DNA Replication Has Been Filmed For The First Time, And It's Not What We Expected

For fucks sake.
I left Veeky Forums because it was full of retards. Came back and nothing has changed...

Judging by how it easy it seems to evolve antibiotic resistance, can we conclude that about every competant military on earth has strand of the plague resistant to all known antibiotic on earth?
Why hasn't it been used by some crazy religious people yet? it does seem easier to create than sarin .

>Why hasn't it been used by some crazy religious people yet?
Crazy religious people can't into science. That's why.

>Crazy religious people can't into science. That's why.
But they can synthetize sarin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack

Well that's pretty damn cool.

When they say "not what they expected" they mean some of the basic assumed facts about polymerase movement on the replication fork, not anything major about fundamental mechanisms of replication.

This is big stuff for scientists but doesn't fundamentally change any biological understanding.

Over 50% of Veeky Forums is composed of underage presumptuous highschool outcasts. Only a small percentage of its userbase has some higher level education, many are still in their undergraduate course.

So what are we looking at here? Those lines are entire strands?

bacteria have very low accuracy when replicating their DNA, magnitudes lower than eukaryotes. This allows for more mutations frequencies, and therefor a higher chance a mutation will be beneficial, especially in the direct presence of an antibiotic, which is acting as major selective pressure.

Yeah I personally don't really understand what's going on. I can tell you all about the structure of double-stranded DNA, the semiconservative DNA replication model, Okazaki fragments, helicase, etc., but I have no idea how to map that knowledge onto what is being described right now.

Are the original DNA templates simply hidden, and are they using fluorescent nucleotides to highlight the replicated DNA v. the original DNA? I have no idea. I hope somebody who is less of a brainlet than me can point me in the right direction, because as complicated as biochemistry can be, it's super interesting.

> can we conclude that about every competant military on earth has strand of the plague resistant to all known antibiotic on earth?
no. it would have to be genetically engineered to contain every antibiotic resistance gene we know about. it's likely it's genome is not even large enough to contain all of them, there is a size limit to genome.

Plus, even if you could, soon it would lose it's resistance through subsequent generations because bacteria tend to discard genes not being actively used, especially genes like that which are usually on plasmids

>Each glowing strand is a piece of double helix growing by replication at the left-hand end. They move at different speeds and stop and start. Dark gaps in the line are single-stranded DNA where one polymerase failed to attach (the fluorescent dye only binds double-stranded DNA).

>Some surprises come out of being able to observe replication directly. For example, the two polymerases involved in replication (one for each strand) aren't coordinated. They stop and start at random, but overall they move at the same average speed, so everything works out. This stochastic model is quite different from a smooth-running, coordinated machine usually imagined.

more evidence the universe isn't deterministic

Doesn't semi-conservative replication involve growth in different directions as the old template unwinds? Or is this some sort of artificial, altered environment with only one DNA segment? Also where are the dark gaps that you mention?

Don't derail the thread with this shit fuck off

The authors demonstrated that leading strand synthesis is independent of lagging strand synthesis by showing that lagging strand synthesis is dependent on primase presence but leading strand synthesis is not. Then, by analyzing kymographs of only leading strand synthesis (by omitting primase but providing everything else), they show that leading strand synthesis proceeds in random bursts rather than a steady progression. They then explain some observed changes in helicase activity by saying that the leading strand polymerase might stochastically pause, somehow triggering a mechanism to pause helicase unwinding, until everything catches up and restarts.

The conclusion that the two strand synthesis events are independent isn't directly proven in the paper but it's a fairly straightforward conclusion from the data. They're kind of fluffing their data up to be a little more important than it truly is, but hey, that's every paper. The dead man's switch idea is interesting but is invoking a mechanism that's plausible but not necessarily implied by their data in my opinion, although I haven't read the paper too thoroughly.

no, you don't use weapons that are just as likely to kill your own people as your enemies. it's far too crude to be of any use, even unguided nuclear warheads are more controllable and safer than such a weapon. modern militaries are typically about attack precision and information warfare.

The Fuck?

How does each DNA strand act completely independently? There has to be a major component we're missing.

It's like you have a field of 10,000 snakes and two random ones who happen to be a perfect match instinctively find each other and mate.

When you alter base pairs

>Veeky Forums - Geneticists only

>There has to be a major component we're missing.
I don't think the video shows RNA.

It's biology 101...

I think most of Veeky Forums is composed by NEET wannabe scientists

muslims don't believe in evolution.

>bacteria have very low accuracy when replicating their DNA, magnitudes lower than eukaryotes
Not to be the bear of bad news but this is actually false

Though there is some difference in mutation rate, the 'rate' at which a species evolves is dependent on generation time and size

Wrong. Please resit BIO101.

its a dye that adheres and floresces only to double helix DNA, thus any replicating strain (leading or lagging) is not strained

results of the video show that, at least when replicating DNA fragments fixed to a slide, replication is proceeds in a staggered fashion rather than a nice progressive unzipping

I don't mean to be that guy but you could compare the mutation rate of e.coli and human?

Then, if you still believe that difference is magnitude enough to account for evolutionary potential, explain how small mammals with rapid doubling times are notorious for rapid adaption to selective pressures (e.g rats and rat poisons). [spoiler]and no, that adaption in rats has been shown to be the product of mutation and not epigenetic[/spoiler]

You don't need the germ to be resistant, you just need to make something that kills/disables fast and infect a shitload of people all at the same time. Think spraying thousands of gallons of water loaded with smallpox or anthrax onto urban areas. If you want to play the long game use something like zika and try to stealthily infect as much of the enemy population as possible, they'll immediately have a crisis on their hands when all the babies are being born with deflated heads.

Fuck it, ill explain myself

Evolution is fueled by random mutation, albeit it point mutations or transposons mutagensis, that we can agree. Without that, no evolution. But how a species evolves is not the sole product of how many mutations it can accure, but how many of those different mutants it can place on the stage for natural selection to choose from.

Lets say I have organism Abe and organism Brah. Abe and Brah both accure the same number of mutations at the same rate. At the end of the week, both Abe and Brah's bodies are littered with same number of random mutations. Abe in that time brought only one progeny to turn by the end of the week, which (for sake of simplisticity) is a snapshot of all the mutations Abe has accured in that week. Brah, on the other hand, had 7 children throught the week. Each of those 7 children are a snapshot of Brah's mutations at different times, a thus each carry their own slightly unique mutations that differentiate them from each other.
While Abe's one child is forced to carry all the mutations of its mother, ableit them good or bad, Brah's has distributed his mutations among numerous progeny, which can now each individually be subjected to natural selection.

are you following yet?

This is a bit like looking at a 10000 piece puzzle and only having the edge pieces.

Go circlejerk about ethics if you want to have a good modern day philosophical discussion. Determinism is an obviously existent phenomenon.

DNA molecules aren't nearly small enough to be affected by quantum randomness. Stop using this new discovery to justify your arguments before we even have an explanation and start looking for the underlying cause so we might one day understand what the fuck we're looking at.

After much consideration I have had an epiphany on the subject of evolution deniers, and since im in a cheerful mood I will elucidate the matter for you all.

Some people just do not possess the intellectual capacity to comprehend macro-evolutionary timescales. The intellectual capacity for abstract thought is not inherently uniformly gifted to all humans. It has arisen in humans as an advantageous capacity that facilitates increased reproductive likelihood and survival generally. This capacity for extreme abstractive comprehension, when absent or deficient, leads to an insistence on the readily and directly perceivable being the likeliest resolution to any query.

to paraphrase in terms more readily comprehensible to the likely reader. Some people are just too stupid to be able to understand abstractions beyond certain complexity thresholds.

I drafted this language in another thread but with a few minor modifications it became readily applicable and pertinent to the subject at hand.

DAD?

>tfw no intellectual capacity to comprehend the absence of empirical data to support a single case of speciation

Here you go
journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/284831
>b-but how does a horse turn into a whale?
Same concept over millions of years

The paper talks about the formalism of speciation. My point being speciation itself has never been observed. If random musing on ecoli or flies qualify as speciation, then have those that claim so apply the same delimitative standards on all mainstream cladograms. Refusing to do so is conceding that what they have observed, or claim to have observed, is not speciation.

>Same concept over millions of years

Never happened.
Never been observed.
Has been disproven.

But you still believe it, on faith.
Even if it were, the fruit flies mutated by gamma rays remain flies; the bacteria adapted to be drug resistant is still bacteria; and the finches with longer narrower beaks are still finches.

>dafuq am i looking at here?

An Atari 2600 video game

Wow! It's fucking nothing!
Show me something that mutates into another *species*.

determinists btfi

explain vestigial features
explain transition species
explain anything at all

EVOLUTION
ISN'T
REAL!!!!!!!

>get told that speciation has never been observed
>but what things hinging on speciation HUH?

>how do I convince rednecks
First, make a statement of why you wish to convince rednecks of anything.
After that, we can all have a nice discussion.

back to /b/

DDDRRRUUUUMMMPPPFFFFFFFFTTTTTAAAAAARRRRRRDDDDDDDD!!!!!!

what do you mean? why do whales have leg bones? why are there fish that breath air?

>if I refuse to learn the basics of science, I don't have to believe any evidence offered in its favor

Are you only only on Veeky Forums because you know that there are less active people to cuck you here than on /pol/? And why would it matter?

Most people on here aren't here because they want to think about politics save for griping about the myriad ways it can get in the way of useful research.

Fancying transgenerational changes based on aesthetic considerations is even more feeble than Numerology. Why does this caterpillar looks like a snake? Are snakes a neotenous offshoot of hemeroplanes triptolemus? Has hemeroplanes triptolemus evolved from a snake ancestor? This is you. Shameful.

As to you second question, I would imagine those that breath water don't live very long.

>not a single observation of a single case of speciation
>entire model based on the one thing all of its makers cannot prove
>the basics of science

You said it!

why don't you see caterpillars that look like snakes in places where there are no snakes? because this caterpillar coevolved with snakes

we've never observed speciation (besides in bacteria) because it takes too long
if you knew anything about evolution you'd know it's a very slow process
all the evidence still points to speciation being a real thing, the hard part is that a species isn't well-defined to begin with but species clearly are distinct from one another

not tree snakes
that caterpillar is found in the rainforest right?

>basics of science

>until you arrive at better evidence or a better theory, the consensus stands
>this differs from religion, where a consensus or argument from authority stands regardless

>we've never observed speciation (besides in bacteria
As far as I know, the longest running experiment on bacterial evolution hasn't observed speciation.

it's hard to tell speciation in bacteria because defining a species of bacteria can get pretty arbitrary

If the biologists say speciation hasn't occurred, I'm going to accept their conclusion. More than 60,000 generations and still almost the exact same bacteria.

The last comment got messed up. Deleted.

I pointed out the caterpillar and snake example in response to the question of whales' leg bones. Deducing that whales came to be by gradual morphic changes across a transgenerational process stemming from a land-dwelling ancestor simply because there is some aesthetic consonance between whales' leg bones and the leg bones of some land-dwelling life forms is like deducing any such relation between that moth and the snake its larva resembles.

I don't understand this question. It's palindromic across all parameters. Snakes and moths cover the whole Earth. If a few moth larvae resemble snakes they share their environment with, what does this mean for all the other moth larvae that don't resemble snakes? What is the utility of this trait? How does it contribute to that moth's survival? Is there any data to suggest snake-like larvae are more likely to survive and mature than regular-looking ones? If not then what is the quality of the selective pressure which molded snake-like larvae? "Relaxed selection" is no selection at all.

Note that neither of the potential answers apply across the board in what passes for an integrated model of Evolution. The alleged reasons aesthetic consonance can be found across such vast taxonomic, geographic, and temporal gulfs - all according to Scientism - can even be mutually refuting. Such as the wolf-thylacine case, which is ascribed to "convergent evolution", which does God only knows what to the theory behind "mimicry". Not to mention that it's an aspect of Orthogenesis, something mainstream Scientists abhor.

The only transgenerational process at work is two centuries of people working their backwards from random whims into Ontological corners

Better evidence? Better than what?

Curious that you use the word "almost" as if you are acknowledging that the population of bacteria has, in fact, changed at all over the last few decades (as it has). Assuming that we manage to continue the experiment indefinitely, what mechanism do you propose would stop the bacteria from continuing to change over the next few millennia to the point where we no longer consider them the same species? It gets more problematic when we consider that the most helpful marker for speciation in bacteria is sequence homology.

ok one thing at a time

about the whale leg bones see pic related, I don't even know how you can refute this

and caterpillars that look like (tree) snakes are less likely to be eaten by birds because snakes eat birds, caterpillars hang out in trees but usually snakes do not except in the rainforest

you're saying so many words and making no sense

but they say the opposite

So Republicans and Muslims (but not Christian Arabs) are just genetically stupid? Makes perfect sense!
You should tell your high-school teachers about your astonishing theory.

Refute what? Does this fish have hominid ancestors? Why not vestigial teeth? Do cephalopods have parrot ancestors?

Is there any data to suggest that snake-like caterpillars have betters chances of survival than the regular caterpillars in the same environment?

of the same species i would imagine yes, but modern biology has not been around long enough to compare the early caterpillar to his more modern counterpart so we rely on the theory of evolution

the simplest interpretation according to the theory of evolution is that the caterpillar was in the same environment as a tree snakes -> birds ate the caterpillars that did not look like tree snakes -> only tree snake-like caterpillars remained

like i said it takes fking forever for speciation to happen

no those teeth are probably a good adaptation for whatever that fish eats
they look like grinding teeth so I'm guessing that fish eats plants or algae

I am well aware of the legends, but...there are more caterpillars that DON'T look like snakes in the same environment as the ones that do look like snakes. Both by the number of alleged taxons and probably by the number of individual caterpillars.

Come on guys.

it's just one potential adaptation a caterpillar can use to thwart predators

Exactly. And that whale's leg bones are probably a good adaptation for processing echolocational data.

fuck off with that bullshit, all whales have vestigial pelvic bones but most whales don't echolocate
at the same time those bones are literally useless for anything, they're not even attached to the rest of the skeleton

sperm whales have a sac full of spermaceti in their heads which helps them with echolocation, bones near the tail wouldn't help at all

Most people disagree with baleen whale echolocation simply because it doesn't sound like toothed whale echolocation. But more to the point, the bones wouldn't have to be connected to anything in order to receive sound. I think innervation is enough?

How do you know it wouldn't help at all? How do sperm whales having a sound-producing organ in their heads affect the potential function of sound-receiving organs somewhere else in the body?

cause their ears are not by their tails
even if it was useful for something that doesn't rule out those bones as the remnants of hind legs, which is what they seem like and are most probably

Sound, vibration, can be received by organs other than the ear. Life forms with no ears respond to sound just as well.

I must confess, these all read like replies from a p-zombie/reddit bot.

omgggggg kill yourself
whales are not anything like spiders or whatever other organism

take your self-taught knowledge and shove it up your ass i gtg

I take it you think ears preclude other organs from receiving sound. They don't.

>fish that breathe water don't live very long
Creationists: Literally Retarded

>not a single observation of a single case of speciation
Rhagoletis pomonella, niBBa. Speciation happening before our very eyes, driven by the appearance of a new food source.

>that whale's leg bones are probably a good adaptation for processing echolocational data.
>But more to the point, the bones wouldn't have to be connected to anything in order to receive sound. I think innervation is enough?
Except that whales' hip and leg bones aren't connected to the auditory cortex. You're inventing out of thin air this idea that there are auditory organs in whale hips, a claim directly contradicted by anatomical study of whale cadavers and unsupported by any principle of acoustics.

This is what creationists do; when evidence shows up that they can't explain, they simply lie about it.

>moles breath soil - STEMlords 2017

What would fly cladograms look like if they were made using the standards of speciation described in your example? Also:

>However, the source of selection that differentiates apple and haw flies is unresolved

Can't make this up.

As to your final point, perception of and reaction to sound requires neither an auditory cortex nor ears. Nor does a life form having ears connected to an auditory cortex preclude it from processing sound by other pathways. Nor does studying cadavers tell you everything about a life form. I'm sure an exhaustive study of yours will fail to ascertain your idiocy. But do tell me more. What are the principles of acoustics in general and how do they apply under water?

Sarin is easy to make

so you literally believe evolution is impossible because of some pedantic bullshit
man you read some shit online and now you think you're an expert

your entire argument right now is "ooga booga you can't know nuttin"

At no point in my judging of this idea and my arrival at the conclusion that it's almost absurd did I take into account information outside of mainstream Materialist Literature, or lack thereof. Though, yes, it could easily qualify as "some shit online". You could post Darwin's own papers on reddit and they'd laugh it off if they didn't know who wrote them.

My entire argument being that species, speciation, selection, and inheritance and fan theories based on visual intuition. I trust this isn't the extent of your Epistemology.

>and fan theories
>and

ARE

ever heard of Occam's razor?
also by "outside of mainstream" I'm just going to assume you mean creationist propaganda

yeah I don't know everything, I took some uni bio courses two years ago but that caterpillar thing is obvious and I can't think of a simpler explanation for vestigial pelvic bones in whales than their having land dwelling ancestors (which is supported by the fossil record)

I don't mean I'm exactly right, it could've been more complicated. The point is that speciation is real and possible.

Occam's razor would favor something like Platonic Forms.

This thread is grim.

this isn't philosophy 101 man
what are you on about?

You brought Occam's razor up, guy.

>>fish that breathe water don't live very long
>>Creationists: Literally Retarded
>moles breath soil - STEMlords 2017
okay you don't need to get quite THIS autistic to distract from how you forgot that FISH can breathe WATER.

>What would fly cladograms look like if they were made using the standards of speciation described in your example?
the same as they look now. do you really think that cladograms stop at the level of "species"?
and reproductive isolation is a widely used species concept in sexually reproducing taxa. this is nothing new.

>However, the source of selection that differentiates apple and haw flies is unresolved
all that means is they don't know how the apple flies and hawthorn flies tell the difference. there's presumably some anatomical or behavioral cue, or possibly just gametic incompatibility. we KNOW they don't interbreed anymore; what remains unknown is HOW they avoid interbreeding.

>perception of and reaction to sound requires neither an auditory cortex nor ears. Nor does a life form having ears connected to an auditory cortex preclude it from processing sound by other pathways. Nor does studying cadavers tell you everything about a life form.
So even though there's no anatomical evidence for whales using their hips for hearing...and even though there's no behavioral evidence for it either...and even though there aren't any major nerves running into the hindlimbs...and even though it's well-established that whales can hear using a modified version of the same auditory system that all mammals share...
even in the face of all of that, you still insist that whales magically hear through their hips. and your evidence for that consists entirely of "well, you can't know that they DON'T!" which is not only a laughable standard of proof but also, in fact, false; we CAN and DO know that whales don't hear through their hips.

I meant that about whole visual intuition thing

yeah it might be wrong to assume based on visual cues sometimes but you can safely assume a caterpillar is mimicking a snake if it looks like one etc

>What are the principles of acoustics in general and how do they apply under water?
Underwater has little to do with it in this case. The key principle involved is that sound is a pressure wave, and that relatively homogeneous media tend to transmit sound well, while media with many sharp changes in density tend to transmit sound poorly and with much scattering at the interfaces.
This is why the ears, in most mammals, are directly connected to the air, allowing sound to propagate through the air and directly into the resonating bones of the ear without passing through muscle tissue. (In whales, strands of less-dense fatty tissue in the jaw connect the ears to the outside, forming a pathway to convey sound to the middle ear.) The pelvic girdle and associated hindlimb bones, in whales, are securely wrapped in muscle and connective tissue (often serving as anchors for the muscles of the genitals in males) which effectively muffle sound due to the higher density (compared to seawater or fat tissue) and fibrous texture.
the fact that muscle tissue is a poor carrier of sound can be ascertained by sticking your fingers in your ears (a subject at which, judging from your responses here, you certainly excel).