Challenging the belief that DNA “floats aimlessly”:
An elaborate system of filaments, liquid droplet dynamics and protein connectors enables the repair of some damaged DNA in the nuclei of cells, researchers at the University of Toronto have found. The findings further challenge the belief that broken DNA floats aimlessly — and highlight the value of cross-disciplinary research in biology and physics.
Double-strand DNA breaks are especially toxic to cells, and researchers had assumed for decades that these breaks floated inside cell nuclei without direction, until they trigger other cellular changes or happen on a fixer mechanism.
That thinking began to change in 2015, when Karim Mekhail and his lab showed that damaged DNA can be intentionally transported by motor protein ‘ambulances’ to DNA ‘hospitals,’ areas enriched with certain repair factors in the nuclei. The researchers later worked with U of T aerospace engineers to show that after a single double-strand break, DNA travels for repair via long ‘autobahns’ of thread-like microtubules, which are also moving…
The most surprising finding came after several cycles of droplet fusion, the researchers found. “It was very bizarre and totally unexpected, I still remember the day,” Mekhail says. Oshidari observed that the larger droplets initiate an internal concentration of filament building blocks, forcing creation of a kind of self-interlocking brick road, which together with the spidery webs allow DNA to hook onto the longer autobahn filaments.
The complex process is easy to miss when looking at DNA damage sites, says Mekhail, largely because imaging in the field has become highly automated. Most software has been set up to see what has already been seen. “We can’t rely on the old ways of observing,” he says. “We need to update our software and also go back to looking with the human eye, guided by simulations when needed.” University of Toronto, “Genome stability: Intricate process of DNA repair discovered” at ScienceDaily
The researchers, fearing that their media release was too long already, never got around to explaining intracellular health care policy, which would have easily run to 30,000 pages of administrese… 😉
Funny how the new finds never seem to support natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism) but always intricate nests of patterns inside patterns.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
The ScienceDaily paper review says “The findings further challenge the belief that…”
Do they have “beliefs” in science? Do scientists believe things related to their research?
🙂
Here are a few more of the sophisticated repair systems found for DNA:
The following paper on DNA repair is simply jaw dropping..
As to how the bacterium knows exactly how to ‘miraculously reassemble its genome’ into ‘fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes’ no one, especially including Darwinists, has a clue. In fact, such a ‘miraculous’ feat of ‘fully reconstituted’ reassembly of DNA is completely inexplicable to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, Presuppositions that hold that random mutations to DNA are the primary means by which all species on earth have originated.
As sophisticated DNA repair in general, and Deinococcus radiodurans in particular, make clear, DNA repair is completely incompatible with Darwinian evolution in principle.
And as Deinococcus radiodurans in particular made clear, and as Dr. Jonathan Wells states in the following article, Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Darwinists simply have no clue why this should be, nor do they have any evidence supporting their primary claim that mutations to DNA can generate new biological forms and/or new species.
As Jonathan Wells states in the following article, Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly.
Thus in conclusion, finding multiple layers of sophisticated DNA repair mechanisms in life is yet another falsification of the core Darwinian presupposition of reductive materialism.
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand molecular biology in the first place.
Of supplemental note, this irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists was anticipated thousands of years ago by Aristotle’s argument for final causality.
The fact that ‘the whole’ can never be reduced to ‘the parts’, as is assumed within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution, also plays out with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem as well it plays out with recent findings in quantum mechanics:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/huge-mystery-why-are-embryos-timed-correctly/#comment-692122