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
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Diogenes is ignorant of the fact that his position cannot account for RNA editing, nor the genes the mRNA was transcribed from.Joe
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
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
February 18, 2015
February
02
Feb
18
18
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
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
February 16, 2015
February
02
Feb
16
16
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
wd400, what is the mechanism of inheritance that does not use DNA, pray tell?Mapou
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
‘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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Maybe learn what epigenetics is first, it be definition doesn't involve changes to genetics sequences.wd400
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
#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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
#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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Piotr Please give some evidence that it evolved in the usual way whatever that means.....Andre
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Ppolish What do you mean lucky? these squids editing their RNA is just what Darwin predicted.Andre
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
. "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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Piotr, Please focus on the fact that unguided evolution cannot explain RNA editing.Joe
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
#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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply