Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bacteria harpoon DNA from their environment, to fight antibiotics

arroba Email
File:DNA simple.svg

According to ScienceDaily:

The discovery was made possible by a new imaging method invented at IU that let scientists see for the first time how bacteria use their long and mobile appendages — called pili — to bind to, or “harpoon,” DNA in the environment. The new study, reported Oct. 18 in the journal PLOS Genetics, focuses on how they reel their catch back in.

By revealing the mechanisms involved in this process, the study’s authors said the results may help hasten work on new ways to stop bacterial infection.

Paper. (open access)

Which raises an obvious question:

This is a far cry from claims by Darwinians decades ago that the rise of antibiotic resistance represents “Darwinian evolution in action before our eyes.” “More Ways of Information Sharing Found in Living Things” at Evolution News and Science Today:

Never mind that people who doubt the claims of the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby will supposedly be science-illiterate.

Wait. What does this story remind us of? Oh yes, recently a writer at The Atlantic went so far as to express doubt about the claim of a Darwin-in-the-schools lobbyist that everyone needs to buy into their approach to evolution if we want to understand superbugs.

Actually we will make better time understanding superbugs if we forget Darwin and learn much more about horizontal gene transfer.

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Who cares when it was found, Bob? All that matters is your side has nothing to explain its existence ET
If I remember my genetics lectures, wasn't this transfer found in 1928? Bob O'H
Note how they streeeeeeeeetch the word ‘evolve’ to include INTENTIONAL and intelligent shopping for DNA by the bacterium. I’m pretty sure this isn’t what Darwin meant by random mutation!
Cute how they snuck in agency when they thought no one was looking. Latemarch
It doesn't matter if this process is designed or merely designoid. You can't use designoid evolution as a model for how designoidness (my apologies if that's not a word) is created in the first place. Both would be very bad for the blind watchmaker. hnorman42
Thanks for linking this. I hadn't noticed it at SD. Amazing and PURPOSEFUL process, and good research. Note how they streeeeeeeeetch the word 'evolve' to include INTENTIONAL and intelligent shopping for DNA by the bacterium. I'm pretty sure this isn't what Darwin meant by random mutation! polistra
It is relevant to Darwinism because it is all still about Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless. It is all still about the appearance of design without the need for an intelligent designer. This (OP) undermines that (blind watchmaker evolution) ET
I'm sorry but I must be missing something. How does this undermine evolution? It's not relevant to "Darwinism" since the poor, old "Brit toff" knew nothing about genes, let alone the horizontal transfer thereof. Seversky

Leave a Reply