Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

CRISPR findings vindicate Lamarck, says researcher in Quanta article

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

CRISPER is a complex strategy bacteria use for getting rid of bacteria. More on that in a minute.

You may remember Lamarck, that guy your biology tacher used to ridicule so easily, in favour of Darwin. Following an excellent article by Carl Zimmer on how bacteria are far more sophisticated than anyone imagined, we read,

For students of the history of biology, this kind of heredity echoes a largely discredited theory promoted by the naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 19th century. Lamarck argued for the inheritance of acquired traits. To illustrate his theory, he had readers imagine a giraffe gaining a long neck by striving to reach high branches to feed on. A nervous fluid, he believed, stretched out its neck, making it easier for the giraffe to reach the branches. It then passed down its lengthened neck to its descendants.

The advent of genetics seemed to crush this idea. There didn’t appear to be any way for experiences to alter the genes that organisms passed down to their offspring. But CRISPR revealed that microbes rewrite their DNA with information about their enemies — information that Barrangou showed could make the difference between life and death for their descendants.

Did this mean that CRISPR meets the requirements for Lamarckian inheritance? “In my humble opinion, it does,” said Koonin.

Fragments from the article:

We’ve barely begun to understand how CRISPR works in the natural world. Microbes use it as a sophisticated immune system, allowing them to learn to recognize their enemies. Now scientists are discovering that microbes use CRISPR for other jobs as well. The natural history of CRISPR poses many questions to scientists, for which they don’t have very good answers yet. But it also holds great promise. Doudna and her colleagues harnessed one type of CRISPR, but scientists are finding a vast menagerie of different types. Tapping that diversity could lead to more effective gene editing technology, or open the way to applications no one has thought of yet.

As important as these results were, microbiologists were also grappling with even more profound implications of CRISPR. It showed them that microbes had capabilities no one had imagined before.

Before the discovery of CRISPR, all the defenses that microbes were known to use against viruses were simple, one-size-fits-all strategies. Restriction enzymes, for example, will destroy any piece of unprotected DNA. Scientists refer to this style of defense as innate immunity…

Also: “More sophisticated than anyone imagined” Should we start a new category, like “Earlier than thought?”

Why didn’t anyone imagine it? Because simpler tructures may be accounted for by Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) as all or most of the variation in life forms, as Darwinians have averred. Acomfortable thought, and therrefore believed. Commitment to Darwinian evolution made it difficult to even guess that massive specified complexity could really exist. Someone should write a book about ways that Darwinism has impeded science that go well beyond wrecking doubters’ careers.

See also: Is “dark genome” becoming the new name for junk DNA? (But old concepts die hard, especially when they are value-laden as “junk DNA” has been)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Neo-Darwinism jumped on the first mechanism it could find. It had to meet one requirement - it had to be chance based as Darwin's theory rested on this. So the modern synthesis was nothing more than one big assumption that mutation is a creative force. Now they are even doing studies that the cyclic changes in Galapagos Finches are epigenetic and there is strong evidence it is. I do not go along with folks that say natural selection is a real force, only limited to micro-evolution, I say it was crap, always has been always will be, and they forced it down our throats to fit a materialist/atheistic model, NOT in anyway to protect science - in fact they have hindered science by insisting that the Selfish Gene had any merit whatsoever - there was no evidence, it just sounded plausible. This is not enough to make it theory if you are a scientists - you are supposed to be able to have at least some reason to believe that the mechanism would have explanatory power, it should not be selected simply because it fits a worldview - when we think back on it, we will laugh at our ridiculous notions that mistakes and mutagens were the creative forces that have developed such Exquisite organisms, and a universe full of complexity, all the way up and all the way down, and ESPECIALLY at the cellular level and Bio-chemical level. Maybe we will learn our lesson, that insisting on our small minded views of the material world, and limitations we put it (like not intelligent, like nothing designed), have put us back 100 years in research and medicine. We owe this to Christian scientists and philosophers that fought back, looked at things holistically and said...NO WAY! In fact, if we look for design we find it, thus Intelligent Design is a real and valid methodology with a huge story to tell, that is growing every second, now that people are looking in the right places with the right intent. We owe creationist science for it's contributions, no matter what philosophy one has, they have brought valid issues to the table, time and time again.[email protected]
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PST
Joe you are correct Darwin himself was not anti-Lamarck as for his disciples, that's a whole different story :)Andre
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PST
Darwin's theory of natural selection didn't work and has been proven impotent.Joe
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PST
Darwin wasn’t anti-Lamark
In fact in later editions of OoS he became Lamarckian, because he didn't have a good alternative theory (his theory of blending inheritance didn't work).Bob O'H
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PST
Darwin wasn't anti-LamarkJoe
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PST
Isn't this a great example of scientists following the evidence where it leads?Bob O'H
February 11, 2015
February
02
Feb
11
11
2015
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PST
News This must be a Carl Zimmer from one of the multiverses, it can not be our very own Carl Zimmer, I have never ever seen him report anything without his own biased before, I am eating my hat if it is him!Andre
February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PST
Andre at 1, forces are in play.News
February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PST
Carl Zimmer did this article? I'm eating my hat.Andre
February 10, 2015
February
02
Feb
10
10
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PST

Leave a Reply