Cytochrome C- Part III - A Correction

[bob b]

I need to apologize for an error I made in my previous cytochrome C diagram. The error came about because there are two different cytochrome C proteins in the cells of mammals, one in somatic cells and a different one (in addition to the somatic cell version) in the testis cells. My previous diagram contained the alternate form instead of the somatic cell form for the mouse and rat sequences. Sorry about that. Here is a link to the corrected diagram:

http://members.aol.com/Bobsbend/cytoca2.htm

Actually this correction makes it even more obvious what the "common" mammal cytochrome C sequence would most likely have been if we accept the evolutionary hypothesis and assume there once was such a lifeform. There is some question over at least one of the positions [52] where an "a" might be a better choice than a "p", and if this is the case then we can see that the mouse/rat/guinea pig sequences have never changed in the 100 million odd years since the mammals supposedly arose.

[Stratnerd]

Bob,

The error came about because there are two different cytochrome C proteins in the cells of mammals, one in somatic cells and a different one (in addition to the somatic cell version) in the testis cells.

I'm confused; how do you get two different versions cyt c? Aren't the mitochondria in testes and the soma all from the same source (with a few exceptions of male-donated mitochondria). Does the organism modify its own mitochondrial DNA during development or is the expression different in different parts of the body? How strange!

[bob b]

S,

"Mammalian testis contains two forms of cytochrome c, one identical
to the form found in somatic tissues and another that is expressed
in a stage-specific manner during spermatogenic differentiation."
1: J Biol Chem 1988 May 15;263(14):6791-6

[Wedge]

Originally posted by bob b
Actually this correction makes it even more obvious what the "common" mammal cytochrome C sequence would most likely have been if we accept the evolutionary hypothesis and assume there once was such a lifeform. There is some question over at least one of the positions [52] where an "a" might be a better choice than a "p", and if this is the case then we can see that the mouse/rat/guinea pig sequences have never changed in the 100 million odd years since the mammals supposedly arose.
The stated "common" mammal cyct c sequence is questionable if Mr. Ball is arguing that that it will correspond to the ancestor of all mammal species. It merely seems to be an average of the cyct c sequences from a biased sample and as such will be highly different to the hypothetical ancestor.

If one were to "accept the evolutionary hypothesis and assume there was once such a lifeform" then a common ancestor will have the same number of differences from all currently living organisms. The rationale for this statement is based on findings such as the fact that all currently living organisms thought to have shared a common ancestor with yeast all differ with yeast by a similar number of AAs. Since it is not the case that the "common mammal ancestor" does not differ from current organisms by a similar number of AAs, it indicates that Mr. Ball's method of calculation was out by a fantastic order of magnitude.

It is really quite simple. Evolution DOES NOT state that the common ancestor is an AVERAGED organism. Mr. Ball's calculation method is akin to saying that the common ancestor of the whale and primate is "half whale, half primate". Try to picture such a beast in your mind and you will easily see that an averaged organisms does not equal a common ancestor.

[bob b]

Wedge,

I used to think that you were a reasonably intelligent person.

In order to maintain that view in the light of the logic of your above posting, I am forced to conclude that your dogmatic belief in evolution is interfering greatly with your normal thought processes. This is not surprising since when scientists "fall in love" with a theory they frequently can continue to hold to it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This was certainly true in the case of those scientists who refused to look through Galileo's telescope to see the moons revolving about the planets and more recently in the case of the world renowned scientist who chose to accept the concept of "negative mass" rather than abandon his theory of combustion.

BTW, the evidence for the "common mammal" can be seen from the diagram by even someone untrained in molecular biology, and does not involve any type of "averaging" or data manipulation whatsoever.

http://members.aol.com/Bobsbend/cytoca2.htm

[Wedge]

Bob,

Your last post was completely content free - first you insult my intelligence, then you ramble on about Galileo (how many times have we heard that one!), then you claim that your "common mammal" does not involve any data manipulation.

Get real. :rolleyes:

It is clear that you are as close minded as all the other creationists out there. Furthermore, the fact that you take great pride in being "untrained in molecular biology" does not mean that you avoid the assumptions of these scientists , instead you impose a naive, layperson's view on evolution and molecular relationships. Try writing a letter about your "discovery" to the editor of a scientific journal and see what response you get. I bet that you would be able to hear them laughing at your "analysis" from inside your own home.

[bob b]

Wedge,
The reason that I say that there was no data manipulation is because the sequences shown in the diagram are the plain vanilla sequences obtained from the databank at Entrez Protein.

If you disagree regarding the most likely amino acid at any position of the common mammal ancestor you are free to challenge my selection, but other posters to this forum have looked at this and have generally agreed that it is fairly obvious what the selection should be in almost all cases.

http://members.aol.com/Bobsbend/cytoca2.htm

I challenge you to talk specifically about any given position in the diagram and state your rationale for disagreeing with the choice that I made.

BTW, I did not insult your intelligence, in fact I recognized it. I merely observed that your love for the evolutionary concept is apparently blinding you in your thinking about cytochrome c.

[bob b]

As I have previously mentioned, the amino acid of the "common mammal ancestor" could possibly be an "a" in position 52 instead of a "p" as shown on my diagram. If this were in fact the case then this sequence would be identical to cytochrome c sequences of modern day rats, mice and guinea pigs. This alternate situation is shown on the following diagram:

http://members.aol.com/Bobsbend/cytoca3.htm