Lamarck's disordered proteins pushes Darwins ordered proteins aside

"Lamarck needs to be reinstated as a brilliant thinker on evolution and incidentally also the inventor of the term “biology” (biologie) for our discipline"- D Noble


IDPs, or intrinsically disordered proteins, are proteins that do not have a stable, defined three-dimensional structure as proposed by NeoDarwinists for decades. Instead, they exist in a disordered state, with their amino acids free to move around. IDRs, or intrinsically disordered regions, are segments of IDPs that are particularly disordered. Recent estimates are that they make up the majority (51%) of human proteins with the majority of the rest having some IDRs.This fact is a huge challenge to NeoDarwinism.

Mutations can occur in any protein, including IDPs. However, NeoDarwinian mutations in IDRs are often far less harmful than mutations in ordered regions of proteins. This is because IDRs are not required to have a specific structure in order to function ergo natural selection doesn't apply. As long as the amino acids in an IDR are able to interact with each other in a way that allows the IDR to perform its function, Darwin's mutations do not have an impact.

This resistance to mutations is one of the reasons why IDRs are so crucial for protein function. IDRs are often involved in protein-protein interactions, and they can also act as signaling molecules. They make up circadian (fantastic utube on this here) rhythm proteins that control 80% of the rest of proteins across all life since the "bush of life."

Genesis 1:11

Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind.. (producing transparent Oxygen on day 3 for day 4's luminaries to show- Asah, heb- for "show" or make apparent, not bara- create anew like Gen 1:1-2)



Genesis 1:14

Then God said, "Let there be lights (let the lights show) in the expanse of the heavens (on day 4) to separate the day from the night, and let them be for (circadian) signs (etc)

Neo Darwinism states that evolution occurs through natural selection, which is the process by which organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce. Mutations are the source of genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection can act on. Since the IDRs in IDP are resistant to the effects of mutations over billions of years this largely invalidates NeoDarwinism in favor of Lamarckian evolution.

Lamarckian evolution is the theory that acquired traits can be inherited by offspring. This means that an organism changes and is changed by it's environment. Darwin proposed that the environment acts solely by natural selection. This does sway with the organisms ``agency." Lamarck views the organism as the agent of change as the environment pushes the organism to a new phenotype without Darwin's mutations.

Epigenetics is the study of how environmental factors can change gene expression without changing the DNA sequence. This means that even if an organism's DNA does not change, its genes can be turned on or off in different ways, depending on its environment.


Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the transfer of genes between organisms of different species. This can happen through viruses, bacteria, or other means.

Transposable elements (TEs) are DNA sequences that can move around within the genome. These elements can also be transferred between organisms.

All of these mechanisms lead to Lamarckian evolution. For example, if an organism experiences a change in its environment, this could lead to changes in gene expression through epigenetics. These changes could then be inherited by offspring, resulting in a Lamarckian-like inheritance of acquired traits.

Darwin's Icon of evolution  - The Peppered Moth changed "over night" due to the HGT of a TE causing a dark, adapted to industrial pollution, moth without Darwin's slow mutation that would take tens of thousands of years arriving way past the early pollution of the early industrial pollution. Sorry Charlie…

In the 1800's Lamarck rivaled Darwin's theory. In fact Darwin widely quoted Lamarck in the Origin of the Species. However Weissman expressly rejected Lamarck in the new NeoDarwinism. The later modern synthesis (the theory of evolution) also rejected Lamarck. Epigenetics puts Lamarck on the table leading to his revenge:


Lamarckian evolution is not as widely accepted by the scientific community. Most scientists believe that evolution is driven by random mutations, which are then passed on to offspring - NeoDarwinism . 

This is rapidly changing. 20 years ago 98% of biologists believed in solely in NeoDarwinism. 120k journal articles on epigenetics in the last 10 years has raised the number of young biologists (see "half of audience cheered" at the royal society) believing in epigenetic Lamarckian evolution to 50%.

 IDPs and IDRs can play other role in Lamarckian evolution outside of neo darwinism. For example, IDRs can be involved in horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which is the process by which genes are transferred from one organism to another. As these transposons are whole chunks of DNA, gradual Darwinian mutations are left behind., This can lead to the Lamarckian evolution of new traits in organisms, even if there is no natural selection pressure for those traits.

In addition, IDRs can be involved in the process of speciation, which is the formation of new species. For example, IDRs can be involved in the formation of new proteins that are essential for new species.

Overall, IDPs and IDRs are important for protein function and evolution. They are resistant to mutations, which allows them to play a role in a variety of processes, including protein-protein interactions, signaling, horizontal gene transfer, and speciation.

IDPs and IDRs are conserved over a billion years because they are resistant to Darwin's mutations. This is because they do not have a specific structure that needs to be maintained. Mutations that change the amino acid sequence of an IDP or IDR are more likely to be tolerated, as they are less likely to disrupt the protein's function. NeoDarwinism for decades was based on the concept of the structured protein. In this scenario a mutation can change the quaternary structure causing either a better protein or worse one for natural selection to choose. 


This view is based on Francis Cricks "Central Dogma" which ties mutations to the protein structure.


It is clear that these proteins play a vital role in cell function, and that their ability to resist Darwin's mutations is essential for their survival.

Here are some additional details about why IDPs and IDRs are resistant to Darwins mutations:

  • They are often composed of amino acids that are not essential for protein folding. This means that if a mutation changes one of these amino acids, it is less likely to disrupt the protein's overall structure.

  • They often have a high degree of flexibility. This allows them to adapt to changes in their environment, making them less susceptible to mutations that would otherwise cause them to misfold.

  • They are often involved in interactions with other proteins. These interactions can help to stabilize the protein's structure, making it less susceptible to mutations.

IDPs can go around the "one gene-one protein-one function" Darwinian model in a number of ways. For example, a single gene can encode multiple IDPs, each with a different function. Or, a single IDP can have multiple functions, which can be switched on or off depending on the environmental conditions.

The existence of IDPs challenges the traditional (NeoDarwinian) view of gene function, and suggests that evolution is more complex than NeoDarwinism contemplated. IDPs are still not fully understood, but they are an important area of research, and they have the potential to shed new light on the mechanisms of Lamarckian evolution.

The existence of IDPs shows that the NeoDarwinian "one gene-one protein-one function" model is no longer accurate.

Overall, the resistance of IDPs and IDRs to mutations is due to a combination of factors, including their composition, flexibility, and interactions with other proteins. This resistance is essential for their survival, as it allows them to adapt rapidly and avoid Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckian evolution over deep (billions of years) time.

Here are some articles on IDP disordered proteins concerning their apparent lack of evolution over billions of year's:

  • "Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Conservation of Structure and Function over Billions of Years" by John D. Richter and Michael J. Sippl. This article discusses the conservation of IDP structure and function over billions of years.

  • "The Evolution of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins" by David Eisenberg and Claudia L. Bertelsen. This article reviews the evolutionary history of IDPs and discusses the factors that have contributed to their conservation.

  • "Intrinsically Disordered Proteins in the Human Proteome" by Michael J. Sippl and John D. Richter. This article provides an overview of the IDPs in the human proteome and discusses their functional roles.

  • "Dancing Protein Clouds: Intrinsically Disordered Proteins in the Cell" by Peter G. Wolynes and Michael J. Sippl. This book chapter discusses the role of IDPs in cellular function and their potential for therapeutic applications.

These are just a few examples of articles that discuss IDP disordered proteins concerned over billions of years. There is a growing body of research on this topic, and more articles are being published all the time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more