-3
$\begingroup$
  1. Pick a protein that you claim evolved.
  2. List the mutations that you claim happened during the evolution of the protein.
  3. Pick one of these mutations.
  4. Prove that it could happen in nature and produce a viable organism.

This seems like a way to test evolution.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by David, AliceD, Chris Mar 12 '17 at 20:32

  • This question does not appear to be about biology within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Try looking at the long term E coli experiment, they have even show predictable and more importantly experimentally repeatable evolution. journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/… $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 4:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ incorrect they showed evolution quite clearly. I also reccomend the research on evolution in response to changes in the the thermal environment myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSearchResults.php?group=ve or the ones on antibiotic resistance myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSearchResults.php?group=ar $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 4:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No they showed a change in protein expression quite clearly, if you are looking for a change in the protein structure I suggest the work on nylonase. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17512009 including it induced occurrence in a different bacterium, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7646041 $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 4:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @John this "lad" obviously doesn't know anything about biology, but also doesn't want to learn (at least he doesn't show the humility typical of a real apprentice). $\endgroup$ – Rodrigo Mar 12 '17 at 4:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have accused you of nothing. I am trying to ascertain what you are asking for. Now however that you have deleted your responses that prompted the statements shows you are only interested in an argument and not information. you have been given an example that fits your exact criteria as stated. so either change your criteria to reflect what you are actually asking for or indicate why you think it does not fulfill your criteria or we can only conclude you don't actually want an answer. $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 4:29
3
$\begingroup$

nylonase.

nylonase is a different protein sequence with different structure and function from its parent protein. It does something the parent protein could not do. It is produced through a known mutation in the DNA sequence of the parent protein. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17512009

this capability shift through mutation has even been induced in other bacterium with similar starting proteins. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7646041

A review of all three sequence studies can be found here. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11092619

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by new mutation? It binds and digests a molecules that did not exist until 1935. To answer your first question yes. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11092619 $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 4:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ my previous statement does, in addition I have added a reference in my answer. $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 4:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ no they actually can't, the parent protein cannot digest 6-aminohexanoate-oligomer, the substrate in question. Simply increasing the amount of present will do nothing. the Ell' sequence is different than the parent sequence. . $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 5:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ you believe an inactive protein sequence existed to digest a molecule that was invented in 1935? And if you want more information you could look at the papers' references, which identify the separate parent enzymes in detail. Or you could just read more than the abstracts since the parent proteins are identified. $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 5:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Then you are not reading the papers, at least not past the abstracts, and since you seem unwilling to even bother reading the sources given you I suspect you are not actually interested in an answer. Since comments are not for discussion and you can't articulate a reason the sources given are insufficient, I will leave you here. $\endgroup$ – John Mar 12 '17 at 5:57
3
$\begingroup$

Yes, actually LOTS of proteins have already been sequenced in many different organisms, and the more related phylogenetically those organisms are, the more similar the corresponding proteins. You may go to the National Center for Biotechnology Information and see for yourself. Or you can work in a lab and sequence some proteins yourself, or just ask to see how people in such labs work.

Even more, we already know some proteins evolve fast, other slowly. Even more, some parts of proteins evolve faster than other parts, and that's related with the function that each part does.

But really, do you think biological evolution still needs to be "tested"? What about Newtonian physics? What about Einsteinian physics? What about the Periodic Table of Elements? Is it because of religion that you accept most physics and chemistry of the last 150 years, but not the main biology from the same period?

So you want an example?

Here is the insulin from Pan troglodytes (common chimpanzee):

malwmrllpl lvllalwgpd pasafvnqhl cgshlvealy lvcgergffy tpktrreaed lqvgqvelgg gpgagslqpl alegslqkrg iveqcctsic slyqlenycn

Here is the insulin from Homo sapiens (humans):

malwmrllpl lallalwgpd paaafvnqhl cgshlvealy lvcgergffy tpktrreaed lqvgqvelgg gpgagslqpl alegslqkrg iveqcctsic slyqlenycn

As you can see, they're very similar, except for a few letters (each letter represents a single aminoacid).

Now let's take a more distant animal, let's say, a pig (Sus scrofa):

malwtrllpl lallalwapa paqafvnqhl cgshlvealy lvcgergffy tpkarreaen pqagavelgg glgglqalal egppqkrgiv eqcctsicsl yqlenycn

Can you see there are more differences now?

The National Center for Biotechnology Information is free for you to research any protein you like, from any organism you like. As I said, there are probably millions, maybe billions, of proteins already sequenced. You can find out which aminoacids became different in the course of evolution, but you cannot come back in time to sequence the animals that lived millions of years ago. But one thing you can do is to search Google for "evidences of evolution" or buy books about basic Evolutionary Biology. I can suggest some if you want.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's pathetic is your desire to prove evolution wrong, certainly because of religious bias. I may assume you are following the Abrahamic god, because only their followers are so eager to disbelieve biological evolution. $\endgroup$ – Rodrigo Mar 12 '17 at 4:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Evolution could be a mythology, like any science, like any religion. The difference is that the evidences are so overwhelming, that you need to close your eyes to them, so you won't lose your faith in a single old book. $\endgroup$ – Rodrigo Mar 12 '17 at 4:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why don't you go to study the subject you pretend to be willing to understand? $\endgroup$ – Rodrigo Mar 12 '17 at 4:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, maybe evolution is wrong. Maybe a god and a goddess together created everything in a way that we believe evolution took place. OK, I can live with that. $\endgroup$ – Rodrigo Mar 12 '17 at 4:20
  • $\begingroup$ Evolution is obviously wrong because it doesn't work even in basic tests like this question. $\endgroup$ – Dapper Lad Mar 12 '17 at 5:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.