The institute's scientists, who responded to a reader's response on the website, revealed another touch of the secrets of evolution
Livnat Afriat and Prof. Dan Toufik. Evolution in vitro
a quote:
"I like nonsense. They stimulate the brain cells."
Dr. Seuss (Theodor Seuss Geisel) American author and illustrator (1991-1904)
Published on the Institute's magazine website on 27/11/2006
The magazine "The Institute" has been, for a year, a part of the largest Internet portal in Israel, Ynet. Along with the extensive exposure to the site's surfers, the institute's scientists also encounter one of the most controversial phenomena on the web: the "talkback", direct responses from surfers who don't always bother to read the article before commenting on it. Usually, the "talkback" is nothing more than a price that anyone who wants to send their messages online has to pay. This is one of the problematic aspects of
Internet surfers' freedom. But in at least one case, a "talkback" to an article published on Ynet spurred Prof. Dan Toufik, from the Department of Biological Chemistry at the Weizmann Institute of Science, to research in which he revealed the evolutionary roots of an enzyme found in soil bacteria that allows them to break down a certain pesticide (from the group of organic phosphorus), first created about 60 years ago. Here the question arose, how did bacteria develop, within a few decades (the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms), an enzyme that breaks down the pesticide so efficiently. Did the enzyme appear out of nowhere, or did it evolve from an existing enzyme?
In an article that appeared on Ynet, a study was described in which the members of Prof. Tawfik's research group showed that the evolution process can take advantage of occasional secondary actions (a sort of "mixing") that different enzymes can perform alongside their main activity. Sometimes, when there is a need for it, and when the enzyme "excels" in performing the "Khaltura", the side occupation of the enzyme can become its main occupation. This is evolution in action. In fact, as a result of evolutionary pressure, the activities can alternate: an activity that was originally central will "degenerate" into an occasional side activity, while a "haltoristic" activity can, when necessary, develop into the main activity of the enzyme. Prof. Tofik and the members of his research group activated a rapid evolutionary path in the laboratory, which led to an increase in the scope of the "haltoristic" activity of various enzymes.
In the study described in the article, the scientists examined, among other things, a certain enzyme, called PTE. The main activity of this enzyme is to break down the modern pesticide praoxone (also known as parathion). At the same time, it also performs, at a relatively low level of activity, a modest "catalysis": breaking down substances known as ketones.
This is where the talkbist who identified himself as "Yoda" came into action. After a few general sentences condemning the theory of evolution, he presented the scientists with a proposal: "Recreate the protein from which the studied protein evolved. I'm sure you will quickly come to the conclusion that there has never been a protein before it."
Prof. Toufik and research student Livnat Afriat accepted the challenge. Since until 60 years ago the bacteria did not need an enzyme that knows how to break down a modern pesticide, they estimated that the original function of this enzyme was different, and that the ability to break down a pesticide was previously a dormant ability, a hidden "reward" that did not actually come to fruition. This is how the hypothesis arose, that the activity that is seen today as "haltura" (decomposition of lactones) was the original activity of the enzyme.
At this stage, the scientists identified, in the bacteria, different genes that encode enzymes whose main function is to break down the ketones used for communication between the bacteria. A comparison between them and the gene that encodes the enzyme that breaks down a pesticide revealed a great similarity. In other words, it seems that a gene that encodes an enzyme that breaks down ketones, which had the ability to perform a "mixture" of breaking down a substance that did not exist at all, began to change about 60 years ago when the pesticide appeared. Within six decades (or maybe less) "haltura" became a main occupation, and the decomposition of lactones remained only "haltura"
10 תגובות
Happy is the believer
to my people
I proposed to conduct a study regarding the rate of change of small organisms regarding which there is no dispute (at least among the supporters of evolution such as those whose names appear above) that measurable changes take place in relatively short periods of time (60 years or less). From many measurements and over time of this type, including tracking the rate of DNA change. If it is proven that it exists, perhaps it will be possible to reach by way of deduction a proven mathematical formula that most closely describes the rate of change of an organism (= evolution), in my opinion, if there really is in the "hypothesis" of evolution as you say, then such a formula must be found.
Thank you for your response Jonathan.
Two minor comments to your words:
1) As you know, the choices are not only between Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism - there are other alternatives in the literature and diverse mechanisms for the various explanations
2) Are you surprised that there is still no research that confirms or refutes evolution? Can a person even create and withstand such an experiment? Major evolutionary processes take place over a very long period of time. Over millions of years man was "extracted" from the monkey (according to many). In order to find out what man will pull out of himself, we will have to wait a few million years at least. Maybe he'll pull a monkey out of himself again? Maybe a butterfly flower? Be that as it may, it seems that Darwinian evolution as presented by the origin of species will remain only a hypothesis since it is not possible to put a creature in a laboratory for millions of years and see what it will pull out of itself. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is not a theory but a hypothesis. It is just as true as the creationist approach that you have already mentioned. There is no evidence. There are findings that support. There are fossils that show one way or another and there are processes accelerated by bacteria as in this study we are discussing now - but there is no real proof.
It is nice and pleasant to hear that there are more readers and writers among the public who give free rein to their writing and allow the existence of opinions that differ from the mainstream of evolution/creation.
Best regards,
Ami Bachar
For me - very true!
According to the proposed rate of evolutionary changes, if 60 years are required for such a small change, then the development of a single living cell into a common stray cat may take much longer than the period in which the earth could support any life.
Although they do not say that the change necessarily took sixty years.
This still does not disprove the theory of evolution, it only proves that foolish followers are not a good thing in any situation, neither evolutionists nor creationists.
If it were possible to carry out serious scientific research over many years, which would eventually determine a mathematical formula regarding the rate of the natural rate of change in organisms (if such exists), then it would perhaps be possible to provide confirmed or refuting answers regarding the theory of evolution.
I find it strange that there is still no such study and I would be happy if someone could direct me if it is done.
Genes change all the time. The question is the pace.
I think that the connection between the fact that genes undergo mutations and the evolutionary theory does exist, but one does not prove the other.
The study showed, as far as I understand from the article, that the older sequence is distinctly similar to the newer sequence. This is definitely an apparent "evolutionary" change, because things evolved from things (EVOLVE)! There used to be an X sequence that coded for the Y protein and today there is an X' sequence that codes for the Y' protein. Is this proof of evolution? To a certain extent yes.
It is similar, in my opinion, to a rifle used by a hunter that over time has worn out and stopped firing. The rifle body is now used as an art piece. It can be said that there was an evolution here - from one body with a certain use, due to a change, a similar/close body with a different use was obtained.
Do guns also evolve like animals? And what about guns? And are these proofs or only reasonable analogies?
Ami
Response to Ami:
Ami, don't you think that after all the study showed a distinct evolutionary change in a specific gene? After all, this was the problem of the surfer, who claimed that they would not be able to prove that the enzyme existed before but had a different function.
In my opinion, they met the challenge and gave a satisfactory answer to a surfer who does not really believe in evolutionary development.
my father
In my opinion, they did not accept the challenge at all, or interpreted it incorrectly. What the surfer suggested to them is to take the same bacteria that break down a modern pesticide and try to put them through a "regressive" evolution that will cause the enzymes that break down the pesticides to go back and break down ketones.
What they actually did, according to this article, is completely trivial: in the beginning there was a gene that coded for some lactone joint. Over time, slight changes occurred in it that caused the enzyme that comes out of it to specialize in releasing a phosphorous pesticide. Obviously the genetic sequence of the "new" gene is very similar to the "old" gene. So what did the professor and his student do when they found a family of genes that encodes proteins that break down ketones and compared the sequences to a sequence that evolved from those original sequences?
It's like taking an old curtain, sewing a dress from it and then saying: "Hmmm... strange!!! This dress reminds me of a curtain"
The surfer in question knew what he was talking about and I think the professor and his student also know what he was talking about. In evolution it is not possible to predict in advance what is going to develop. Today it is impossible to take a sequence that codes for this enzyme that breaks down a pesticide and try to put it through a series of changes that will restore it to its previous main activity (decomposing lactones).
All of the above is about the body of the study. Secondly, I would like to comment that sixty years for bacteria whose generation time is 20 minutes is not a trivial time. This is more than a million and a half generations. In human terms (if we assume that a person lives 50 years) this corresponds to more than 77 million years. If an entire organism has changed so drastically during such a generation period - what is a change in a functional gene in a parallel period of time?
Sorry, research is not to my liking.
Ami
ami_bachar@hotmail.com
Can I please have the link to the article in YNT?
Thanks!
Interesting article. Now what is left for Professor Dan and Livnat to do is to map the possible permutations in the gardens.
Finding these kinds of cheats will give you an advantage and possibly valuable commercial rights (patents, etc.)
challenge
Sabdarmish Yehuda