Squid edit their genes to adapt quickly to their surroundings

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 14, 2015

Darwinism, Genetics, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Click to enlarge — Doryteuthis pealeii squid recode genes to fit in/NOAA

The principle of adaptation — the gradual modification of a species’ structures and features — is one of the pillars of evolution. While there exists ample evidence to support the slow, ongoing process that alters the genetic makeup of a species, scientists could only suspect that there were also organisms capable of transforming themselves ad hoc to adjust to changing conditions.

Now a new study published in eLife by Dr. Eli Eisenberg of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Physics and Sagol School of Neuroscience, in collaboration with Dr. Joshua J. Rosenthal of the University of Puerto Rico, showcases the first example of an animal editing its own genetic makeup on-the-fly to modify most of its proteins, enabling adjustments to its immediate surroundings. The research, conducted in part by TAU graduate student Shahar Alon, explored RNA editing in the Doryteuthis pealeii squid.

“We have demonstrated that RNA editing is a major player in genetic information processing rather than an exception to the rule,” said Dr. Eisenberg. “By showing that the squid’s RNA-editing dramatically reshaped its entire proteome — the entire set of proteins expressed by a genome, cell, tissue, or organism at a certain time — we proved that an organism’s self-editing of mRNA is a critical evolutionary and adaptive force.”

“It was astonishing to find that 60 percent of the squid RNA transcripts were edited. The fruit fly, for the sake of comparison, is thought to edit only 3% of its makeup,” said Dr. Eisenberg. “Why do squid edit to such an extent? One theory is that they have an extremely complex nervous system, exhibiting behavioral sophistication unusual for invertebrates. They may also utilize this mechanism to respond to changing temperatures and other environmental parameters.”

Well, if an extremely complex nervous system, plus the need to adapt, explains this, we should expect to see primates doing it too. Stay tuned.

How, exactly, did all this develop via natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism)? Nothing about the system is random.

File under: “Darwin doubters, shut up, shut up, and just shut up. We are, for your information, working on an explanation that every tenured bore will accept.”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

wd400: Just. Stop. Sure. As soon as you demonstrate that you exist in the same reality as the rest of us. Mung

Diogenes: Kindly, drop the ad homs and sneers, if you have substance they are superfluous. If not, they just reveal dark corners of your character. I interpret your assertions above as an informal offer to submit an answer to the longstanding UD Darwinism essay challenge. The link provides sufficient information. Or, if you are not up to actually warranting per observational facts the evolutionary materialism claim WRT the tree of life from root up, simply provide sound substantiation per observation of cases in which FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of functionally specific complex information have been produced by blind chance and mechanical necessity . . . as opposed to inadvertently or intentionally injected active information. I forget, as you add IC to the list. Okie, provide also a case in which the Menuge criteria C1 - 5 have been soundly answered per direct observed incremental origin of IC, or else by exaptation, equally observed. Just-so stories on the deep unobserved past need not apply. Fair advice, on many dozens of claimed cases over the years, invariably the claimed case has boiled down to intelligently directed configuration or else a twisting of what is on the table (e.g. the design inference explanatory filter is not a universal decoder method or algorithm, for obvious reasons as such almost certainly do not exist). Okay, let us know your answer. KF kairosfocus

diogenes:
Alas, we’ve seen evolution produce irreducible complexity and specified complexity.
No, no one has ever seen unguided evolution producing IC and SC. You are a liar.
Do you suppose that’s why there is not a single peer-reviewed article supporting Dembski’s specified complexity or IC as markers of intelligent design in biology, outside BIO-complexity?
There aren't any papers that support unguided evolution. Not one. No one knows how to test the premise. And AGAIN- Evolution is NOT being debated you ignorant equivocator. Grow up and learn what is actually being debated. You are pathetic. Joe

vel:
Sorry Joe, there is no info on how many molecules of water it takes to be water
There is info on how many water molecules it takes to form an ice crystal- 275 to get the process going and 475 to complete it. Joe

Joe Security Clearance says: Only intelligent design evolution can produce IC and SC.
Alas, we've seen evolution produce irreducible complexity and specified complexity. But you keep dreaming, Joe. Do you suppose that's why there is not a single peer-reviewed article supporting Dembski's specified complexity or IC as markers of intelligent design in biology, outside BIO-complexity? A vanity journal that published one, yes one research article in the last year. The Wedge Document was written 1998. 17 years later, the only place where IDiots can publish fantasies like
Only intelligent design evolution can produce IC and SC.
is in a vanity journal whose editors outnumber its authors, and that publishes one research article per year. The number of articles published with "evolution" as a keyword is about 40,000 per year, Joe. The Wedge Document's "20 Year Goals" have three years left. Do you suppose the fact that we've observed evolution creating IC and SC might explain the failure of those goals? Diogenes

vel: How many molecules of H2O does it take to become water? Look it up What is the surface tension of water in a gas form? Look it up Is water designed? That is what the evidence says. Sorry Joe, there is no info on how many molecules of water it takes to be water velikovskys

Diogenes:
No Joe, we have seen evolution create beneficial mutations, irreducible complexity and specified complexity.
Only intelligent design evolution can produce IC and SC.
VJ Torley admitted that by his calculations, gene duplication creates specified complexity.
You have no idea what is being debated and you think your ignorance means something. Strange.
But we have never seen invisible spooks make any of those things.
ID doesn't need invisible spooks. Your desperation is amusing.
But as for your “accounting”, a supernatural allegation of cause is not an explanation.
But your position's "shit happens" is?
Moreover, you appear to have forgotten that ID proponents say that intelligence is not a mechanism,
As if- Design is a mechanism
that ID is not a mechanistic theory,
And you have no idea what that means.
and that mechanistic theories are bad.
No, YOUR position's mechanistic nonsense is bad. You are very proud of your ignorance. Strange Joe

vel:
How many molecules of H2O does it take to become water?
Look it up
What is the surface tension of water in a gas form?
Look it up
Is water designed?
That is what the evidence says. Joe

Joe, There isn’t any such thing as a molecule of water. A water molecule is not water. That is just the name given to H2O. How many molecules of H2O does it take to become water? What is the surface tension of one molecule of H2O? What is the surface tension of water in a gas form? Is water designed? velikovskys

By calling on the only mechanism capable of producing them- intelligent design.
No Joe, we have seen evolution create beneficial mutations, irreducible complexity and specified complexity. VJ Torley admitted that by his calculations, gene duplication creates specified complexity. But we have never seen invisible spooks make any of those things. But as for your "accounting", a supernatural allegation of cause is not an explanation. In fairy tales if I ask "Wait Snow White ass dead, why is she alive again", and you say "A prince kissed her" that is a supernatural allegation of cause. In science, that is not an explanation. Moreover, you appear to have forgotten that ID proponents say that intelligence is not a mechanism, that ID is not a mechanistic theory, and that mechanistic theories are bad. You IDiots are supposed to be proud of having no mechanism. Diogenes

Transcription and translation doesn't occur in Oocytes? Really???? Perhaps not but they do get mRNAs from mom.
By the way, Joe, how does the ID hypothesis account for anything biological at all?
By calling on the only mechanism capable of producing them- intelligent design. Water has a tensile strength and a molecular matrix- one molecule of H2O has neither. What is the surface tension of one molecule of H2O? Joe

Joe Security Clearance writes: There isn’t any such thing as a molecule of water. A water molecule is not water. That is just the name given to H2O. Tell me, Joe, what is the mechanism by which a post-edited mRNA could get passed on to the next generation. Reproduction.
Reproduction? A mechanism that is known to NOT pass on mRNAs? We know that reproduction does not pass on mRNAs, Joe. I did not ask how heredity was passed on-- I asked for the mechanism of post-edited mRNA gets passed on. By the way, Joe, how does the ID hypothesis account for anything biological at all? DNA, RNA, RNA editing, anything? "It happened by a magic puff of smoke" is an allegation of supernatural cause; it does not "account" for things. If you have a cancerous tumor and you say to your doctor, "How did this happen?", "It happened by a magic supernatural puff of smoke" is not an accounting. It's just a supernatural allegation of cause. "Magic supernatural puff of smoke" has been invoked as the ID hypothesis by Behe, Dembski and Berlinski.
Larry Arnhart writes: A few years ago, I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe's lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms that cannot--according to Behe--be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: "A puff of smoke!" – [Larry Arnhart’s Darwinian Conservatism blog, September 07, 2006.]
So Joe, can you point to one scientific reference where we have seen an immaterial spirit change one nucleotide of any genome anywhere? Just one nucleotide? No? No? Because we've observed evolution increasing information and specified complexity. VJ Torley admitted gene duplication increases specified complexity. But you've never seen invisible spooks create ANYTHING. Well, you've always got "wavelength = frequency", "mRNAs are passed on", and "there's no such thing as one molecule of water." That's some scary talent, Security Clearance. Diogenes

Diogenes, when your position can explain reproduction, DNA, mRNA and mRNA editing, please get back to us. Joe

There isn't any such thing as a molecule of water. A water molecule is not water. That is just the name given to H2O.
Tell me, Joe, what is the mechanism by which a post-edited mRNA could get passed on to the next generation.
Reproduction. Joe

Joe Security Clearance says: mRNAs are molecules and I am sure they get passed down to
No Joe, you were wrong again. As I just stated a second ago, mRNAs are not and cannot be passed down unless, as I just stated, "a reverse transcriptase and DNA splicing can cause mRNA to be inherited." This is like the "frequency = wavelength" blunder where Joe says something ignorant and ridiculous and then by doubling down on his lies, he thinks he's, what-- saving face or something? Or when he said "there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water." Like just saying, "So sorry, thank you for correcting me" would be a loss of face or something, so doubling down on lies saves his-- what, his prestige? But let's say I'm wrong. Tell me, Joe, what is the mechanism by which a post-edited mRNA could get passed on to the next generation. A reference to the scientific literature would be nice, but that would be like asking a witch doctor to reference JAMA. So I'll just let you speculate, Joe. Just speculate about a hypothetical mechanism by which a post-edited mRNA can get passed down hereditarily. DNA --> transcription --> mRNA --> editing --> edited mRNA ---> ??? what next ?? Go. Tell me the next step, Security Clearance, by which post-edited mRNA gets passed on to the offspring. Diogenes

Piotr:
But why “actively”?
Why not?
The squid doesn’t do anything to edit it.
How do you know?
As it migrates to a colder environment, the temperature change triggers some biochemical reactions, causing increased expression of Adar enzymes in the squid’s neurons; these in turn catalyse A-to-I changes in mRNA.
Sounds like a "built-in response to environmental cues" to me. Joe

Joe, So perhaps Squid actively edit their mRNA to adapt quickly to their surroundings would be more appropriate. Almost. But why "actively"? The squid doesn't do anything to edit it. As it migrates to a colder environment, the temperature change triggers some biochemical reactions, causing increased expression of Adar enzymes in the squid's neurons; these in turn catalyse A-to-I changes in mRNA. "Squid adapt to temperature changes thanks to mRNA editing" would be more accurate, but of course hardly sensational. P.S. It's likely but a little conjectural that the mRNA recoding is a temperature-related adaptation. Piotr

The real lesson here is that adaptation to environmental pressures has very little to do with the Darwinian (RM + NS) BS but with front loading. This means that the designers anticipated the need to respond to such changes. Mapou

mRNAs are molecules and I am sure they get passed down too
No, that has not happened.
Of course it does. Also your position still cannot account for squids, DNA nor RNA editing. And we understand that bothers you. Joe

Joe and other UDiots "compensate" for past blunders with newer, ever more hilarious blunders!
Joe Security Clearance: A gene includes the RNA transcript... ...the RNA transcript is also referred to as a gene.
Funnier and funnier as it goes along. This is one of Joe's "wavelength = frequency" level blunders.
mRNAs are molecules and I am sure they get passed down to
No, that has not happened. Only a reverse transcriptase and DNA splicing can cause mRNA to be inherited and that's not the case with these squids. No, no post-edited mRNA is inherited here. Your certainty, your surety, is a bigger problem than your ignorance.
News isn't a scientist.
No $%&#, Joe. Every post at UD proves it. But her pompous certainty that she knows more science than the world's scientists is a bigger problem than her ignorance. It's your egos, your narcissism that's a bigger problem than your ignorance. We can cure your ignorance. We can't cure your egomania. Diogenes

OK mRNAs are molecules and I am sure they get passed down to.
Just. Stop. wd400

Why can no IDer admit someone on their “team” made a mistake?
The mistake came from science daily and trickled down. News isn't a scientist... Joe

wd400:
A gene is the molecular unit of heredity.
OK mRNAs are molecules and I am sure they get passed down to.
Changes in mRNA transcripts aren’t inherited.
The ability to edit mRNA is inherited. Does that ability reside in the DNA? Where? Joe

OK News, you should change the title to: Squid edit their genetic makeup to adapt quickly to their surroundings- nope that is also wrong as genetic makeup refers to DNA. Geez science daily messed up and it trickled down. So perhaps Squid actively edit their mRNA to adapt quickly to their surroundings would be more appropriate. Joe

Look at your own quoted definition Joe. A gene is the molecular unit of heredity. Changes in mRNA transcripts aren't inherited. It's really that simple. Why can no IDer admit someone on their "team" made a mistake? wd400

DNA does not code for a polypeptide. DNA codes for RNAs. Processed mRNAs code for polypeptides. Joe

Imagine advertising your ignorance with such vacuous bombast, Diogenes. Surely, your first instinct, namely, to confine yourself to life within the confines of a barrel, was the only sound recourse open to you. You shouldn't have looked a gift-horse in the mouth, like that. Axel

The mRNA is what actually codes for the protein. Joe

Joe, in context, the Wikipedia article is referring to RNA genomes (viral). In that case, RNA is the genetic material, and it harbors genes. mRNA transcripts are not referred to as genes in common usage. "or for an RNA chain that has a function in the organism" is so vague as to be meaningless. No one would call the ribosomal or tranfer RNAs genes. REC

diogenes:
O’Leary stupidly said that RNA editing was the editing of the DNA of genes.
Only an ignoramus would say that and here you are. Well now you know that the RNA transcript is also referred to as a gene. Joe

A gene is the molecular unit of heredity of a living organism. It is used extensively by the scientific community as a name given to some stretches of deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) and ribonucleic acids (RNA) that code for a polypeptide or for an RNA chain that has a function in the organism.
Got that? A gene includes the RNA transcript. Joe

Diogenes is ignorant of the fact that his position cannot account for RNA editing, nor the genes the mRNA was transcribed from. Joe

It's pathetic yet laughable that not even one UDiot knew enough basic, basic biology to catch basic-level scientific blunders in this (and every) post by O'Leary. What's worse is that ID perps double down on their childish lies. When Dr. Marzke and Dr. Gasiorowicz correct you moronic non-scientists and antiscience extremists on your basic level scientific blunders, and you respond by attacking instead of thanking them, it changes from being mere ID incompetence and stupidity into lying and calculated fraud. O'Leary stupidly said that RNA editing was the editing of the DNA of genes. She was wrong and cited a scientific paper AS HER AUTHORITY. When Dr. Matzke corrects your blunders, he does you a favor, so BA77's comeback is to accuse Matzke of "fraud" for proving you UDiots wrong again and again. Now Mapou tells us that O'Leary's fictional story is true, but the authors of the paper that O'Leary cited AS HER AUTHORITY were conspiring to hide the evidence that the brain-farts and blunders of UDiots are factually accurat. It's just that the evidence you need was hidden by the conspiracy:
The fact that the article does not mention the origin of the editing is telling. It tells us that the authors are hiding something that is inconvenient to their religious materialist paradigm.
O'Leary cited this article AS HER AUTHORITY, Mapou, as her source of facts. When Dr. Matzke shows you non-scientists that she did not understand a single sentence in the article she cited, you UDiots suddenly discover that the source she just cited AS HER AUTHORITY is now revealed as part of the International Darwinist conspiracy. It wasn't part of the Darwinist conspiracy a second ago when O'Leary cited it as her evidence against evolution, but when Dr. Matzke explained to you UDiots what your trusted source actually said, your source suddenly became part of the Darwinist conspiracy.
mRNA is known to transcribe specific sequences from DNA. DNA cannot edit mRNA sequences. It’s just a gene. About all it can do is copy itself. Something else must be changing the genes resulting in different mRNA transcriptions. The whole concept of “RNA editing” is highly suspect and almost certainly a lie.
Here we have paranoid delusions in full flower-- the sort of paranoia that says the Moon landing was faked.This is pure antiscience extremism: the evidence proving ID proponents are WRONG AGAIN is dismissed as proof of a scientific conspiracy to make ID proponents look grossly uneducated. But no conspiracy is necessary; you make yourselves look that way. Diogenes

Learning, culture, and a squid "editing its own genetic makeup on-the-fly to modify most of its proteins" is evidence for guided purposeful evolution. Darn good evidence. Sure, it is evidence for blind unguided purposeless evolution also. Just use your imagination, you'll see evidence for that too if you want. It's a stretch, sure. But blind unguided purposeless is so very stretchable:) RM & NS? No evidence. Zero. Nada. ppolish

I don't know what this question has to do with your misunderstandings above. But learning and culture are types of non genetic inheritance. wd400

wd400, what is the mechanism of inheritance that does not use DNA, pray tell? Mapou

‘Epigenetics’ has been corrupted by the usual suspects to mean something other than what it really means: genetically inheritable adaptation
No. That's (more or less) the modern synthesis. wd400

We all know how dishonest Darwinists can be in their definitions, don't we, wd400? 'Epigenetics' has been corrupted by the usual suspects to mean something other than what it really means: genetically inheritable adaptation. Of course, since this meaning is against the teaching of Darwinism, it cannot be accepted by the miscreants. So epigenetics is now defined as a change in gene expression that is inheritable but does not involve any change in DNA. This would be laughable if it weren't so effing pathetic. Mapou

Maybe learn what epigenetics is first, it be definition doesn't involve changes to genetics sequences. wd400

wd400:
Then you should learn what RNA editing means.
They just assumed it was RNA editing without checking. That's my point. What if it were a case of epigenetics? Mapou

Piotr, Interesting, I didn't follow up that citation. Sounds a very adaptationist explanation, but something to test at least. Would be fun to see how the "function is utlra-specified" school of ID would deal with that hypothesis being true. wd400

Piotr, Give me a break. I was speaking within the context of the linked article in the OP and its use of “RNA editing” without mentioning the origin. It’s a sure bet that the observed mRNA changes in the squids are caused by changes in the corresponding DNA, which are inheritable.
Then you should learn what RNA editing means. wd400

Piotr, Give me a break. I was speaking within the context of the linked article in the OP and its use of "RNA editing" without mentioning the origin. It's a sure bet that the observed mRNA changes in the squids are caused by changes in the corresponding DNA, which are inheritable. Mapou

#31 Mapou,
You don’t know that.
So you read stuff but don't understand what you read. RNA-editing takes place after transcription, so how on earth can it affect DNA? If you photocopy a page from a book and then make notes on the copy, the original text is not altered.
The fact that the article does not mention the origin of the editing is telling. It tells us that the authors are hiding something that is inconvenient to their religious materialist paradigm.
It only tells us that the article is about something entirely different. The authors investigate the extent of A-to-I RNA editing in one particular tissue of one particular cephalopod species. Why should they go off on a tangent to discuss "origins" questions?
mRNA is known to transcribe specific sequences from DNA. DNA cannot edit mRNA sequences. It’s just a gene. About all it can do is copy itself. Something else must be changing the genes resulting in different mRNA transcriptions. The whole concept of “RNA editing” is highly suspect and almost certainly a lie. It’s a sure bet that, below the surface, it’s just DNA editing. Darwinists are such cowards. What a bunch of pussies.
Oh dear. May I suggest you should read up on RNA editing? Nothing technical, just the basics. You wouldn't embarass yourself by packing too much nonsense into one short paragraph. These particular RNA modifications (conversion of adenosine to inosine) are carried out by a well-known enzyme, ADAR (adenosine deaminase), which is a protein encoded for by a gene (i.e., DNA sequence). Piotr

Piotr:
Congratulations if you’ve had a look at the article. But if you have, it can’t have escaped your noctice that it says nothing about the origin of the RNA “recoding” mechanism. Of course it is ultimately determined by the squid’s DNA sequence and inherited from generation to generation; temperature changes are needed to trigger its operation. But the editing itself does not affect DNA in any manner.
You don't know that. The fact that the article does not mention the origin of the editing is telling. It tells us that the authors are hiding something that is inconvenient to their religious materialist paradigm. mRNA is known to transcribe specific sequences from DNA. DNA cannot edit mRNA sequences. It's just a gene. About all it can do is copy itself. Something else must be changing the genes resulting in different mRNA transcriptions. The whole concept of "RNA editing" is highly suspect and almost certainly a lie. It's a sure bet that, below the surface, it's just DNA editing. Darwinists are such cowards. What a bunch of pussies.
ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…
What’s this? The last words of Joseph of Arimathea?
Nope. It's me laughing while holding a bag of cheetos in one hand and a beer in the other. I'll hit the bong later. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… Mapou

Mapau, yes I was joking with the "Bottom line - squids got lucky fast" . And agree with the rest of your post. Evolution is guided and purposeful - that's what I was taught by my Theistic Evolution brothers and lay teachers. Although the evidence has increased incredibly since those days. "Unguided & purposeless" lol. Never understood how folks can believe in that:) ppolish

#28 wd400, There's actually some evidence (cited in the article) that this kind of RNA editing is a form of cold-temperature adaptation, perhaps common among ectothermic animals (though this would require further research). Piotr

Just to recap here. The title says squid edit their genes to adapt to their environment, but in fact the paper doesn't say squid edit their genes and there is no evidence the editing they do use is adapting them to an environment. And y'all are angry with Piotr for pointing this out? Shouldn't "coverage" like this be an embarrassment to ID? wd400

Piotr Please give some evidence that it evolved in the usual way whatever that means..... Andre

Mapou,
Funny. You’re pointing the finger at me for having a shallow understanding while spewing out a turd. I love it. LOL. The article specifically said the experiment looked at messenger RNA (mRNA). The edited mRNA takes information from DNA to the ribosome. This is how we know which gene sequences are expressed. There can be no RNA editing unless the source DNA has been modified, i.e., mutated. And we’re not talking about random mutation either.
Congratulations if you've had a look at the article. But if you have, it can't have escaped your noctice that it says nothing about the origin of the RNA "recoding" mechanism. Of course it is ultimately determined by the squid's DNA sequence and inherited from generation to generation; temperature changes are needed to trigger its operation. But the editing itself does not affect DNA in any manner.
And one more thing, if it were just RNA and not DNA editing, the changes could not be inherited by offsprings, could they? But we know the changes are inheritable. Remember Darwin’s finches and their little beaks?
If by "the changes" you mean temperature-regulated changes in gene expression -- they take place in a somatic tissue, don't alter DNA sequence, and are not passed on to the next generation. They are not mutations, either. It's the capability for individual adaptation that is inherited, not the adaptation itself. Got it, Mapou? Of course this capability must have evolved in the normal way, with mutations happening first and some of them getting fixed in the population. The article says nothing about those mutations, and there's absolutely nothing in it to suggest that they were somehow non-random.
Don’t you just love epigenetics? It makes Darwinian evolution (RM+NS) not just unnecessary, but downright stupid. Why is Darwinism still being taught in our schools? It’s scandalous.
Evolution is not just RM+NS, and I'm not a "Darwinist" in the technical sense, so the above is a strawman. Popular science and school courses tend to emphasise natural selection and neglect other aspects of evolution. Which said, I must ask you why RNA editing should be inconsistent with natural selection. The particular mechanism developed by Doryteuthis certainly looks adaptive, and there's no reason why it shouldn't have been fixed by natural selection.
ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…
What's this? The last words of Joseph of Arimathea? Piotr

Ppolish What do you mean lucky? these squids editing their RNA is just what Darwin predicted. Andre

ppolish:
Bottom line, squids got lucky fast.
I'm not sure if you're joking but luck has nothing to do with it. The animal was obviously designed to thrive in many different environments: cold, warm, high or low pressure, all sorts of preys and predators, high or low salinity, etc. By the way, this is not a squid thing. All living organisms use epigenetics to adapt. Some trees are so good at it that they can have one genetic signature at the bottom near the roots and a different one at the top. Darwinism is looking more and more like a total dud. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha… Mapou

. "Why do squid edit to such an extent? One theory is that they have an extremely complex nervous system, exhibiting behavioral sophistication unusual for invertebrates. They may also utilize this mechanism to respond to changing temperatures and other environmental parameters." What does "behavioral sophistication" have to do with blind unguided purposeless evolution? And why use the term "edit" - that implies an editor. Bottom line, squids got lucky fast. ppolish

Nick Matzke. What junk DNA Nick? Do you suck these claims from your wet socks? Nobody talks about junk DNA anymore unless, you're a committed Darwin fanatic. Andre

Piotr, Please focus on the fact that unguided evolution cannot explain RNA editing. Joe

Piotr, it is not slander, but a proven fact. Nick Matzke's whole gambit is the literature bluff (and ad hominem). That you refuse to accept the fact that he is a liar after you were clearly shown that he is (on numerous occasions no less) matters not to me. In fact it reveals you as a dishonest dogmatist too! bornagain77

Piotr:
Mapou is another ID genius who rarely reads beyond the title or brief summary. What “mutations” are you talking about, Mapou? RNA editing is not “mutations”.
Funny. You're pointing the finger at me for having a shallow understanding while spewing out a turd. I love it. LOL. The article specifically said the experiment looked at messenger RNA (mRNA). The edited mRNA takes information from DNA to the ribosome. This is how we know which gene sequences are expressed. There can be no RNA editing unless the source DNA has been modified, i.e., mutated. And we're not talking about random mutations either. And one more thing, if it were just RNA and not DNA editing, the changes could not be inherited by offsprings, could they? But we know the changes are inheritable. Remember Darwin's finches and their little beaks? Don't you just love epigenetics? It makes Darwinian evolution (RM+NS) not just unnecessary, but downright stupid. Why is Darwinism still being taught in our schools? It's scandalous. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... Mapou

#16 BA77, I disagree with your slanderous characterisation of Nick Matzke, but the whole question is off-topic -- a red herring, in fact. Last time I checked, Nick Matzke was not a squid. The present thread is (or rather ought to be) about A-to-I RNA editing in the giant axons of a species of squid, not about the evolution of bacterial flagella. Whatever Nick has or hasn't said about the latter is of zero relevance for the topic under discussion. Can you guys and gals focus on one subject for a moment, or do you have to dash about and make irrelevant noises like a kid with ADHD? Piotr

The 'problem' of the flagellum has only gotten exponentially worse for Darwinists: The Bacterial Flagellum: A Paradigm for Design - Jonathan M. - Sept. 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, so striking is the appearance of intelligent design that researchers have modelled the assembly process (of the bacterial flagellum) in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations (McAuley et al.). Not only does the flagellum manifestly exhibit engineering principles, but the engineering involved is far superior to humanity’s best achievements. The flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity in spades. In all of our experience of cause-and-effect, we know that phenomena of this kind are uniformly associated with only one type of cause – one category of explanation – and that is intelligent mind. Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down. http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum Engineering at Its Finest: Bacterial Chemotaxis and Signal Transduction - JonathanM - September 2011 Excerpt: The bacterial flagellum represents not just a problem of irreducible complexity. Rather, the problem extends far deeper than that. What we are now observing is the existence of irreducibly complex systems within irreducibly complex systems. How random mutations, coupled with natural selection, could have assembled such a finely set-up system is a question to which I defy any Darwinist to give a sensible answer. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/engineering_at_its_finest_bact050911.html Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered - December 3, 2012 Excerpt: Get a load of this -- a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli. If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,, Harvard's mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella. "Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath.... the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle." To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/souped-up_flage066921.html Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors - 2011 Excerpt: Figure 3 - Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/figure/f3/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/ bornagain77

So Piotr, checking Nick Matzke's facts and finding them fraudulent is of no concern for you? But why do you demand such over the top rigorous honesty from IDists if you don't expect at least a little honesty from your own side of neo-Darwinism in regards to its claims? bornagain77

Unguided evolution cannot account for RNA editing, Nick Matzke. So that would be a problem for your position. Joe

Not one of those references directly address the evolution of the bacterial flagellum via unguided processes. Joe

BA77 No, we mean checking the damn facts. If I were to comment on a journal article, I would bloody well read it first. I'd read the bloody article, not just the title, the abstract, or some random science reporter's inaccurate summary. There's no excuse for failing to read the article you comment on, especially if it's open access stuff. I'm still waiting for Mme News to correct the misleading headline, but I'm not holding my breath. Piotr

A significant number of the 80 references in Pallen & Matzke 2006, directly address the evolution of bacterial flagellum. Curly Howard

"Don’t ID guys EVER check ANYTHING?" Such as checking the fraudulent claims of Nick Matzke??? A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html "A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00 Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291 bornagain77

The Discovery Institute made the same pretty catastrophic error: https://twitter.com/NickJMatzke/status/567018209120104448 DNA editing, i.e. to "edit the genes" (Uncommon Descent, direct quote) or "Squid Recodes Its Own DNA" (Discovery Institute, direct quote) would be a big deal. But the press release doesn't talk about DNA editing, it talks about RNA editing. But RNA editing is ubiquitous, e.g. splicing out introns, and is especially common in larger genomes (those with lots of junk DNA). The original article is talking about mostly A-to-I RNA editing, a form of RNA editing which is generally thought to be rarer, but they discovered to be common in these shrimp. I can see how some reporter could get this wrong, but anyone who knows basic biology should have spotted the problem. Don't ID guys EVER check ANYTHING? NickMatzke_UD

Cowardly Piotr with it's usual cowardly spewage. Can't deal with the facts so Piotr is forced to attack me. I know it bothers Piotr that his position cannot account for any nervous system... Joe

#6, 7 Joe is clueless as usual, so he just repeats his immortal mantras. Piotr

Piotr's just upset because his position cannot account for the squid, the editing mechanism nor DNA. Piotr is a evo genius who couldn't support his position if his life depended on it. Joe

Piotr:
The editing takes place in its nervous cells (giant axons) and seems to be triggered by temperature changes (not by the squids’s decisions), possibly to alter some functions of the nervous system depending on that particular factor.
Lee Spetner calls that "built-in responses to environmental cues<" Unguided evolution cannot account for alternative gene splicing/ exon editing. Joe

Mapou is another ID genius who rarely reads beyond the title or brief summary. What "mutations" are you talking about, Mapou? RNA editing is not "mutations". Piotr

Well, if an extremely complex nervous system, plus the need to adapt, explains this, we should expect to see primates doing it too. Stay tuned.
The full article is free. Why didn't you read it and used only the ScienceDaily squib? This is bound to produce several layers of errors and misinterpretations. You got it backwards. Doryteuthis does not edit its RNA because it's so intelligent. The editing takes place in its nervous cells (giant axons) and seems to be triggered by temperature changes (not by the squids's decisions), possibly to alter some functions of the nervous system depending on that particular factor. The squid's genes, or DNA sequences in general (as opposed to their transcripts) are not modified in the process, so will you please change the incorrect title of the OP? Piotr

“We have demonstrated that RNA editing is a major player in genetic information processing rather than an exception to the rule,” said Dr. Eisenberg. “By showing that the squid’s RNA-editing dramatically reshaped its entire proteome — the entire set of proteins expressed by a genome, cell, tissue, or organism at a certain time — we proved that an organism’s self-editing of mRNA is a critical evolutionary and adaptive force.”
Now if Dr. Eisenberg could "self-edit" his own information processing to reshape his thoughts more in line with what he observes we will have seen a critical evolutionary and adaptive force indeed. awstar

The squid is acting according to my Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH) Lee Spetner

After all, as we all know, Darwinists don't need no stinking random mutations, right? Uh, never mind. Just kidding. Random mutations: Evolution is corroborated by the evidence. Non-random mutations: Evolution is once again corroborated by the evidence. Did I get it right? Mapou

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply