ERVs and Common Descent: A Reassessment in Light of Recent Findings

-


Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have long been considered strong evidence for the common descent of humans and chimpanzees. These remnants of ancient viral infections, embedded in the genomes of both species, were once thought to be non-functional "junk DNA." The premise was that the shared presence of these seemingly random insertions in corresponding genomic locations could best be explained by a shared evolutionary history.

However, recent research, such as the "Switching Sides" article published in May 2021, has challenged this assumption by demonstrating that ERVs play a functional role in the development of the human embryo and immune system. This discovery raises questions about the validity of using ERVs as primary evidence for common descent.

The Traditional Argument for Common Descent

The traditional argument for common descent based on ERVs rests on the following points:

  • Random Insertion: Retroviral insertions are thought to occur randomly in the genome.

  • Shared Insertions: Finding identical ERV insertions at the same genomic location in different species suggests a common ancestor where the insertion first occurred.

  • Non-Functionality: The assumption that ERVs were non-functional "junk DNA" strengthened the argument, as there was no apparent selective pressure to maintain them.

Challenging the "Junk DNA" Hypothesis

The "Switching Sides" article and other recent research have challenged the "junk DNA" hypothesis by demonstrating that ERVs are involved in various essential functions:

  • Embryonic Development: ERVs contribute to the regulation of gene expression during early embryonic development.

  • Immune System: ERVs play a role in the innate immune response, helping to defend against viral infections.

  • Placental Development: Some ERVs are crucial for the formation of the placenta, a vital organ for fetal development.

Reassessing ERVs as Evidence for Common Descent

The discovery of ERV functionality necessitates a reassessment of their role as evidence for common descent. While shared ERV insertions may still be indicative of a shared evolutionary history, the argument is weakened by the following considerations:

  • Functional Constraints: If ERVs are functional, their insertion sites may not be entirely random. This might favor insertions at specific locations, potentially leading to convergent evolution in different lineages.

  • Alternative Explanations: The presence of shared ERVs could be explained by other mechanisms, such as horizontal gene transfer or independent insertions at similar locations due to functional constraints.

  • Limited Scope: ERVs represent only a small fraction of the genome. Relying solely on ERVs as evidence for common descent neglects other genomic features and potential explanations.

Conclusion

While ERVs may still provide some support for the common descent of humans and chimpanzees, their significance as primary evidence has been diminished by the discovery of their functional roles. The assumption of non-functionality, which was crucial to the original argument, has been challenged by recent research.

It is important to consider ERVs in the context of a broader range of evidence, including molecular data. A comprehensive approach is necessary to fully understand the complex evolutionary relationships between species.

Additional Considerations:

  • The debate surrounding ERVs highlights the dynamic nature of scientific understanding. As new discoveries emerge, long-held assumptions may be challenged, leading to revised interpretations of evidence.

  • The study of ERVs has broader implications for understanding human health and disease. Their involvement in embryonic development and immune function suggests that they may play a role in various medical conditions.

Further Research:

  • Explore the specific functions of different ERV families in humans and chimpanzees.

  • Investigate the potential mechanisms of ERV insertion and their impact on gene regulation.

  • Analyze the distribution of ERVs across a wider range of primate species to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their evolutionary history.

By continuing to research and reassess the evidence, we can refine our understanding of the complex evolutionary relationships that connect all living organisms.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

No, the EES is not just a add on to Neo-Darwinism aka the Modern Synthesis

-
Image
" The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis fthe theory of evolution) are, if not outright overturned replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (EES). So, not to mince words , the Modern Synthesis is gone" -Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist (Cited by over 270,000 evolutionary scientists.) The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) represents a significant departure from the traditional neo-Darwinian framework, also known as the Modern Synthesis . While both theories aim to explain evolutionary change, they differ fundamentally in their underlying mechanisms and the roles they assign to various biological processes. A crucial point of divergence lies in the interpretation and application of the term " evolutionary ," particularly concerning the incorporation of epigenetic mechanisms....
Read more

Is the random mutational model of evolution on its way out?

-
Image
While the random mutational model of evolution has long been a cornerstone of evolutionary biology, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) and the study of epigenetics are challenging its core assumptions. The Random Mutational Model and Its Limitations The traditional view of evolution, often called the Modern Synthesis or neo-Darwinism , emphasizes random genetic mutations as the primary source of variation. Natural selection then acts upon this variation, favoring individuals with advantageous traits. This model has been successful in explaining some evolutionary phenomena, but it also has limitations: It struggles to explain complex adaptations: The idea that complex features like the eye or the immune system arose solely through random mutations seems statistically improbable. It overlooks the role of the environment: The traditional model treats the environment as a selective force, but it doesn't fully consider how organisms can actively respond to and s...
Read more

Natural Selection has not been accurately measured since Darwin

-
Image
Francis Crick's term "frozen accident" falsely described the seeming rigidity of the genetic code, its apparent inability to accommodate additional amino acids beyond the standard 20. This observation had puzzled scientists for decades, as the genetic code seems to have reached a plateau in its expansion despite the potential for incorporating new amino acids with novel properties. NeoDarwinian thinking reasoned greater natural selection could occur with more codons. Several hypotheses were put forward to explain this apparent standstill in the genetic code's evolution. Crick and others  eventually applied natural selection to think redundant codons were neutral as to account for neutral selection . The question of why the genetic code stopped incorporating new amino acids remained a fascinating topic in evolutionary biology till Cas9 Crispr. The redundancy of codons, where multiple codons can specify the same amino acid, has long been considered a neutr...
Read more