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
Unguided evolution cannot account for RNA editing, Nick Matzke. So that would be a problem for your position.Joe
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Not one of those references directly address the evolution of the bacterial flagellum via unguided processes.Joe
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
A significant number of the 80 references in Pallen & Matzke 2006, directly address the evolution of bacterial flagellum.Curly Howard
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
"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://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291bornagain77
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
#6, 7 Joe is clueless as usual, so he just repeats his immortal mantras.Piotr
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
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
February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
“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
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
The squid is acting according to my Nonrandom Evolutionary Hypothesis (NREH)Lee Spetner
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
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
February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply