Still, the pictures are absolutely beautiful, it's like looking in real time at the biochemistry of the Cretaceous!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 6:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:28:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
Not certain what dating technique was used to date the sample, but assuming it is that old, this demonstrates:

1. That dna can be preserved for extremely long times.
2. Stability in a species over millions of years fits within the theory of evolution. It does not disprove the theory.

It also demonstrates that 1) facts can be twisted to suit UCA 2) evolution is falsifiable in principle, but unfalsifiable in practice. BTW if the chromosomes where preserved the proteins (histones) responsible for holding the DNA in them were likely preserved as well. That's a double whammy in my books.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 7:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:28:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
Not certain what dating technique was used to date the sample, but assuming it is that old, this demonstrates:

1. That dna can be preserved for extremely long times.
2. Stability in a species over millions of years fits within the theory of evolution. It does not disprove the theory.

It also demonstrates that 1) facts can be twisted to suit UCA 2) evolution is falsifiable in principle, but unfalsifiable in practice. BTW if the chromosomes where preserved the proteins (histones) responsible for holding the DNA in them were likely preserved as well. That's a double whammy in my books.

I suggest reading stuff about what you're commenting on before commenting. Had you, you would have noted that the sub-cellular detail was calcified; the preserved chromosomes and cells were fossils. Using electron microscopes, the scientists were able to make observations of the fossilised cells on the scale of a few micrometers. Histones, however, are much smaller than a few micrometers, and hence they were not observed. Building upon previous work used to estimate genome sizes of plants (and specifically ferns), the researchers were able to use the dimensions of the fossilised nuclei to compare the genome size of the fossilised specimen to extant specimens, and the data suggests that neither ploidization events nor notable amounts of gene loss have occurred in the genome of the royal ferns between this fossilised specimen and extant specimens.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 8:16:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 7:54:22 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:28:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
Not certain what dating technique was used to date the sample, but assuming it is that old, this demonstrates:

1. That dna can be preserved for extremely long times.
2. Stability in a species over millions of years fits within the theory of evolution. It does not disprove the theory.

It also demonstrates that 1) facts can be twisted to suit UCA 2) evolution is falsifiable in principle, but unfalsifiable in practice. BTW if the chromosomes where preserved the proteins (histones) responsible for holding the DNA in them were likely preserved as well. That's a double whammy in my books.

I suggest reading stuff about what you're commenting on before commenting. Had you, you would have noted that the sub-cellular detail was calcified; the preserved chromosomes and cells were fossils. Using electron microscopes, the scientists were able to make observations of the fossilised cells on the scale of a few micrometers. Histones, however, are much smaller than a few micrometers, and hence they were not observed. Building upon previous work used to estimate genome sizes of plants (and specifically ferns), the researchers were able to use the dimensions of the fossilised nuclei to compare the genome size of the fossilised specimen to extant specimens, and the data suggests that neither ploidization events nor notable amounts of gene loss have occurred in the genome of the royal ferns between this fossilised specimen and extant specimens.

To be fair even the OP didn't read the paper :-p.

The paper is pay per view for non academics so if anyone wants a copy leave me a message and I'll send you the PDF
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 8:30:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 7:54:22 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:28:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
Not certain what dating technique was used to date the sample, but assuming it is that old, this demonstrates:

1. That dna can be preserved for extremely long times.
2. Stability in a species over millions of years fits within the theory of evolution. It does not disprove the theory.

It also demonstrates that 1) facts can be twisted to suit UCA 2) evolution is falsifiable in principle, but unfalsifiable in practice. BTW if the chromosomes where preserved the proteins (histones) responsible for holding the DNA in them were likely preserved as well. That's a double whammy in my books.

I suggest reading stuff about what you're commenting on before commenting. Had you, you would have noted that the sub-cellular detail was calcified; the preserved chromosomes and cells were fossils. Using electron microscopes, the scientists were able to make observations of the fossilised cells on the scale of a few micrometers. Histones, however, are much smaller than a few micrometers, and hence they were not observed. Building upon previous work used to estimate genome sizes of plants (and specifically ferns), the researchers were able to use the dimensions of the fossilised nuclei to compare the genome size of the fossilised specimen to extant specimens, and the data suggests that neither ploidization events nor notable amounts of gene loss have occurred in the genome of the royal ferns between this fossilised specimen and extant specimens.

Just because it's calcified and is a fossil hardly removes the likelihood that the histones were preserved. I'm making an inference from the fact that histones are a core part of chromatin and are vital components of chromosome structure; if the chromosomes were preserved, chances are the histones are, calcification notwithstanding. As for the lack of ploidization events, it makes my points more obvious.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 9:54:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 8:30:08 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/6/2014 7:54:22 PM, Enji wrote:
At 4/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:28:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
Not certain what dating technique was used to date the sample, but assuming it is that old, this demonstrates:

1. That dna can be preserved for extremely long times.
2. Stability in a species over millions of years fits within the theory of evolution. It does not disprove the theory.

It also demonstrates that 1) facts can be twisted to suit UCA 2) evolution is falsifiable in principle, but unfalsifiable in practice. BTW if the chromosomes where preserved the proteins (histones) responsible for holding the DNA in them were likely preserved as well. That's a double whammy in my books.

I suggest reading stuff about what you're commenting on before commenting. Had you, you would have noted that the sub-cellular detail was calcified; the preserved chromosomes and cells were fossils. Using electron microscopes, the scientists were able to make observations of the fossilised cells on the scale of a few micrometers. Histones, however, are much smaller than a few micrometers, and hence they were not observed. Building upon previous work used to estimate genome sizes of plants (and specifically ferns), the researchers were able to use the dimensions of the fossilised nuclei to compare the genome size of the fossilised specimen to extant specimens, and the data suggests that neither ploidization events nor notable amounts of gene loss have occurred in the genome of the royal ferns between this fossilised specimen and extant specimens.

Just because it's calcified and is a fossil hardly removes the likelihood that the histones were preserved. I'm making an inference from the fact that histones are a core part of chromatin and are vital components of chromosome structure; if the chromosomes were preserved, chances are the histones are, calcification notwithstanding. As for the lack of ploidization events, it makes my points more obvious.

Histones have a size on the order of a few nanometers. In the experiment, the smallest scale they were measuring was on the order or .1 micrometers, or 100 nanometers.