Posted on 04/06/2006 11:29:38 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Oregon researchers prove system reducibility occurs in a Darwinian fashion.
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.
The research was led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and will be published in the April 7 issue of SCIENCE.
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.
"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."
The scientists used state-of-the-art statistical and molecular methods to unravel the evolution of an elegant example of molecular complexity – the specific partnership of the hormone aldosterone, which regulates behavior and kidney function, along with the receptor protein that allows the body's cells to respond to the hormone. They resurrected the ancestral receptor gene – which existed more than 450 million years ago, before the first animals with bones appeared on Earth – and characterized its molecular functions. The experiments showed that the receptor had the capacity to be activated by aldosterone long before the hormone actually evolved.
Thornton's group then showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it "preadapated" to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved. By recapitulating the evolution of the receptor's DNA sequence, the scientists showed that only two mutations were required to evolve the receptor's present-day functions in humans.
"The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution," Thornton said. "So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works. By reaching back to the ancestral forms of genes, we were able to show just how this crucial hormone-receptor pair evolved."
The study's other researchers include Jamie T. Bridgham, postdoctorate research associate in evolutionary biology and Sean M. Carroll, graduate research fellow in biology. The work was funded by National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health grants and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship recently awarded to Thornton.
|
There's a pair of twins. Both strawmen.
oh, this'll be entertaining
The article doesn't address the most interesting part: how is it that they reconstructed ancient genes in the first place?
The point of "irreducible complexity" is that a mechanism cannot function unless all the parts are present, in other words, "piecemeal evolution" doesn't address irreducible complexity.
No doubt, for Evolutionists, the finding of the fact that the sky is blue is somehow "proof" for evolution
"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism,"
Oh, my, the whining will commence shortly. I needed a good laugh.
The molecular biologists are performing wonders only some of which are noticed by the public.
Glad you've reminded the Darwinists that they can't resort to invectives when they start losing the argument.
Irreducible complexity didn't evolve, it was designed and put in place by some unknown agency that there is no evidence for, yet should be obvious to anyone.
This is excellent!
That's true, and "irreducible complexity" will always be an ever-retreating target. Whenever scientists propose a compelling theory about the evolution of a biological feature, the IDers will just retreat to the next one and say "OK, you figured out our last one, but THIS one REALLY IS irreducible! Honest!"
Welcome to the Crevo Wars. You'd better study Patrick Henry's List-O-Links before entering the meat grinder :)
According to David Berlinski,
“The term ‘Darwinism’ conveys the suggestion of a secular ideology, a global system of belief. So it does and so it surely is. Darwin’s theory has been variously used – by Darwinian biologists – to explain the development of a bipedal gait, the tendency to laugh when amused, obesity, anorexia nervosa, business negotiations, a preference for tropical landscapes, the evolutionary roots of political rhetoric, maternal love, infanticide, clan formation, marriage, divorce, certain comical sounds, funeral rites, the formation of regular verb forms, altruism, homosexuality, feminism, greed, romantic love, jealousy, warfare, monogamy, polygamy, adultery, the fact that men are pigs, recursion, sexual display, abstract art, and religious beliefs of every description.”
Don't point out the absurdity of their conclusions, because they are "scientific."
What came first, the chicken or the Darwinian explanation of the egg?
My favorite criticism about Evolution is the notion that all matter has been there all along. You see, there must be a beginning point somewhere along the line. According to Evolution, we know that the humans came from the monkeys and the monkeys came from the reptiles and the reptiles came from some pre-historical slime at the bottom of the ocean, etc, etc. Their explanations go all the way back to the “big bang”, but no matter how far these ludicrous explanations go, they still beg the redundant question of “and where did that come from?”
Apparently, the big bang came from a big cloud of Hydrogen-like gases somewhere in the center of the universe and that’s about as far back as many Evolutionary scientists would care to go. I suppose they could make up some more explanations, hypothesizing about colliding universes over gazillions of more years of what not, as if large amounts of time make this stupidity more believable, but there’s still that nagging question, “and where did that come from?” Where is the beginning? Many Evolutionary scientists are content with conceding that a big cloud of Hydrogen gas is where we all come from. That’s right. They have essentially ascribed DIVINE ATTRIBUTES to the simple element Hydrogen. (i.e.: Hydrogen had no beginning but existed from eternity past and is the origin of all life and matter.) It still doesn’t explain where the space came from to contain the universe in and where the laws came from to govern it, but the Evolutionists have essentially boiled themselves down to “Hydrogen worshippers” (Let it hereby be noted that I coined that term) These Hydrogen worshippers have the audacity to talk down on those who believe in an intelligent creator. Hmm…
Next they'll be claiming to have found fossil fish with flims.
What came first, the chicken or the Darwinian explanation of the egg?
My favorite criticism about Evolution is the notion that all matter has been there all along. You see, there must be a beginning point somewhere along the line. According to Evolution, we know that the humans came from the monkeys and the monkeys came from the reptiles and the reptiles came from some pre-historical slime at the bottom of the ocean, etc, etc. Their explanations go all the way back to the “big bang”, but no matter how far these ludicrous explanations go, they still beg the redundant question of “and where did that come from?”
Apparently, the big bang came from a big cloud of Hydrogen-like gases somewhere in the center of the universe and that’s about as far back as many Evolutionary scientists would care to go. I suppose they could make up some more explanations, hypothesizing about colliding universes over gazillions of more years of what not, as if large amounts of time make this stupidity more believable, but there’s still that nagging question, “and where did that come from?” Where is the beginning? Many Evolutionary scientists are content with conceding that a big cloud of Hydrogen gas is where we all come from. That’s right. They have essentially ascribed DIVINE ATTRIBUTES to the simple element Hydrogen. (i.e.: Hydrogen had no beginning but existed from eternity past and is the origin of all life and matter.) It still doesn’t explain where the space came from to contain the universe in and where the laws came from to govern it, but the Evolutionists have essentially boiled themselves down to “Hydrogen worshippers” (Let it hereby be noted that I coined that term) These Hydrogen worshippers have the audacity to talk down on those who believe in an intelligent creator. Hmm…
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.