Evolutionary Economy Collapses
No, this is not about Greece. It's about yet another assumption in Darwinian theory that has come up short.
Theory: "In evolutionary processes, it is the simple, economical solutions that prevail over the complex and laborious ones." So began an article at Science Daily.
Practice: "A team of researchers led by Walter Rossmanith from the MedUni Vienna has now investigated the key enzyme, 'ribonuclease P,' which is found in every living organism. The surprising result is that the principle of evolutionary economy does not appear to apply to this enzyme."
Rossmanith discovered that a stripped-down version of ribonuclease P found in a protozoan works just fine when inserted into a yeast cell to replace the complicated eukaryotic version.
Surprising result: complex enzyme interchangeable with the simple one. Surprisingly, the researchers were able to easily replace the complex enzyme from baker's yeast with the simple one from Trypanosoma brucei. "We now want to continue comparing the two forms of the enzyme in order to understand what the possible evolutionary advantage of the complex enzyme is. After all, this actually contradicts the tendency towards economy in evolutionary processes," says Rossmanith. The results of the study were published in the international journal Cell Reports.The next subheading reads, "Ribonuclease P" enzyme: sometimes simple, sometimes complex":
The "ribonuclease P" enzyme is responsible for a key step in the production of certain RNAs (transfer RNAs -- tRNAs) in the cells of all living things, from simple bacteria to humans. In all of the higher cells investigated so far, "ribonuclease P" is itself made up of RNA and at least ten proteins, with the RNA being the most important component. In the pathogen responsible for sleeping sickness, "ribonuclease P," on the other hand, is made up of just one protein. Cells need tRNAs for the synthesis of proteins that keep them alive.Proteins collapse when they fold, but that's good. The "principle of evolutionary economy" has collapsed in this example, and that's bad (for Darwinists). When Darwinism itself collapses from the growing pile of contradictory evidence, that will be very good.