Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | September 14th 2009 12:00 AM | 2 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
An international team of researchers say they have discovered a blueprint for a general understanding of the evolution of the "machinery" of our cells providing more evidence, at the molecular level, in support of one of the key tenets of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

A non-Darwinian explanation, from believers of Intelligent Design, proposed these complex machines to be "irreducibly complex". In other words they are so neatly complex and complete that they couldn't have evolved but rather must have been designed by an intelligent entity.

"Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial," said Monash University professor Trevor Lithgow. "Our research shows that these machines although complete and complex, were a result of evolution. Simple 'core' machines were established in the first eukaryotes by drawing on pre-existing proteins that had previously provided distinct, simplistic functions. They therefore stand as proof that Darwin's theory of evolution breaks down at the molecular level."

As a model system, the research focused on one specific molecular machine, the TIM complex, which transports proteins into mitochondria. Mitochondria are a compartment of human cells that serve as the energy-producing 'powerhouses'. At a very early stage in evolution, mitochondria were derived from bacteria that lived within the first eukaryotic cells.

"Our cells literally are chimeras of a 'host' cell and these intracellular bacteria. Yet bacteria don't have TIM complexes – to understand where the TIM complex came from we simply applied scientific reasoning and looked at a modern-day bacterium akin to the organism that gave rise to mitochondria." Lithgow said.

The group looked at the bacterium Caulobacter crescentus and found bacterial proteins related to the components of the mitochondrial TIM complex. They then showed that these bacterial proteins are not found as part of protein transport machines.

"François Jacob described evolution as a tinkerer, cobbling together proteins of one function to yield more complex machines capable of new functions." Lithgow said. "Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob's proposition, and shows that Darwin's theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be."

Comments

For more information, here is the researcher's home page ( http://www.med.monash.edu.au/biochem/staff/lithgow.html ), which includes a link to a 2006 paper in Science that seems most applicable. This scientificblogging update could have been from then. What's new now? Well, this is a link to the abstract from his most recent paper - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19531743 . It seems like the paper doesn't touch what most creationists would call too complex (flagellum, for example). So, I'm not so sure this article is applicable to the fight against creationism, but is rather in support of endosymbiosis (something creationists might argue against, but not because of complexity).

From here : "As Tom40 was derived in the development of mitochondria to serve as the protein import channel in the outer membrane, its presence in Giardia evidences the mitochondrial ancestry of mitosomes" to "François Jacob described evolution as a tinkerer, cobbling together proteins of one function to yield more complex machines capable of new functions." Lithgow said. "Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob's proposition, and shows that Darwin's theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be."
come on dr lightgow, too much dawkins on the rocks.....

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.