
The Selfish Ribosome Theory - DiabloD3
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-selfish-ribosome-theory-could-upend-evolution-as-we-know-it
======
ergothus
I have a healthy interest in genetics, but I'm failing to see how having
ribosomes begin as independent entities "upends" (to quote the current title)
anything about evolutionary theory as a whole.

Even allowing for hype, can someone give this some clarity?

~~~
chadillac
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519314006778)

Was linked in the article, might shed some light on your question.

~~~
ergothus
Skimming this, it doesn't appear to argue for any upending, just a "missing
link" role (which, granted, would be a great discovery if it's supported, but
doesn't upend anything).

Or did I miss something?

------
julienchastang
"But there’s a glaring hole in this plot: ribosomes themselves are made up of
proteins"

Ribosomes are made up of proteins and rRNA! And the Peptidyl transferase
catalytic reaction which forms peptide bonds is entirely conducted by the
rRNA[1]. Proto/paleo ribosomes were probably entirely RNA in the RNA world,
long ago. Dawkins alludes to this (though I cannot remember the precise
language since I don't have the book in front of me now).

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptidyl_transferase](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptidyl_transferase)

~~~
Lanoteu
Catalytic RNA species have their place in the RNA world hypothesis, yes. But
to suggest that rRNA itself can catalyze peptidyl-tranferase reactions without
the use of ribosomal proteins in today's organisms may be far-fetched. Even
the most primitive of organisms have ribosomal proteins to accompany the rRNA.

~~~
julienchastang
From the wikipedia article referenced earlier: "Peptidyl transferase activity
is not mediated by any ribosomal proteins but by ribosomal RNA (rRNA), a
ribozyme. This RNA relic is the most significant piece of evidence supporting
the RNA World hypothesis."

------
ars
There is far too much personification of evolution. It shows up in sloppy
science writing, that then shows up in the way people think about it.

"what DNA (or evolution) really wants" "Eventually, some pre-living ribosomes
would have associated with bubbles of fatty acids" \- as if they have wants
and desires, or ability to act with intent.

I think evolution is a kind of alternative religion for many people.

~~~
IgorPartola
I studied physics in college. This is how we talked about it there too: "The
electron wants to find a positive charge", "the wire wants to rotate as it
moves through the field", "the system wants to find its lowest energy state".
The chemistry department that I worked with (my research was in quantum
magnetism, which sounds cooler than it is) used the same style: "the free
radical wants to find a pair". I don't think there's anything wrong with this
language. The problem usually is people who don't know what they are talking
about misinterpreting it as though atoms/molecules/cells/etc. have feelings.

~~~
ars
There's a difference between deterministic actions like an electron, and
random events.

Using that language with events that _always_ happen doesn't lead to problems.
But as soon as you use it with events that only happen sometimes you cause
your thinking to be skewed.

There is also a difference with complexity level - using "want" for single
step events is not the same as using it with multi-step complex events, that
only as a final result "want" something. Doing that leads you to personify the
system.

> The problem usually is people who don't know what they are talking about
> misinterpreting it as though atoms/molecules/cells/etc. have feelings.

Exactly. Which is why you should not do it.

~~~
IgorPartola
"The quantum wave wants to collapse into one of two states. The spin will
either be up or down." Quantum mechanics is unpredictable as it gets :)

~~~
andrewflnr
Not in a way that helps your argument. The result may not be determined but
the collapse itself, which is what your quote said the wave "wants", is pretty
much guaranteed.

~~~
IgorPartola
You are right. I suppose a more complex system might be a better example where
there are several competing forces. "X wants to go to state A, but Y wants X
to go to state B" with some relative probabilities of each. Then again, I just
don't buy the argument that our big problem here is that the language here is
somehow misleading the general public, and that's really my main point. If we
accept that we can't say things like these, we then should also stop using
terms like "greedy algorithm" because they sound so sinister.

------
tacos
For real (and cooler) information on the ribosome, check out the amazing work
by Joachim Frank at Columbia.
[http://franklab.cpmc.columbia.edu/franklab/](http://franklab.cpmc.columbia.edu/franklab/)

Nerd trivia: his son is Ze Frank.

~~~
stenl
Having never heard of Ze Frank, I had to check Wikipedia: "Ze Frank (born
Hosea Jan Frank on March 31, 1972) is an American online performance artist,
composer, humorist and public speaker based in Los Angeles, California. He was
a pioneer of the vlogging format and is considered one of the most influential
people in the field, inspiring such shows as the vlogbrothers, Philip DeFranco
and Wheezy Waiter. He is currently executive vice president of video at
BuzzFeed."

Now I'll have to google "vlogging format"...

------
swagasaurus-rex
I'm interested in learning more about this topic, specifically about the RNA
world, the mechanism behind DNA replication, gene recombination, ect.

Does anybody have good literature I could read into?

------
driverdan
What a terrible linkbait headline. This has more to do with the origins of
life and very, very early evolution than evolutionary theory itself.

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we updated the HN title to be less bait-ey.

