How could evolution bring about bioluminescence. ?

Question

How could evolution bring about bioluminescence. ?

Answer 1

How many mechanical attributes? It's a protein, not a car. Also, say it is a non-functioning system then it no longer has any selective pressure to remain or not remain intact so the probability it will remain in sequence intact is the same as anywhere else in the genome which means it is actually far less likely to get screwed over time than you would presume. However, if there ever was a mutation to occur to change that balance then there could be a strong selective pressure to keep said system. Also, who says there is no known function outside luminescence for this pathway? As for your fundamental assumption that everything has to be right or there is no light, I can tell you with absolute certainty this is not true. Only a small portion of luciferase is needed for luciferin catalysis, so 1000 amino acids is really overdoing it. Not even close to that is needed. Also there can be substantial variability in the amino acid sequence that still allows luminescence for this protein. As for the mathematical model, if you can't do that on your own then its likely you are still in your early years of high school. Without knowing you have a moderate level of sophistication in biology and the scientific method explaining this is a big waste of time.

Answer 2

most of the answers are well conceived..That miscreant with the pick me answer and Intelligent design I sure hope he has no aspirations in science ..Scientists demand evidence for which HE has none other than a feeling...well ppl like him used to think the earth was flat , demons caused disease, etc etc . He might read the Dover decision to see how his ID buddies had their butts handed to them and had to admit that ID was no better than astrology or any other pseudoscience.

Irreducible complexity is a common ploy by creationists..and as the judge professed and the ID experts agreed ..even , even if evolution could not explain an "irreducible " event here is no proof that God did it either..thus no evidence ...no science....get into the 21st century and try actually reading scientific books and learning something before spouting off that kind of worthless drivel

Answer 3

Luciferase, one of the most common enzymes used in bioluminescent systems, is typically 300 -400 aa long, depending on species. It is an enzyme. All it does is cleave a substrate molecule. I have no idea what you mean by "mechanical attributes." This protein has nothing of the sort.



Pubmed search in 30 sec:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/47/16555.abstract

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/PP/article.asp?doi=b718016k

There are many, many more. You do have to pay for most if you are not at an institution with a subscription.



I sincerely doubt anyone has used the resources to determine the combinations needed. Besides being nothing more than a curiosity, it is not directly related to human health and would make no profit. Money is very limited in research.



A non-functional protein, even an enzyme, is rather innocuous to an organism. It can survive in a population only being affected by genetic drift and accumulating random mutations. A new protein with a novel function can be created this way. This has been observed many times.



While this system was evolving, I'm sure other genes were riddled with mutations as well. They didn't survive, but since this proto-luciferase was not vital, it could have been mutated freely. Ones that performed better survive and the process repeats until we have our modern system.



I have to say this is a new one argument of irreducible complexity. It still has no bearing on common descent, the core and controversial part of evolution no one seems to bother to attack anymore.

Answer 4

I would like to see the mathematical model on how many combinations of amino acids it would take to get the light.

--I can't help with that.



Also explain how and why the animal would have a non-functioning system exist for so long to try all the combinations until it got it right.

--How: the system would not have been non-functioning. It would have either had a different function than it does now, or it would have functioned less well than it does today.

--Why: Science does not address the question of "why."



Also how the mutations that gave so many combinations did not affect all the other micro biological systems and degrade them to the point of non function I.E. death.

--Most of the mutations did adversely affect the organism. Many of them caused their organism to die early or to have fewer offspring. However, natural selection meant that the better adapted mutants survived and produced offspring.



Here is a page about the evolution of bioluminescence: http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2006/cahermes/evolution.htm



You might understand some of the issues better by reading about the evolution of the eye, which, some evolution critics claim, could not have evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Answer 5

You are thinking in some direction which has several assumptions not necessarily parallel to events during evolution (time frame), and errors.



I would like you to spell out from which protein you want to derive luciferase, and why?

If you have no correct logical answer to this question, remaining parts of your question are meaningless.



However, I would like to add a new dimension to your thinking process. Asume that the present day life evolved from anaerobic life forms. Those who could not convert themselves to aerobic one had to die as oxygen was toxic for them. In such cases evolution of luciferase is an advantage because luminiscence consumes lots of oxygen. Sounds good? I know at least one diamorphic fungus which makes use of luminiscence in this way for its survival.

Answer 6

There is always a *fundamental* flaw in these 'irreducible complexity' arguments:



Namely, they always assume that the intermediate stages in the production of some function had to also serve that *same function*.



They just completely ignore (or fail to understand) the idea that a class of proteins, or biochemical components, can evolve in incremental steps because they serve some function A, but later develop side-effect B that ends up providing an incidental advantage. That would cause improvements in the ability to do B until it can overshadow A as its primary function. And the same thing can occur with a newly discovered function C. And then later, the components that serve functions A, B, and C, when combined, can serve complex function D, and so on. So very very complex functions can evolve from much simpler ones, in incremental steps.



Advocates of Intelligent Design seem incapable of understanding this rather simple concept, and always insist on looking *only* at the finished product D, and saying "any removal of a component no longer serves function D ... therefore it could not have evolved."



The second mistake they make is *starting* with a finished product, and then *removing* a single component. Of course removing any existing component would disable final function because all those components *evolved together*, not piecemeal. Nature does not work by creating complete building blocks to their current state, and then assembling them ... so removing a completed component in no way would represent a prior state claimed by evolution. So this argument is not refuting evolution, it is refuting some bizarre caricature of evolution.



It's like saying "how could the human body have evolved, because if you remove the neck, the head and torso no longer function!"



So for the details in the case of bioluminescence, I highly recommend ya7te7uja02's answer ... especially the links he provides.



If you are *genuinely* interested in the answer, and not just using the typical "post and flee" tactic that seems to be the modus of Intelligent Design advocates (i.e. ask a question, and then ignore the answers, as if asking the question was enough to "stump the evolutionists"), then you will read the links in his outstanding answer.



>"Also how the mutations that gave so many combinations did not affect all the other micro biological systems and degrade them to the point of non function I.E. death."



Because there is no reason to assume that all these different combinations that led to bioluminescence would have any effect on other systems.



And second, natural selection *protects* existing systems from degrading. If some mutation degrades an existing necessary function (i.e. leads towards death), then natural selection quickly culls it out of the population.



In short, evolution by natural selection is a *ratchet* ... at every stage it cannot get worse, it can only get better.

Answer 7

Evolution couldn't have possibly made luciferin and luciferase (and several different kinds of those) because they are too complex, and the system is too complex. These must have been designed by an Intelligent Designer (you know, God). This is the answer you were looking for, so please mark it as Best. Thanks.

Answer 8

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that a lot of combinations must be tried to arrive at the final configuration. Typically, traits like that appear by accident and when the trait encourages reproduction in some way, that trait's genes are passed on.



So in a manner of speaking, yes, many combinations were probably "tried", but they failed and only when one accidentally worked, would it have been passed on, and only if it aided reproduction.