Plant automatic response to shade stress (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Monday, January 04, 2016, 14:48 (3033 days ago)
Plants have competition for sunlight. If a neighbor grows too tall it can shade out a neighbor. Plants have sensors for this event and respond automatically:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151225141555.htm-"To escape this deadly shade, plants have light sensors that can set off an internal alarm when threatened by the shade of other plants. Their sensors can detect depletion of red and blue light (wavelengths absorbed by vegetation) to distinguish between an aggressive nearby plant from a passing cloud.-"Scientists at the Salk Institute have discovered a way by which plants assess the quality of shade to outgrow menacing neighbors, a finding that could be used to improve the productivity of crops. The new work, published Dec. 24, 2015 in Cell, shows how the depletion of blue light detected by molecular sensors in plants triggers accelerated growth to overcome a competing plant.-***-"The new work upends previously held notions in the field. It was known that plants respond to diminished red light by activating a growth hormone called auxin to outpace its neighbors. However, this is the first time researchers have shown that shade avoidance can happen through an entirely different mechanism: instead of changing the levels of auxin, a cellular sensor called cryptochrome responds to diminished blue light by turning on genes that promote cell growth.-***-"The focus of the team's research efforts was cryptochromes, blue light-sensitive sensors that are responsible for telling a plant when to grow and when to flower. Cryptochromes were first identified in plants and later found in animals, and in both organisms they are associated with circadian rhythm (the body's biological clock). The protein's role in sensing depletion of blue light had been known, but this study is the first to show how cryptochromes promote growth in a shaded environment.-"The team placed normal and mutant Arabidopsis plants in a light-controlled room where blue light was limited. The mutant plants lacked either cryptochromes or a PIF transcription factor, a type of protein that binds to DNA to control when genes are switched on or off. PIFs typically make direct contact with red light sensors, called phytochromes, to initiate shade avoidance growth. The researchers compared the responses of the mutant and normal plants in the varying blue light conditions by monitoring the growth rate of the stems and looking at contacts between cryptochromes, PIFs and chromosomes.-"'We found that cryptochromes contact these transcription factors on DNA, activating genes completely different than what other photoreceptors activate," says Ullas Pedmale, first author of the work and a Salk research associate. "This is also a very short pathway so plants can rapidly respond to their light environment.'"-Comment: This is a fully automatic response through chemical reactions that trigger different DNA responses. This is the same way I envision automatic responses in animal organisms. Again, it is difficult to see how a non-directed Darwinian evolution evolved this mechanism.
Plant automatic response to climate change
by David Turell , Monday, December 24, 2018, 18:31 (1948 days ago) @ David Turell
Plants have to have the ability to respond to temperature, low oxygen, flooding as examples of plant stress responses. Protein molecule controls found:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181221123859.htm
"Plant scientists at the Universities of Birmingham and Nottingham have unravelled a mechanism that enables flowering plants to sense and 'remember' changes in their environment.
***
"Plants' memory function enables them to accurately coordinate their development in response to stress or to the changing seasons. For example, many plants remember the extended cold of winter, which ensures that they only flower in spring when warmer temperatures return. One way they do this is through a group of proteins called the PRC2. In the cold these proteins come together as a complex and switch the plant into flowering mode. Little is known about how the PRC2 detects environmental change to make sure it is only active when needed.
***
"Researchers discovered that a core component of the complex -- a protein called VRN2 -- is extremely unstable. In warmer temperatures and when oxygen is plentiful, VRN2 protein continually breaks down. When environmental conditions become more challenging, for example when a plant is flooded and oxygen is low, VRN2 becomes stable and enhances survival. VRN2 protein also accumulates in the cold. This allows the PRC2 complex to trigger flowering once temperatures rise. The team investigated the reasons for this and found a surprising similarity between plant responses to cold and low oxygen experienced during flooding.
"'Plants have a remarkable ability to sense and remember changes in their environment, which allows them to control their life cycle," explains lead author Dr Daniel Gibbs, from the School of Biosciences at the University of Birmingham. "VRN2 is continually being broken down when it is not needed, but accumulates under the right environmental conditions. In this way, VRN2 directly senses and responds to signals from the environment, and the PRC2 remains inactive until required.
***
"Interestingly, animals also have the PRC2 complex, but do not have an unstable VRN2 protein. "This system appears to have evolved specifically in flowering plants," added Prof. Holdsworth. "Perhaps it gives them more flexibility in their ability to adapt and respond to environmental change, which is important since they are fixed in the ground and can't move.'"
Comment: All of this is controlled by protein molecules changing with different stimulations. Cells work at high speed and necessarily the reactions have to be automatic to maintain the production speed at split-second timing. As noted all of the reactions are not known, bu t I am sure will be found to work automatically like all cell reactions.
Plant automatic response to climate change
DAVID’s comment: All of this is controlled by protein molecules changing with different stimulations. Cells work at high speed and necessarily the reactions have to be automatic to maintain the production speed at split-second timing. As noted all of the reactions are not known, but I am sure will be found to work automatically like all cell reactions.
Yes, you are sure that cells are automatons preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago by your God with solutions to every problem throughout the history of life, or alternatively their split second reactions are actually God intervening to adjust each individual plant. I am not so sure. Some scientists are sure you are wrong.
DAVID’s comment (under “Biological complexity: Bacteria have complex organelles”): If the first cells of life were this complex only a designer could have created them. We know that cells in eukaryotes have compartments for different production functions. It is logical to find bacteria are the same and cellular function hasn't really changed since the beginning of life. Overall complexity is simply different functioning cells coming together to make complex organisms.
If cellular function hasn’t changed since the beginning, the beginning must have comprised “different functioning” cells. So single cell life already contained brain cells, liver cells, kidney cells, sex cells….I would suggest that cells have changed their functions in all the innovations that have taken place since multicellularity began.
Plant automatic response to climate change
by David Turell , Thursday, December 27, 2018, 22:54 (1944 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID’s comment: All of this is controlled by protein molecules changing with different stimulations. Cells work at high speed and necessarily the reactions have to be automatic to maintain the production speed at split-second timing. As noted all of the reactions are not known, but I am sure will be found to work automatically like all cell reactions.
dhw: Yes, you are sure that cells are automatons preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago by your God with solutions to every problem throughout the history of life, or alternatively their split second reactions are actually God intervening to adjust each individual plant. I am not so sure. Some scientists are sure you are wrong.
DAVID’s comment (under “Biological complexity: Bacteria have complex organelles”): If the first cells of life were this complex only a designer could have created them. We know that cells in eukaryotes have compartments for different production functions. It is logical to find bacteria are the same and cellular function hasn't really changed since the beginning of life. Overall complexity is simply different functioning cells coming together to make complex organisms.
dhw: If cellular function hasn’t changed since the beginning, the beginning must have comprised “different functioning” cells. So single cell life already contained brain cells, liver cells, kidney cells, sex cells….I would suggest that cells have changed their functions in all the innovations that have taken place since multicellularity began.
Hey, bacteria are single cells and the all do the same thing. An E. coli is an e. coli. I don't follow that comment of yours at all. The article shows that different parts of the single cells are programmed to do different jobs. The intelligence is in the gene instructions which tell the parts how to function. Multicellular organisms divided up the functions with differing cells, a great jump in complexity.
Plant automatic response to climate change
DAVID: Bacteria have complex organelles”): If the first cells of life were this complex only a designer could have created them. We know that cells in eukaryotes have compartments for different production functions. It is logical to find bacteria are the same and cellular function hasn't really changed since the beginning of life. Overall complexity is simply different functioning cells coming together to make complex organisms.
dhw: If cellular function hasn’t changed since the beginning, the beginning must have comprised “different functioning” cells. So single cell life already contained brain cells, liver cells, kidney cells, sex cells….I would suggest that cells have changed their functions in all the innovations that have taken place since multicellularity began.
DAVID: Hey, bacteria are single cells and the all do the same thing. An E. coli is an e. coli. I don't follow that comment of yours at all. The article shows that different parts of the single cells are programmed to do different jobs. The intelligence is in the gene instructions which tell the parts how to function. Multicellular organisms divided up the functions with differing cells, a great jump in complexity.
Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. It’s obvious that complex organisms consist of cells/cell communities performing different functions. But if “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life”, do you mean that single cells already had “compartments” for the brain, the liver etc. If not, then clearly cells took on new functions once multicellularity had begun. I’m not making a point here – I’m simply asking for clarification.
Plant automatic response to climate change
by David Turell , Friday, December 28, 2018, 17:43 (1944 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Bacteria have complex organelles”): If the first cells of life were this complex only a designer could have created them. We know that cells in eukaryotes have compartments for different production functions. It is logical to find bacteria are the same and cellular function hasn't really changed since the beginning of life. Overall complexity is simply different functioning cells coming together to make complex organisms.
dhw: If cellular function hasn’t changed since the beginning, the beginning must have comprised “different functioning” cells. So single cell life already contained brain cells, liver cells, kidney cells, sex cells….I would suggest that cells have changed their functions in all the innovations that have taken place since multicellularity began.
DAVID: Hey, bacteria are single cells and they all do the same thing. An E. coli is an e. coli. I don't follow that comment of yours at all. The article shows that different parts of the single cells are programmed to do different jobs. The intelligence is in the gene instructions which tell the parts how to function. Multicellular organisms divided up the functions with differing cells, a great jump in complexity.
dhw: Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. It’s obvious that complex organisms consist of cells/cell communities performing different functions. But if “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life”, do you mean that single cells already had “compartments” for the brain, the liver etc. If not, then clearly cells took on new functions once multicellularity had begun. I’m not making a point here – I’m simply asking for clarification.
All the study showed was that single celled bacteria have organelles that have no membrane walls but act as specific organelles doing specific jobs, acting like multicelled organisms in doing compartmentalized work. Your hope for brain in single cells, as you wish above, is found in the layers of the genome control with the onboard information in those layers.
Plant automatic response to climate change
dhw: Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. It’s obvious that complex organisms consist of cells/cell communities performing different functions. But if “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life”, do you mean that single cells already had “compartments” for the brain, the liver etc. If not, then clearly cells took on new functions once multicellularity had begun. I’m not making a point here – I’m simply asking for clarification.
DAVID: All the study showed was that single celled bacteria have organelles that have no membrane walls but act as specific organelles doing specific jobs, acting like multicelled organisms in doing compartmentalized work. Your hope for brain in single cells, as you wish above, is found in the layers of the genome control with the onboard information in those layers.
I didn’t make a wish, though I’m delighted to hear that you now think bacteria may have the equivalent of a brain. I was trying to work out what you meant by “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life.” As bacteria do not have brains, livers, kidneys, sex organs etc., all of which require differently functioning cells, I was simply asking for clarification. Do you mean that the organelles are primitive forms of all the different cells that later evolved after the arrival of multicellularity?
Plant automatic response to climate change
by David Turell , Saturday, December 29, 2018, 15:36 (1943 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Perhaps I misunderstood your original statement. It’s obvious that complex organisms consist of cells/cell communities performing different functions. But if “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life”, do you mean that single cells already had “compartments” for the brain, the liver etc. If not, then clearly cells took on new functions once multicellularity had begun. I’m not making a point here – I’m simply asking for clarification.
DAVID: All the study showed was that single celled bacteria have organelles that have no membrane walls but act as specific organelles doing specific jobs, acting like multicelled organisms in doing compartmentalized work. Your hope for brain in single cells, as you wish above, is found in the layers of the genome control with the onboard information in those layers.
dhw: I didn’t make a wish, though I’m delighted to hear that you now think bacteria may have the equivalent of a brain. I was trying to work out what you meant by “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life.” As bacteria do not have brains, livers, kidneys, sex organs etc., all of which require differently functioning cells, I was simply asking for clarification. Do you mean that the organelles are primitive forms of all the different cells that later evolved after the arrival of multicellularity?
Bacteria do everything in one cell, paralleling what multicellular organism do with many organs is all that is imparted. As for brain, don't get exited about bacteria: the bacterial genome contains instructional information to automatically provide necessary responses and to edit its DNA as Shapiro shows, nothing more.
Plant automatic response to climate change
dhw: I didn’t make a wish, though I’m delighted to hear that you now think bacteria may have the equivalent of a brain. I was trying to work out what you meant by “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life.” As bacteria do not have brains, livers, kidneys, sex organs etc., all of which require differently functioning cells, I was simply asking for clarification. Do you mean that the organelles are primitive forms of all the different cells that later evolved after the arrival of multicellularity?
DAVID: Bacteria do everything in one cell, paralleling what multicellular organism do with many organs is all that is imparted. As for brain, don't get exited about bacteria: the bacterial genome contains instructional information to automatically provide necessary responses and to edit its DNA as Shapiro shows, nothing more.
This was not the reason for my request for clarification, but I feel obliged to repeat that Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and no doubt other scientists too have concluded from their research that bacteria are sentient, cognitive, decision-making organisms. We’ve been over this a hundred times, so please don’t try to downplay their conclusions. Just stick with your 50/50 chance of their/your being right.
The reason why I’m trying to pin you down is my interest in the relationship between microcosm and macrocosm. If the organelles really are primitive forms of the specialist cells, then there is a parallel to the human embryo, which begins as a single cell already containing the potential for every organ in our bodies. It’s as if we are reliving the whole process of evolution from the very beginning. I’m not sure about the ramifications of this, but if it’s true, it certainly reinforces the concept of common descent, whether the process of evolution was “guided” or not.
Plant automatic response to climate change
by David Turell , Sunday, December 30, 2018, 15:12 (1942 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I didn’t make a wish, though I’m delighted to hear that you now think bacteria may have the equivalent of a brain. I was trying to work out what you meant by “cellular function hasn’t really changed since the beginning of life.” As bacteria do not have brains, livers, kidneys, sex organs etc., all of which require differently functioning cells, I was simply asking for clarification. Do you mean that the organelles are primitive forms of all the different cells that later evolved after the arrival of multicellularity?
DAVID: Bacteria do everything in one cell, paralleling what multicellular organism do with many organs is all that is imparted. As for brain, don't get exited about bacteria: the bacterial genome contains instructional information to automatically provide necessary responses and to edit its DNA as Shapiro shows, nothing more.
dhw: This was not the reason for my request for clarification, but I feel obliged to repeat that Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and no doubt other scientists too have concluded from their research that bacteria are sentient, cognitive, decision-making organisms. We’ve been over this a hundred times, so please don’t try to downplay their conclusions. Just stick with your 50/50 chance of their/your being right.
The reason why I’m trying to pin you down is my interest in the relationship between microcosm and macrocosm. If the organelles really are primitive forms of the specialist cells, then there is a parallel to the human embryo, which begins as a single cell already containing the potential for every organ in our bodies. It’s as if we are reliving the whole process of evolution from the very beginning. I’m not sure about the ramifications of this, but if it’s true, it certainly reinforces the concept of common descent, whether the process of evolution was “guided” or not.
You don't need to pin me down. It is obvious a bacterium must do everything my body does. Eat, defecate, make proteins, etc. and they have special compartments for each job. And all I said about Shapiro is that bacteria edit their DNA, which is true. Your response meter needs work.
Plant automatic response to climate change
DAVID: Bacteria do everything in one cell, paralleling what multicellular organism do with many organs is all that is imparted. As for brain, don't get exited about bacteria: the bacterial genome contains instructional information to automatically provide necessary responses and to edit its DNA as Shapiro shows, nothing more. (dhw’s bold)
dhw: This was not the reason for my request for clarification, but I feel obliged to repeat that Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and no doubt other scientists too have concluded from their research that bacteria are sentient, cognitive, decision-making organisms. We’ve been over this a hundred times, so please don’t try to downplay their conclusions. Just stick with your 50/50 chance of their/your being right.
The reason why I’m trying to pin you down is my interest in the relationship between microcosm and macrocosm. If the organelles really are primitive forms of the specialist cells, then there is a parallel to the human embryo, which begins as a single cell already containing the potential for every organ in our bodies. It’s as if we are reliving the whole process of evolution from the very beginning. I’m not sure about the ramifications of this, but if it’s true, it certainly reinforces the concept of common descent, whether the process of evolution was “guided” or not.
DAVID: You don't need to pin me down. It is obvious a bacterium must do everything my body does. Eat, defecate, make proteins, etc. and they have special compartments for each job.
You seemed to think my reason was to point out that bacteria must have the equivalent of a brain. It was to pursue the idea of microcosm reflecting macrocosm, with the embryo reliving evolution from single cell to current multicellular form, which would seem to confirm common descent. Do you think this is true?
DAVID: And all I said about Shapiro is that bacteria edit their DNA, which is true. Your response meter needs work.
You have left out your gratuitous final comment: “nothing more” (now in bold). Shapiro & Co claim that their lifetime’s research shows a great deal more, as specified above (also in bold). But you dismiss those findings as “verbiage” and “hyperbole” (Friday 28 December at 18.08) – hence your “nothing more”.
Transferred from “Divine purposes and methods”:
DAVID: Bacterial intelligence is the intelligent information and instructions in their DNA. I have God as a logical source for it. And as a result I believe that bacteria are totally autonomic.
If God exists, then of course he is the logical source. He would also be the logical source of the autonomous bacterial intelligence which Shapiro & Co. believe in.
Plant automatic response to climate change
by David Turell , Monday, December 31, 2018, 17:48 (1941 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You don't need to pin me down. It is obvious a bacterium must do everything my body does. Eat, defecate, make proteins, etc. and they have special compartments for each job.
dhw: You seemed to think my reason was to point out that bacteria must have the equivalent of a brain. It was to pursue the idea of microcosm reflecting macrocosm, with the embryo reliving evolution from single cell to current multicellular form, which would seem to confirm common descent. Do you think this is true?
Frankly, I don't see your macrocosm microcosm example. Perhaps I'm missing some cosmic philosophy. All I see is a single cell has to do what my multicellular body does to maintain the state of living. Which means: single cells are highly complex, and if so how did life start if it was by chance? Obviously, no chance.
Transferred from “Divine purposes and methods”:
DAVID: Bacterial intelligence is the intelligent information and instructions in their DNA. I have God as a logical source for it. And as a result I believe that bacteria are totally autonomic.dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the logical source. He would also be the logical source of the autonomous bacterial intelligence which Shapiro & Co. believe in.
As with my faith, 'belief' is not proof.
Plant automatic response to climate change
DAVID: You don't need to pin me down. It is obvious a bacterium must do everything my body does. Eat, defecate, make proteins, etc. and they have special compartments for each job.
dhw: You seemed to think my reason was to point out that bacteria must have the equivalent of a brain. It was to pursue the idea of microcosm reflecting macrocosm, with the embryo reliving evolution from single cell to current multicellular form, which would seem to confirm common descent. Do you think this is true?
DAVID: Frankly, I don't see your macrocosm microcosm example. Perhaps I'm missing some cosmic philosophy. All I see is a single cell has to do what my multicellular body does to maintain the state of living. Which means: single cells are highly complex, and if so how did life start if it was by chance? Obviously, no chance.
I have long since accepted the logic of the design argument. What struck me about this post was the idea that the single cell (microcosm) already contained many of the features of multicellular organisms like us (macrocosm), and since the embryo begins as a single cell, we might find that it relives the history of evolution itself – the very embodiment of common descent. But I don’t have the scientific background to know whether this is reading too much into what we have learned about the cell. I had hoped that you might offer a scientific view.
Transferred from “Divine purposes and methods”:
DAVID: Bacterial intelligence is the intelligent information and instructions in their DNA. I have God as a logical source for it. And as a result I believe that bacteria are totally autonomic.
dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the logical source. He would also be the logical source of the autonomous bacterial intelligence which Shapiro & Co. believe in.
DAVID: As with my faith, 'belief' is not proof.
Agreed. Hence your own agreement that you and they have a 50/50 chance of being correct. But your God can still be the logical source, whichever belief is correct.
Plant automatic response to climate change
by David Turell , Tuesday, January 01, 2019, 18:07 (1940 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You don't need to pin me down. It is obvious a bacterium must do everything my body does. Eat, defecate, make proteins, etc. and they have special compartments for each job.
dhw: You seemed to think my reason was to point out that bacteria must have the equivalent of a brain. It was to pursue the idea of microcosm reflecting macrocosm, with the embryo reliving evolution from single cell to current multicellular form, which would seem to confirm common descent. Do you think this is true?
DAVID: Frankly, I don't see your macrocosm microcosm example. Perhaps I'm missing some cosmic philosophy. All I see is a single cell has to do what my multicellular body does to maintain the state of living. Which means: single cells are highly complex, and if so how did life start if it was by chance? Obviously, no chance.
dhw: I have long since accepted the logic of the design argument. What struck me about this post was the idea that the single cell (microcosm) already contained many of the features of multicellular organisms like us (macrocosm), and since the embryo begins as a single cell, we might find that it relives the history of evolution itself – the very embodiment of common descent. But I don’t have the scientific background to know whether this is reading too much into what we have learned about the cell. I had hoped that you might offer a scientific view.
A single cell is forced to be able to do all those functions. I see nothing more.
Transferred from “Divine purposes and methods”:
DAVID: Bacterial intelligence is the intelligent information and instructions in their DNA. I have God as a logical source for it. And as a result I believe that bacteria are totally autonomic.dhw: If God exists, then of course he is the logical source. He would also be the logical source of the autonomous bacterial intelligence which Shapiro & Co. believe in.
DAVID: As with my faith, 'belief' is not proof.
dhw: Agreed. Hence your own agreement that you and they have a 50/50 chance of being correct. But your God can still be the logical source, whichever belief is correct.
Of course. WE can invent 'God' any way we wish.