Eric Metaxas at BreakPoint is one of our favorite popular commentators on evolution. In a broadcast, he takes note of our commentary here. As we noted last month, Octopus Genetic Editing Animals Defy Their Own Neo-Darwinism. <\/p>\n
From Metaxas on how The Octopus Outsmarts Darwin Again: <\/p>\n
The Tel Aviv researchers found tens of thousands of such RNA recoding sites in cephalopods, allowing a creature like the octopus to essentially reprogram itself, adding new riffs to its basic genetic blueprint. In other words, these invertebrates dont care that they didnt inherit the smart genes. They make themselves smart, anyway. <\/p>\n
Of course, an animal cant be the author of its own intelligence, and this is not a process anyone believes cephalopods perform consciously. Rather, it is a marvelous piece of adaptive programming built-in to their biology. <\/p>\n
Darwinists have tried to spin this feat as a special kind of evolution. But the folks at Evolution News cut through this nonsense and identify RNA editing for what it is: non-evolution. <\/p>\n
Neo-Darwinism did not make cephalopods what they are, they write. These highly intelligent and well-adapted animals edited their own genomes, so what possible need do they have forblind, random, unguided evolution? <\/p>\n
This is also an emerging field of research, which means its possible, in theory, that other organisms make extensive use of RNA editing, and were just not aware of it, yet. <\/p>\n
If, as one popular science website puts it, other creatures can defy the central dogma of genetics, the implications for Darwins tree of life, and his entire theory, are dire. <\/p>\n
But if cephalopods and the complex information processing that makes them so unique are in fact the result of a Programmer of a Designer the waters of biology become far less inky. <\/p>\n
A friend asks if this phenomenon is an example of Lamarckism, according to which organisms evolve by adapting to their environments and then passing on newly acquired characteristics to their offspring. We wouldnt call it that, but we do call it a problem for neo-Darwinism. Among other reasons, thats because it reveals that organisms need much more information than is provided by DNA sequences. Therefore, DNA mutations cannot provide sufficient raw materials for evolution. <\/p>\n
This latest research is impressive, but RNA editing is not new. As Eric Metaxas smartly anticipates, there is indeed extensive RNA editing in other organisms, too including humans. <\/p>\n
Care for documentation? Find it here: <\/p>\n
That would make the problem for Darwinism even more acute than Eric suggests. <\/p>\n
Photo: Octopus tetricus (Gloomy Octopus), by Sylke Rohrlach (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Follow this link:<\/p>\n
More on Octopus RNA Editing A Problem for Neo-Darwinism - Discovery Institute<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Eric Metaxas at BreakPoint is one of our favorite popular commentators on evolution. Continue reading