Matzke on Cooption in Evolution

Nick Matzke has an excellent post at the Panda's Thumb about cooption as an evolutionary mechanism for building up complex biochemical systems. Cooption is when a given feature - a protein, perhaps, or in some cases an entire organ - that developed for one purpose is adapted for a different purpose. The Panda's Thumb itself is named after an example of such cooption. At the biochemical level, this mechanism is very well known and very well documented.

Cooption can be observed in the lab through knockout experiments, where you cut out the gene that encodes for a certain protein in a system where multiple proteins interact, and after a certain number of generations, the system is working efficently again by replacing the protein that was knocked out with a different protein, adapted to perform the same function. This often happens hand in hand with gene duplication, which results in the production of two copies of the same protein, only one of which is necessary for its given function. The second one is then adapted for use serving a different function.

Cooption is well known and accepted even by ID advocates like Behe and Dembski, despite the fact that it deals a pretty serious blow to notions of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is defined as a system with multiple interacting parts that are all required for the system to function, such that taking any one part away makes the system fail. Thus, they conclude, any intermediate system would not function and therefore could not be preserved by natural selection. But if the various components were present and serving different functions, then certainly they would be selected for and then cobbled together later as an adaptation. Read Nick's post for more details.

More like this

There has been a minor brouhaha going on over a new paper published in Science that details precisely how a protein binding site that fits Michael Behe's definition of irreducible complexity (IC) evolved through mutation and selection. The paper prompted an immediate response from Behe that struck…
Pim Van Meurs has an excellent post at the Panda's Thumb that looks at Dembski's design inference and why it is really nothing more than a "god of the gaps" argument, contrary to the common claims of ID proponents that there is a positive way to detect design: Okay, let's start with how ID tries to…
I've just received an email with another batch of those delightful Worldview Weekend essays. Sadly, there are none by Kirk Cameron this time, but the other authors put together a strong effort to be as ridiculous as he is. This essay by Kerby Anderson, president of Probe Ministries, on the "myths…
Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute provides us with the latest excuse for why ID has produced no supporting research: it's being done under double secret probation at an undisclosed location. He begins with this lurid metaphor: The most important is that the Darwinist establishment would like…