Home » Evolution, Intelligent Design, News » When enzymes are breaking Darwin’s Laws, you know the end is near.

When enzymes are breaking Darwin’s Laws, you know the end is near.

So it is safe to admit that there is something Darwinism can’t do?

From “Cell Research: Enzyme Questions Important Principle of Evolution
( ScienceDaily, July 2, 2012), we learn:

In evolutionary processes, it is the simple, economical solutions that prevail over the complex and laborious ones. A team of researchers led by Walter Rossmanith from the MedUni Vienna has now investigated the key enzyme, “ribonuclease P,” which is found in every living organism. The surprising result is that the principle of evolutionary economy does not appear to apply to this enzyme.

Hope they don’t lose their jobs.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to When enzymes are breaking Darwin’s Laws, you know the end is near.

  1. They can squirm out of it by pointing out that they used the word “appear”, and then invoking the “we know evolution is a fact” despite this gap argument. And given more time…

    Yep, given more time, maybe the laws of physics [or whatever] flux every now and then to leave a window open for Darwin to escape. Hey, isn’t that akin to the HH Guide’s improbability drive? Where are they in developing that thing anyway?

  2. 2

    I’m an evolutionary biologist. How come I’ve never heard of this supposed principle? How come you guys are just blithely assuming that the reporter knows what they are talking about?

  3. Nick,

    From the article.

    “We now want to continue comparing the two forms of the enzyme in order to understand what the possible evolutionary advantage of the complex enzyme is. After all, this actually contradicts the tendency towards economy in evolutionary processes,” says Rossmanith. The results of the study were published in the international journal Cell Reports.

    So there’s no tendency towards economy in evolutionary processes? Keep in mind, that quote is apparently from the research leader – not a reporter.

  4. Nick Matzke:

    I’m an evolutionary biologist. How come I’ve never heard of this supposed principle?

    Well you can’t be expected to know everything, Nick. And now you know something new. Life is good.

  5. @Nick.
    I’m not an evolutionary biologist (thankfully), but I do understand the evolutionary principle that the researchers were contrasting to their unexpected observations.

    And perhaps an answer to their conundrum, i.e. on why the smaller more complex enzymes were not yet reduced, is because the organisms were too busy selecting for the more important needs of removing hair from knuckles and timmming eyebrows that were too bushy.

    JGuy

  6. 6

    Nick said:

    I’m an evolutionary biologist. How come I’ve never heard of this supposed principle? How come you guys are just blithely assuming that the reporter knows what they are talking about?

    From the article:

    “We now want to continue comparing the two forms of the enzyme in order to understand what the possible evolutionary advantage of the complex enzyme is. After all, this actually contradicts the tendency towards economy in evolutionary processes,” says Rossmanith.

    Rossmanith is not the reporter for the article, is he Nick?

  7. NickMatzke_UD July 8, 2012 at 7:15 pm:
    I’m an evolutionary biologist. How come I’ve never heard of this supposed principle?

    Because you’re an incredibly mediocre evolutionary biologist who spends far more time trolling on the Internet than actually, you know, doing research.

  8. Jammer,

    Because you’re an incredibly mediocre evolutionary biologist who spends far more time trolling on the Internet than actually, you know, doing research.

    I’m sorry but do the moderators of this forum find such comments acceptable? If I made a such a comment about one of the other participants I’d expect to be called on it.

Leave a Reply