https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/how-animals-grow-teeth-claws-and-other-pointy...

"Have you ever wondered how pointed shapes are made in nature, like animal teeth and horns? Australian scientists have found the process is governed by a simple mathematical pattern.

"The formula applies to shapes as diverse as vertebrate teeth, including giant sharks, tyrannosaurs, mammoths, sabre-tooth cats and humans, as well as claws, horns, antlers, beaks, fangs, and shells of other animals and dinosaurs. It could even help predict plant thorns and prickles.

"It’s based on a ‘power law’, according to Alistair Evans from Monash University, lead author of a new paper in the journal BMC Biology, which describes a straight-line relationship between the length of the structure and its width when taking the logarithm of both.

“This means we have a new rule of nature, working in parallel with other rules or ‘laws’ like logarithmic spiral growth,” he says.

“'The diversity of animals, and even plants, that follow this rule is staggering. We were quite shocked that we found it almost everywhere we looked across the kingdoms of life – in living animals and those extinct for millions of years.”

"'More than 350 years ago, mathematician Sir Christopher Wren – the designer of London’s St Paul’s Cathedral – suggested shells grow like a cone twisting around a logarithmic spiral. Evans and colleagues say they’ve now explained a missing piece of the puzzle. They call the new pattern a ‘power cascade’.

“'This describes how the shape of the tooth ‘cascades’ down the sides of the tooth following a power law,” Evans explains.

"The group took scans of various biological shapes using medical, microCT and 3D laser surface scanners. Using this process they measured hundreds of structures on the computer to first find the pattern and then test how broadly it applies.

"The formula has many possible applications, like predicting patterns of evolution or working out how old elephants are from their tusks.

“'The power cascade shape is very easy for animals and plants to generate as they grow,” says Evans, “so whenever a new structure is made, it will most likely grow according to the shape of the power cascade.'”

Comment: It seems patterns guide evolutionary developments. I said before God likes to use and follow patterns.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210330100330.htm

"Up until now, how cryptophytes acquired the proteins used to capture and funnel sunlight to be used by the cell had molecular biologists scratching their heads. They already knew that the protein was part of a sort of antenna that the organism used to convert sunlight into energy. They also knew that the cryptophyte had inherited some antenna components from its photosynthetic ancestors -- red algae, and before that cyanobacteria, one of the earliest lifeforms on earth that are responsible for stromatolites.

"But how the protein structures fit together in the cryptophyte's own, novel antenna structure remained a mystery -- until Prof. Curmi, PhD student Harry Rathbone and colleagues from University of Queensland and University of British Columbia pored over the electron microscope images of the antenna protein from a progenitor red algal organism made public by Chinese researchers in March 2020.

***

"'We provide a direct link between two very different antenna systems and open the door for discovering exactly how one system evolved into a different system -- where both appear to be very efficient in capturing light," he says.

"'Photosynthetic algae have many different antenna systems which have the property of being able to capture every available light photon and transferring it to a photosystem protein that converts the light energy to chemical energy."

***

"As study lead author, PhD student Harry Rathbone explains, when a single-celled organism swallows another, it can enter a relationship of endosymbiosis, where one organism lives inside the other and the two become inseparable.

"'Often with algae, they'll go and find some lunch -- another alga -- and they'll decide not to digest it. They'll keep it to do its bidding, essentially," Mr Rathbone says. "And those new organisms can be swallowed by other organisms in the same way, sort of like a matryoshka doll."

"In fact, this is likely what happened when about one and a half billion years ago, a cyanobacterium was swallowed by another single-celled organism. The cyanobacteria already had a sophisticated antenna of proteins that trapped every photon of light. But instead of digesting the cyanobacterium, the host organism effectively stripped it for parts -- retaining the antenna protein structure that the new organism -- the red algae -- used for energy.

***

"'In going from cyanobacteria that are photosynthetic, to everything else on the planet that is photosynthetic, some ancient ancestor gobbled up a cyanobacteria which then became the cell's chloroplast that converts sunlight into chemical energy.

"'And the deal between the organisms is sort of like, I'll keep you safe as long as you do photosynthesis and give me energy."

***

"'Paul's novel approach was to search for ancestral proteins on the basis of shape rather than similarity in amino acid sequence," she says.

"'By searching the 3D structures of two red algal multi-protein complexes for segments of protein that folded in the same way as the cryptophyte protein, he was able to find the missing puzzle piece.'"

Comment: It was important for the evolutionary process to develop wide spread photosynthesis to free up enough oxygen to reach 21% of our atmosphere. And thanks to Lynn Margolis for recognizing the way to add a function by ingulfing another organism

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-hidden-symmetry-chemical-kinetic-equations.html

"In each case, the researchers demonstrated that a simple mathematical ratio shows that the likelihood of errors is controlled by kinetics rather than thermodynamics.

"'It could be a protein folding into the correct versus the incorrect conformation, an enzyme incorporating the right versus the wrong amino acid into the polypeptide chain, or a motor protein mistakenly stepping backward instead of going forward," said Igoshin, a CTBP investigator and professor of bioengineering at Rice. "All of those properties can be expressed as a ratio of two steady-state fluxes, and we found that biological properties expressed in these terms are under kinetic control."

***

"Before it folds, a protein has energy, like a ball sitting atop a hill. Folding is the downhill run from this high-energy starting point to the place where the ball stops rolling. Chemists often use a visual aid called a "free-energy landscape" to chart energy levels in chemical reactions. The landscape looks like a mountain range with peaks and valleys, and the downhill run from a protein's unfolded starting point to its fully folded finishing point can look like a mountain road that winds through a series of valleys. Even if one town along the road is lower in elevation, a traveler might have to climb hills to get from one valley to the next on the way downhill.

"'We've shown it's the barriers, the high points between valleys, that determine these ratios," Igoshin said. "The depths of the valleys don't matter.

***

"Igoshin said the work stemmed from a 2017 study where he, Kolomeisky and former CTBP postdoctoral researcher Kinshuk Banerjee showed that the accuracy of enzymatic catalysis was kinetically controlled. Igoshin described the discovery as a "kind of underlying symmetry of equations."

"'If you look at the ratios of fluxes, you get this interesting cancellation, and all the terms that have to do with these values cancel out, and you get the invariance," he said.

"'When we first got this result, it seemed counterintuitive to us. Then, we were not sure if it was a coincidence, because in the previous paper we showed it for only two particular kinetic schemes. Now Joel's work has shown it can be generalized to this wide range of systems."

"Igoshin said the symmetry "wasn't that hard to prove, but no one noticed it before."

"'I think it is a very interesting physical result that has big implications in biology," he said. "It could help define the limits on what is possible in terms of controlling and optimizing system-level properties in many biological processes.'"

Comment: Basically God has seen to it proteins know how to fold to simplify the processes of life. Only properly folded proteins can have functions.


> Romansh: Then humour me please David, because I have no solid idea whether you think you could be wrong.
> 
> But as you have dropped the agnostic moniker I suspect you think there is not any chance that you might be wrong. Plus you have gone to the effort of writing a book about your position.
> 
> I have no problem admitting I could be wrong. At the very, very best I would be incomplete.-I am dealing with my own personal conclusions after many years of reading starting in the late 1970's. I was a superficial agnostic after medical school, not having given much thought to the issue. Then I decided to plant my thinking somewhere more solidly, and this is where I arrived. I've authored two books on the subject, one in 2004 and the current one which appeared in 2014, this one encouraged and edited by dhw. I appreciate your honest appraisal of yourself. I'm sure my opinions are not correct in other areas, but here I'm very convinced.

Romansh: David you avoided my question?
> I don't think so.-Then humour me please David, because I have no solid idea whether you think you could be wrong.-But as you have dropped the agnostic moniker I suspect you think there is not any chance that you might be wrong. Plus you have gone to the effort of writing a book about your position.-I have no problem admitting I could be wrong. At the very, very best I would be incomplete.


> > David: Funny but I just got an email from the Netherlands telling me my recent book is 'marvelous'.
> > 
> > From your viewpoint, my reasoning is faulty. So be it.
> 
> Romansh: David you avoided my question?-I don't think so.
> 
> Romansh: Congratulations on your email.-Thank you.

David: I'm not surprised. I've filled two books with my reasoning. I can't do justice here.
> > 
> > Romansh: Have you ever considered the possibility that your reasoning might just be faulty?
> 
> Funny but I just got an email from the Netherlands telling me my recent book is 'marvelous'.
> 
> From your viewpoint, my reasoning is faulty. So be it.-David you avoided my question?-Congratulations on your email.

David: I'm not surprised. I've filled two books with my reasoning. I can't do justice here.
> 
> Romansh: Have you ever considered the possibility that your reasoning might just be faulty?-Funny but I just got an email from the Netherlands telling me my recent book is 'marvelous'.-From your viewpoint, my reasoning is faulty. So be it.

I'm not surprised. I've filled two books with my reasoning. I can't do justice here.-Have you ever considered the possibility that your reasoning might just be faulty?


> Romansh: I must say I generally find your reasoning has gaps.-I'm not surprised. I've filled two books with my reasoning. I can't do justice here.

David: I'm not surprised at your comment. It's not that I am incredulous in the conventional sense. If one looks at the complexity of genome controls, I cannot believe chance can invent them. What other choice is there? 
In another thread you suggested you did not have dhw's imagination. 
Well, just for the moment, imagine that your thinking things through is faulty.
That you don't quite understand all the nuances of the discussion well enough to come to a conclusion.
>David: The Cambrian Explosion defies explanation. 
Therefore god did it?
> David: The origin of life studies for 60+ years offer no clear roads to success. 
Therefore god did it?
> David: Did chance development really produced our fine-tuned universe ( and I don't buy Stenger's rebuttals, having read enough criticism of his strange ideas)? 
I don't buy all the fine tuning and infinite multiverse arguments either. 
But that does not force me to come to the conclusion that god did it.
> David: The list goes on an on. Starting as an agnostic, I move further and further away from that position.
Therefore god did it?-I must say I generally find your reasoning has gaps.

Romansh; You appear to use an argument from incredulity to base your belief in god, universal consciousness, quantum consciousness, dualism etc. 
> 
> I don't find arguments from incredulity that convincing.-I'm not surprised at your comment. It's not that I am incredulous in the conventional sense. If one looks at the complexity of genome controls, I cannot believe chance can invent them. What other choice is there? The Cambrian Explosion defies explanation. The origin of life studies for 60+ years offer no clear roads to success. Did chance development really produced our fine-tuned universe ( and I don't buy Stenger's rebuttals, having read enough criticism of his strange ideas)? The list goes on an on. Starting as an agnostic, I move further and further away from that position.

I think only few take the challenge to think things out. Most accept what is handed to them.-The problem with "thinking things out" is we can come to very different conclusions.
You appear to use an argument from incredulity to base your belief in god, universal consciousness, quantum consciousness, dualism etc. -I don't find arguments from incredulity that convincing.

Romansh: because I have no way of knowing (as a weak agnostic as opposed to a strong one) what other people know or don't know and the validity of their beliefs.-There are two very different parts to that thought, (1) the depth of their knowledge and (2) whether their beliefs are provable. which implies, how much analytic thought are they willing to expend. I think only few take the challenge to think things out. Most accept what is handed to them.
> 
> 
> Romansh: I like the analogy of our knowledge being a little bit like cosmic inflation. While our "knowledge" increase in leaps and bounds; our ignorance, the boundary between what we know and don't know also increases.-You are right. We are inundated with 'science facts', and considering the fraud in government-funded grant research, legitimate and illegitimate avenues for research open up.

David You deny the patterns?
> > Romansh: Not at all David. I just don't see this as evidence for god. 
> David: Well, there are folks who do, 
Well there are folk who sincerely believe the Earth is flat.
Some believe they have been abducted by UFOs
Astrology?
>so I felt it should be presented.
Are you going to present their evidence too?
>There is no absolute proof, 
while personally I tend to agree with statement
I cannot say
>but we all know that.
because I have no way of knowing (as a weak agnostic as opposed to a strong one) what other people know or don't know and the validity of their beliefs.-
I like the analogy of our knowledge being a little bit like cosmic inflation. While our "knowledge" increase in leaps and bounds; our ignorance, the boundary between what we know and don't know also increases.

David You deny the patterns?
> 
> Romansh: Not at all David. I just don't see this as evidence for god. -Well, there are folks who do, so I felt it should be presented. There is no absolute proof, but we all know that.

David: Comment: Just more evidence that God makes his job easier with patterns.
> > Romansh: More evidence for a god that mathematically approximates?-> David You deny the patterns?-Not at all David. I just don't see this as evidence for god. -I am surprised that you even have to ask.

David: Comment: Just more evidence that God makes his job easier with patterns.
> 
> Romansh: More evidence for a god that mathematically approximates?-You deny the patterns?

Comment: Just more evidence that God makes his job easier with patterns.-More evidence for a god that mathematically approximates?