Evolution Genetics horizontal gene transfer Intelligent Design

(Reformed) New Scientist takes horizontal gene transfer seriously

Spread the love

Readers may recall that New Scientist published an article some days ago on 13 ways we need to “rethink the theory of nature.”

Their Number 10 rethink is … Genes don’t come from parents

Most of the article is paywalled but here’s the gist of #10:

Microbes arenʼt passively waiting around to accumulate mutations to adapt to changing environments. Instead, they can pick up genes they encounter, giving natural selection far more variety to work on. “Theyʼre all sharing genes with each other, and itʼs really a massive network of gene transfer events,” says Gregory Fournier at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Horizontal gene transfer has been most frequently documented in prokaryotes, single-celled microbes that lack a nucleus and so have few physical barriers to stop DNA from elsewhere being incorporated into their genome. But Hittingerʼs work shows that even some eukaryotes can borrow from distantly related bacteria. “Yeast and bacteria have fundamentally different ways of turning DNA into protein, and this seemed like a really, really strange phenomenon,” he says. – Carrie Arnold

Michael Le Page , Colin Barras , Richard Webb , Kate Douglas and Carrie Arnold, “Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature” at New Scientist (September 23. 2020)

They ain’t seen nothing yet. If you subtract the “random mutation” from “natural selection,” what’s left of Darwinism?

By the time the Raging Woke hammer down Darwin’s statue, chances are the New Scientist crowd will have forgotten who the old Brit toff even was. 😉

See also: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more

(Reformed) New Scientist 9: Survival of the Luckiest At New Scientist: “But evolution can also occur through a non-adaptive process called genetic drift, whereby a gene may become dominant in a population purely by chance… ‘Genetic drift can definitely be a significant driver of evolution,’ says Miles.”

(Reformed) New Scientist 8: Evolution can happen very quickly. Does anyone remember Darwin’s claim: “It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” Yes, that “daily, hourly” thing seems quaint to us too. It probably even seems quaint over at New Scientist, given the stuff they’re saying now.

(Reformed) New Scientist 7: Niche construction can shape evolution. To say that “Traditionally, biologists thought of niche construction purely as a consequence of natural selection. However, that argument doesnʼt always work” is to say that neoDarwinism is not THE theory of evolution. Just in: Richard Dawkins has left the building. And New Scientist has become a more interesting publication.

(Reformed) New Scientist 6: Lamarck is out of the doghouse! At New Scientist: “Today, there is evidence of Lamarckian evolution – of a sort… ‘It reorients how we think about the adaptive process,’ he says.”

(Reformed) New Scientist 5: Species don’t really EXIST? Then what was On the Origin of Species about? Never mind.

(Reformed) New Scientist 4: There is more to inheritance than just genes. At New Scientist: “Subsequent studies in plants and animals suggest that epigenetic inheritance is more common than anyone had expected. Whatʼs more, compared with genetic inheritance, it has some big advantages. Environments can change rapidly and dramatically, but genetic mutations are random, so often require generations to take hold.” Just think, within a few years, genetics might start to make some sense. You’ve got to hand it to the New Scientist gang; when they rethink, they really do.

(Reformed) New Scientist 3: The selfish gene is no longer cool. At New Scientist: “Some researchers think the solution lies in an idea called cultural group selection. Forget shared genes, they argue: selection can favour cooperative groups if the people within them share enough culture. ” Darwin has left the building and returned to his estate.

(Reformed) New Scientist 2: Evolution shows intelligence. At New Scientist: “‘Maybe, evolution is less about out competing others and more to do with co-creating knowledge,’ says Watson.” That really is a radical idea. Radical yes, but it really is a good idea. We find it hard to improve on. The only thing we can think of is, keep the “intelligent” part in your description of nature and add “design.”

(Reformed) New Scientist 1 on the genome: Not destiny. Sure but then what about the famous twin studies that were supposed to prove so much about human nature? No? Then it’s probably best for the New Scientists to just get out of the “gene for that” hell while they can.

and

At New Scientist: We must rethink the (Darwinian) theory of nature. If by “our greatest theory of nature,” the writers mean textbook Darwinism, well the new concepts they list are destroying it. What becomes of “natural selection acting on random mutation” if a variety of means of evolution are “natural,” mutations are not necessarily random, genes aren’t selfish and don’t come only from parents, and the fittest don’t necessarily survive? Just for a start…

One Reply to “(Reformed) New Scientist takes horizontal gene transfer seriously

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Semi-related: An elite neuroscientist starting with the ID assumption that all genes were created at once, and change happens mainly by loss, not by mutation.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/mammals-have-the-same-gene-pathways-that-let-zebrafish-grow-new-eyes

    “Regeneration seems to be the default status, and the loss of that ability happened at multiple points on the evolutionary tree,” said Johns Hopkins University neuroscientist Seth Blackshaw.

    This new understanding could obviously lead to some BIG therapeutic breakthroughs.

Leave a Reply