Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Squid edit their genes to adapt quickly to their surroundings

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Doryteuthis pealeii squid recode genes to fit in/NOAA

From ScienceDaily:

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:A small cup of coffee.JPG 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
February 20, 2015
February
02
Feb
20
20
2015
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
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
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
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
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
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
February 19, 2015
February
02
Feb
19
19
2015
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
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 watervelikovskys
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
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. StrangeJoe
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Diogenes, when your position can explain reproduction, DNA, mRNA and mRNA editing, please get back to us.Joe
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
OK mRNAs are molecules and I am sure they get passed down to.
Just. Stop.wd400
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
DNA does not code for a polypeptide. DNA codes for RNAs. Processed mRNAs code for polypeptides.Joe
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
The mRNA is what actually codes for the protein.Joe
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply