Home » Intelligent Design » A Non Genetic Protein Translation Mechanism Adds More Complexity to Cellular Adaptation

A Non Genetic Protein Translation Mechanism Adds More Complexity to Cellular Adaptation

Biology’s sophisticated adaptation machine has now been discovered to be even more sophisticated. In recent years the types of adaptation often claimed to be examples of evolution in action have been found to be driven by complex mechanisms that respond to environmental pressures. It was yet another falsification of evolutionary expectations. Organisms responded far more quickly than neo Darwinism predicted, and this was because the responses were not the result of evolution’s blind variation, but rather of directed mechanisms. Gene regulation and even gene modification mechanisms have been discovered which not only implement helpful adaptations, but they implement adaptations that are heritable.  Read more

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

4 Responses to A Non Genetic Protein Translation Mechanism Adds More Complexity to Cellular Adaptation

  1. These “regulated errors” comprise a novel non-genetic mechanism by which cells can rapidly make important proteins more resistant to attack when stressed.

    Robustness is a design principle. If organisms evolve robustness, a design principle, I think an explanation is in order. Why do organisms evolve in such a way that they come to incorporate design principles? Pure luck?

  2. Mr Mung,

    If organisms evolve robustness, a design principle, I think an explanation is in order.

    How about – robust organisms outcompete nonrobust organisms?

  3. Dear Nakashima,

    How about – robust organisms outcompete nonrobust organisms?
    That answers the question why robustness will dominate the population once it is evolved. It does not answer the question why the mechanism got there in the first place.

  4. That answers the question why robustness will dominate the population once it is evolved.

    I don’t think it does. It’s a circular argument, which assumes that robustness necessarily guarantees a reproductive advantage. I don’t know why anyone should believe that.

    In top of that, it’s not like some organism evolved a robust design in some feature, it’s a question of the discovery of a design principle.

    I’m sure none of us have a problem with accepting that explanations should be reasonable. But if there is no reason for it, how can there be an explanation?

Leave a Reply