Re: Another gem from the library...

[Judith Rosen <***>]

I continue to do further research on the presence (as components of living cells) of multiple organelles with their own genetic heritage-- separate from the cell's nuclear DNA. So far, there are certain patterns that are emerging. I suspect my father's musings were correct; that mitochondria (and chloroplasts) were originally free-existing organisms which somehow entered into the interior of other free-existing organisms, without being consumed or consuming. Whether it was a symbiotic association from the beginning or not will be impossible to tell, but it surely is that situation now. In fact, none of these parties could be free-existing anymore, particularly as regards multi-cellular organisms. There has been too much migration of DNA and functionality... one term that came up repeatedly is the term "promiscuous DNA" which referred to DNA that migrated from organelles to the nucleus of cells. I wonder; early organisms most likely did not have DNA at all, but utilized other modes of "encoding" which are likely still present in organisms today. Perhaps this kind of encoding is the missing link in explaining protein folding? In any case, I tend to think that early DNA was capable of passing around rather freely, much like prion diseases do even now. There are many modalities for the incursion of foreign genetic material and foreign everything else; in some ways it's just an extension of being an open system which interacts intimately with environment the way organisms do. Indeed, organisms encode AND incorporate vast amounts of their environments into their own organization, as it is. So this seems a likely avenue for those evolutionary entailments my father wrote about.

Judith


Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/ 
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational Complexity Paradigm
On Aug 27, 2005, at 8:18 PM, David Macy wrote:

> Hey John,
>  
>     Now maybe I have a skewed perspective, but in my view this was one of your better postings.
>  
> You wrote...
>  
> I wrote to her an e-mail
> proposing the term for the evolution of eucaryotes
> from procaryotes by symbiosis: first keeping together
> then sharing tasks  then one diffusing through the
> outer membrane of the other partner into it - forming
> a nucleus later on. As I recall (that was before my
> computer virus-washout) she replied that this would be
> a great idea to justify in detail. I did not continue
> the line.
>  
> How would one do to justify such an idea?  What evidence would be sufficient?  Surely few if any fossil evidence remains of such a development.  To me it just seems intuitively obvious, but that is hardly grounds for acceptance by others.  But we (you and I) at least are in agreement about this.
>  
> Further you wrote...
>  
> Or even (semi?) autonomous divisions in a
> corporation.
>  
> Here too I seem to resonate with you.  Is there such a thing, given an organism's dependency and connectedness with it's environment as complete "autonomy".  It seems to me that there are only degrees or kinds of semi-autonomy.
>  
> Still further...
>  
> We have to step out from the boundaries of bio-models
> we are closed into. At least on this list.
>  
> But John, would you have us all meander each into our own personal politics?  At least with our search for the underlying similarity of dynamic (homologies) of living systems we might reach a strong consensus that has some possibility of transcending our own personal pettiness'.  I've heard it said that were one stands on an issue depends upon where one sits!
>  
> I gotta run my man, but I did enjoy this posting of yours.
>  
>  
> David