Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A way evolution can happen—that is, how information gets shared

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

from The Scientist , we learn,

In what appears to be a novel form of bacterial gene transfer, or conjugation, the microbe Mycobacterium smegmatis can share multiple segments of DNA at once to fellow members of its species, according to a study published today (July 9) in PLOS Biology. The result: the generation of genetic diversity at a pace once believed to be reserved for sexual organisms.

The researchers found that, after the transfers, up to a quarter of the recipient bacteria’s genomes were made up of donated DNA, scattered through the chromosomes in segments of varying lengths.

According to the authors, the diversity resulting from distributive conjugal transfer approaches that achieved by meiosis, the process of cell division that underlies sexual reproduction. “The progeny were like meiotic blends,” said Derbyshire. “The genomes are totally mosaic.”

As to where the “original” information came from, in a sense, that is like asking how life itself originated. It is a separate question from the evolution of life thereafter.

That is, if we want to study evolution, we want to study the mechanisms by which life forms change over time. We can do so even if we do not know how the information they have altered, traded, or expunged* originated. Good thing, that, as it is likely much harder to find that out.

Note: Perhaps expunged only temporarily, as in the case of the blind cave fish whose offspring’s eyes reappeared when they were hybridized.

Comments
Upright Biped: seriously, do try reading for meaning. All of life was not the result of dumb luck. Darwinian evolution, which is not dumb luck, is almost certainly responsible for the extraordinary range of beautifully adapted organisms that we see. They did not adapt by "dumb luck". And while we do not know how the first self-replicators emerged, it was probably not "dumb luck" either. Far more likely to be physics and chemistry. You seem to quote random chunks of my posts out of context in order to try to make my position look contradictory. Alternatively, you are simply failing to understand it. Either way, it would be good if you dropped the snark and actually tried to understand what I'm saying. Even if it's wrong.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Since these people seem intelligent, is it possible that they’ve thought things through more carefully than I have?
I have been following this debate carefully for over 15 years and I have not found one person who believes in naturalistic evolution who could defend their beliefs. So the answer to your question is definitely not.jerry
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
The answer you are looking for is, to use Darwin’s expression: “natural selection”.
NS only eliminates the weak and deficient. And that isn't a designer mimic.Joe
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
vh: I’m just amazed at the number of seemingly intelligent people who believe that all of biology could have popped into existence via spontaneous dumb luck. keith's: evolution isn’t “spontaneous dumb luck" andre: If it is not chance, or random the please enlighten us how? Dr Liddle: The answer you are looking for is ... “natural selection”.
The equivocation continues, unabated by discipline.
Dr Liddle (elsewhere): I have never, ever, suggested that you could produce a system of self-replicators from a system of non-self-replicators by Darwinian evolution. If you thought I suggested such a thing, either I mistyped, or you misread… Clearly it would be an absurd claim, because you have to have self-replicators before you can have Darwinian evolution. By definition.
Upright BiPed
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
The answer you are looking for is, to use Darwin's expression: "natural selection".Elizabeth B Liddle
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
KeithS: (Hint: evolution isn’t “spontaneous dumb luck”.) So what pray tell is it? spontaneous good luck? or let's see - the opposite of spontaneous would be planned, right? so is it planned dumb luck? But luck isn't normally the outcome when a plan is involved (tho' of course that's possible, even common perhaps) - so not spontaneous not dumb not luck seems to end up as well planned - but somehow I don't think that's what you have in mind - so what do you have in mind?owendw
July 11, 2013
July
07
Jul
11
11
2013
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Keiths If it is not chance, or random the please enlighten us how? I'm curious.....Andre
July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
News as to:
"up to a quarter of the recipient bacteria’s genomes were made up of donated DNA, scattered through the chromosomes in segments of varying lengths."
I'm not too surprised by that 25% figure, At the 8:00 minute mark of the following Dr. Nelson goes over the bacterial pan-genome. Consisting of essential genes (250 gene families that encode proteins involved in translation, replication and energy homeostasis); the character genes (7900 gene families) represent genes essential for colonization and survival in particular environmental niches (e.g. symbiosis and photosynthesis); and finally, the accessory (ORFan) genes, a pool of apparently infinite size, contains genes that can be used to distinguish strains and serotypes
Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166
On the second page of this paper you can find a better picture of the graph Dr. Nelson uses in the preceding video:
Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008 Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered. http://www.paulyu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Estimating-the-size-of-the-bacterial-pan-genome.pdf
One problem, as you pointed out News, is that Darwinists have no clue where any of these genes come from in the first place, whether they are dedicated or whether they are shared. The second problem is that Darwinists have no clue as to how these extremely sophisticated mechanisms for sharing the proper genes between bacteria for different environments came about. Notes:
Horizontal Gene Transfer Transformation - the uptake of naked DNA,,, Conjugation - the transfer of DNA mediated by conjugal plasmids ,, Transduction - the transfer of DNA by phage,,, etc.. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/genetic-exchange/exchange/exchange.html
Here is one little known method of communication between bacteria that is very impressive:
Cellular Communication through Light Excerpt: The study was performed with a cellular organism, the ciliate Paramecium caudatum. Mutual exposure of cell populations occurred under conditions of darkness and separation with cuvettes (vials) allowing photon but not molecule transfer.,,,Altogether the study strongly supports a cellular communication system, which is different from a molecule-receptor-based system and hints that photon-triggering is a fine tuning principle in cell chemistry.,,, Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086
Seems bacteria were using something like radio communication billions of years before we were! and even 'social networking' before we were:
Learning from Bacteria about Social Networking (Information Processing) - video Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers.,,, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHs
bornagain77
July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism – Casey Luskin – February 27, 2012 Excerpt: While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html Talbott humorously reflects on the awkward situation between Atheists and Theists here: Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011 Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness Also of related interest: “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.bornagain77
July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
vh,
I’m just amazed at the number of seemingly intelligent people who believe that all of biology could have popped into existence via spontaneous dumb luck.
Which is a very good reason to ask yourself a couple of questions: 1. Am I right about what these people actually believe? (Hint: evolution isn't "spontaneous dumb luck".) 2. Since these people seem intelligent, is it possible that they've thought things through more carefully than I have?keiths
July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
I'm just amazed at the number of seemingly intelligent people who believe that all of biology could have popped into existence via spontaneous dumb luck. It really does blow my mind. But of course they only believe it because they WANT to believe it. Which I don't understand either. The only conclusion I can come to is that they're all sick in the head. So really what's the use in conversing with them or debating them? The Darwinist is truly an embarrassment to the human race.vh
July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
OT: Darwin's Doubt author Stephen C. Meyer on What is the mystery of the Cambrian explosion? - (new) video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqQbqpima-cbornagain77
July 10, 2013
July
07
Jul
10
10
2013
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply