Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Further Proof That Evolution Happens Without DNA

Illustration for article titled Further Proof That Evolution Happens Without DNA

While it is popularly believed that evolution occurs through mutations in DNA, that's simply not true. Now scientists have more evidence that evolution functions even among proteins that have no DNA.


Infectologists at Scripps Institute discovered this evolutionary behavior by studying the behavior of prions, a type of protein you may know because mutated prions in the brain cause mad cow disease. What the researchers discovered was that when they moved prions from brain cells to a new environment, the proteins changed. The prions best-suited to the new environment were slightly different from those that succeeded in brain cells, and those came to dominate the population. When the prions were moved back to the brain cells, however, the prion population shifted back. According to BBC News:

Charles Weissmann, head of Scripps Florida's department of infectology who led the study, said: "On the face of it, you have exactly the same process of mutation and adaptive change in prions as you see in viruses . . . This means that this pattern of Darwinian evolution appears to be universally active. In viruses, mutation is linked to changes in nucleic acid sequence that leads to resistance. Now, this adaptability has moved one level down- to prions and protein folding - and it's clear that you do not need nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) for the process of evolution."


via Science

Share This Story

Get our newsletter


Annalee Newitz

I love that people are defending Dawkins by saying that "when he said gene, he didn't mean gene - he meant some kind of metaphor for a tiny unit of inherited material like a meme." Look, a gene is a term used to describe a unit of DNA. Here is wikipedia's solid, quick definition: "In cells, a gene is a portion of DNA."

[see: []]

By the way, a meme is something that people should only talk about if they want to get down with the humanities because it is NOT a scientific term. It describes a cultural phenomenon. Does it not ever occur to you guys that a dude who uses scientificationish terms to describe cultural processes might not actually have a firm commitment to scientific accuracy, but instead has some kind of ax to grind? Just wondering.

Yes I know you are all going to eat my head now. Have at it.