Observe the trend. It’s happening. Give it time.

Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine, adapt and create the “appearance of design”? Yes: the mechanism itself of “differential reproductive success” has intrinsic limitations, whatever it may be able to achieve, and this is further constrained by finite time and population sizes.
To reiterate my contention: as science continues to discover more and more functional complexity and precision in biology, this logically and unavoidably increases the challenge to naturalistic explanations for origin of life and macroevolution. This will progress to a level where these naturalistic explanations will be more widely (and rightly) called into question. Examples include:
- large multi-component complexes
- multiple layers of regulation in the cell
- three-dimensional genome organization
- new cellular machinery and organelles
- high minimum complexity for life
- functional macromolecule rarity in a vast sequence space
- etc
Observe the trend. It’s happening. Give it time.
__________
Prompt: NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS FOR ORIGIN OF LIFE AND FOR MACROEVOLUTION ARE DEEMED TO BE ADEQUATE BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. HOWEVER, IF SCIENCE CONTINUES TO DISCOVER MORE AND MORE FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY IN LIVING THINGS, THE GREATER THE CHALLENGE FOR NATURALISM. FIND DISCOVERIES AND TRENDS THAT HAVE OR COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CHALLENGE.
ChatGPT “Deep Research”: Are you looking for recent discoveries specifically in molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry, or broader biological systems that challenge naturalistic explanations? Also, would you like a focus on origin-of-life research, macroevolutionary transitions, or both?
Prompt: I’M LOOKING FOR RECENT DISCOVERIES SPECIFICALLY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, GENETICS, BIOCHEMISTRY THAT CHALLENGE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS. ALSO, CONSIDER RESEARCH ON BOTH ORIGIN-OF-LIFE RESEARCH AND MACROEVOLUTIONARY TRANSITIONS.
ChatGPT “Deep Research”: I'll investigate recent discoveries in molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry that pose challenges to naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and macroevolutionary transitions. This will include findings on irreducible complexity, sophisticated cellular mechanisms, unexpected layers of genomic regulation, and any new insights into the biochemical requirements for life's emergence. I'll update you once I have gathered relevant research.
Recent Discoveries Challenging Naturalistic Evolutionary Explanations
Recent findings in molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry have revealed astonishing complexity in living systems – often beyond what was expected. These discoveries highlight features that are difficult to reconcile with stepwise, unguided evolution, posing challenges for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and macroevolutionary transitions. Below is a summary of key findings, organized by theme, along with their implications.
Irreducible Complexity in Molecular Systems
Molecular Machines with Essential Parts: Many cellular structures behave like finely tuned machines composed of multiple interdependent parts. For example, the bacterial flagellum is a rotary nanomotor made of ~30–40 proteins. It can spin up to 100,000 rotations per minute – faster than a Formula One engine – and even dynamically remodel itself while spinning. Removing or mutating core components typically abolishes its function, making it a classic case of “irreducible complexity” where all parts are required for the machine to work. This complexity has been cited as a challenge to gradual Darwinian evolution, which would require a functional advantage at each small step.
Universal Core Structures: The ribosome, which translates RNA into proteins, exemplifies an ancient, essential machine that appears to have an invariant core. A comparative study of ribosome structures from bacteria to humans showed that the heart of the ribosome is the same across all life – additions can bolt on to the periphery as organisms evolve, but the core cannot be altered without loss of function. In other words, evolution can add complexity to the ribosome, but “can’t change what was already there” in the fundamental core. This implies the ribosomal core – a tremendously complex RNA-protein structure – must have arisen very early in evolution, fully formed enough to function, since it tolerates little or no simplification. Such findings underscore an irreducible kernel at the heart of life’s translational machinery, posing the question of how it originated naturally.
Large Multi-Component Complexes: Researchers continue to uncover multi-protein complexes that rival the complexity of man-made machines. For instance, the human SAGA complex, involved in gene regulation, consists of 20 distinct subunits assembled into a single molecular machine. Cryo-EM mapping revealed that human SAGA includes a small “latch” component not found in simpler yeast SAGA, indicating an added part that secures the complex. The SAGA complex is crucial for life – errors in its subunits cause diseases from neurological disorders to cancer. Its inherent complexity and requirement that all pieces fit together in 3D space highlight how such systems present an evolutionary puzzle: partial assemblies are non-functional, yet multiple specific proteins must concurrently come together for any beneficial function to emerge.
Implications: These irreducibly complex systems suggest that certain biological features could not have evolved through numerous, slight modifications unless all the necessary components were present. Discoveries of new subunits (like the SAGA latch) or universal cores (like the ribosome) reinforce the idea that life’s machines operate as integrated wholes. This challenges models of gradual evolution, which struggle to explain how intermediate stages (missing parts of the machine) could be advantageous. Instead, such complexity points to either unknown evolutionary mechanisms or the need for a different paradigm to explain how all the right parts came together at the right time.
Newly Discovered Layers of Genomic Regulation and Machinery
Modern genomics has unveiled multiple layers of regulation in the cell, far beyond the simple “DNA makes RNA makes protein” model. Each new layer adds complexity that must be accounted for in origin and evolution scenarios:
• Alternative Splicing and Its Regulators: Eukaryotic genes often contain introns that must be precisely removed by the spliceosome. It was long thought that splicing followed a fixed set of rules, but recent work shows additional control layers. An MIT study (2025) found a new regulatory factor – a family of proteins (Luc7) – that guides the spliceosome to particular splice sites. This mechanism affects roughly half of all human genes and is conserved across animals and plants. In more complex organisms, the spliceosome has “bells and whistles” allowing intricate control of gene outputs. The discovery that splicing accuracy relies on extra proteins implies a higher-order regulatory code. Such complexity would have to evolve in tandem with intron-rich genes, making the origin of introns and spliceosomal components an even knottier problem.
•
• Noncoding RNAs and RNA-Based Regulation: The majority of the human genome does not code for proteins, yet it is pervasively transcribed into noncoding RNAs. Small microRNAs (~22 nucleotides long) were discovered in the early 2000s and found to repress mRNA targets. It’s now estimated that microRNAs regulate about 60% of all protein-coding genes, with each microRNA averaging 200 mRNA targets. Likewise, long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are being found to play roles in chromatin remodeling, gene silencing, and nuclear organization. The ENCODE project revealed that at least 80% of the human genome has some functional role (e.g. being transcribed or serving as gene regulatory sites), overturning the old notion of vast “junk DNA”. These findings unveiled a hidden regulatory circuitry of RNA molecules and DNA elements that orchestrate gene expression. Evolutionarily, the emergence of myriad noncoding RNAs and their target sites in a coordinated fashion is not trivial – mutations in these elements could be deleterious unless a network is already in place. The sheer abundance of species-specific or lineage-specific noncoding elements (sometimes called “orphan” regulatory sequences) raises questions about how they arose so pervasively under naturalistic processes.
•
• Epigenetic Marks and Chromatin Complexity: Beyond the DNA code, cells use chemical tags on DNA and histone proteins to control gene activity. Over 100 distinct post-translational modifications on histones have been catalogued (acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, etc.), which can occur in countless combinations. This has given rise to the “histone code” hypothesis – the idea that specific combinations of marks constitute a regulatory language. Indeed, certain protein complexes recognize combinations of histone marks (not just single marks), suggesting a complex syntax in chromatin regulation. Decoding this combinatorial complexity is challenging, as there may be billions of possible modification patterns on nucleosomes. The unexpected diversity of histone marks and their context-dependent effects mean that even if the underlying DNA sequence is unchanged, the epigenetic state can dramatically alter phenotype. From an evolutionary standpoint, epigenetic systems add another hurdle: they require dedicated writer, reader, and eraser proteins for each modification, all of which must work in concert. The discovery of intricate “epigenetic crosstalk” (where one histone mark influences the addition or interpretation of another) implies a tightly integrated regulatory design that is hard to stepwise-evolve piece by piece.
•
• Three-Dimensional Genome Organization: The genome is not a simple linear tape of information; it’s folded into 3D structures that affect gene regulation. High-throughput chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C) studies (since ~2009) have revealed that genomes are partitioned into topologically associating domains (TADs) – regions that physically interact internally more than with other regions. Enhancers (regulatory DNA) often loop over to contact promoters of genes within the same TAD. Large consortia like ENCODE reported that 3D DNA structures (loops, chromatin domains) play a significant role in orchestrating transcription. Furthermore, nuclear bodies (like nucleoli, speckles) and phase-separated droplets concentrate specific proteins and RNAs to regulate gene expression. For example, a 2017 Cell study proposed that transcriptional activation involves phase-separated “hubs” of proteins at super-enhancers – a completely new paradigm for how genes can be turned on in bursts. These spatial and biophysical layers of regulation were unanticipated in the classical gene regulation models. They imply that the genome’s functionality arises not just from sequence, but from dynamic 3D architecture and even physics of biomolecular condensation. Explaining the origin of such higher-order organization (which requires multiple interacting parts all at once: specific DNA sequences, DNA-binding proteins, RNA scaffolds, etc.) is a non-trivial challenge for gradual evolution.
•
• New Cellular Machinery and Organelles: As our tools to probe cells improve, entirely new structures continue to be discovered. The Integrator complex, for instance, was identified in 2005 as a 14-protein complex needed to process small nuclear RNAs. But only in the last few years did scientists realize Integrator does far more: it globally regulates transcription by pausing RNA polymerase II and attenuating gene expression across thousands of genes. Its recently solved structure shows multiple subunits forming a catalytic core for RNA cleavage. Likewise, novel biomolecular assemblies (e.g. large RNA-protein granules, micropeptide-encoding small ORFs, etc.) are being found to add new layers to how cells function. Each discovery adds to the “parts list” required for a living cell and often reveals a previously unknown control mechanism. Evolutionarily, every new cellular machine raises the question: how did the cell manage without it, and how could it gradually evolve if partial forms were insufficient? The integrator example, influencing so many genes, suggests that if it were absent or only partially functional, the regulatory balance in the cell could collapse. Yet its components themselves must be encoded by genes that need regulation – a chicken-and-egg conundrum.
•
Implications: The unveiling of new regulatory layers – from splicing modulation to noncoding RNAs, chromatin marks, 3D DNA folding, and phase-separated compartments – paints a picture of the cell as an interdependent web of information control. This multi-layered regulatory architecture is much harder to evolve stepwise than a simple linear pathway. Each layer often requires numerous specialized proteins and RNAs, which themselves depend on other layers (for example, the production of a microRNA depends on correct splicing, proper export from the nucleus, loading into RISC complex, etc.). The interdependency means that a mutation in one part of the system can have cascading effects, and intermediate stages lacking one layer might be nonviable. In terms of origins, these findings challenge the idea that a “simple” primordial cell could function with just a handful of genes – instead, even the simplest known cells have proven to be deeply complex (see below). Overall, the more layers of regulation we discover, the more foresight and coordination seems to be required to put all the pieces in place for a functioning organism.
Biochemical Constraints on the Origin of Life and Macroevolution
Not only do modern biological systems exhibit surprising complexity, but fundamental research into life’s beginnings and the evolution of novel features has highlighted several daunting biochemical and informational constraints:
• High Minimum Complexity for Life: Attempts to create a “minimal cell” have shown that life cannot be boiled down to just a few dozen genes. In 2016, researchers synthesized a bacterium with the smallest genome able to sustain growth. This minimal cell still required 473 genes, and bafflingly, about 149 of those genes had unknown functions yet were essential. Scientists expected maybe 5% of genes to be of unknown purpose, but about 30% of the minimal genome was a mystery. This indicates that even at the lowest limit, life needs a suite of coordinated parts (enzymes, structural RNAs, metabolic pathways) beyond our current understanding. The implication for abiogenesis is that there may be a threshold of complexity below which a collection of biomolecules cannot self-sustain. How could a network of nearly 500 genes/proteins (many of which interact with each other) assemble spontaneously from a prebiotic soup? The minimal cell study underscores that the simplest life is still extraordinarily complex, suggesting a huge jump from chemistry to even the most basic biology.
•
• “Needle-in-a-Haystack” Problem for Biomolecules: One puzzle for the origin of life is how functional biological macromolecules (like proteins or ribozymes) emerged from random chemistry. Functional sequences (able to fold and catalyze reactions) appear to be exceedingly rare among the vast space of possible sequences. As a PNAS commentary put it, finding useful protein sequences from simpler molecules is like locating a needle in a haystack. Without an existing mechanism of natural selection (which requires self-replication to operate), there’s no guidance to preferentially form functional sequences rather than non-functional ones. Researchers Kocher and Dill (2024) argued that life likely required some form of prebiotic selection or stabilization to overcome this hurdle – essentially, “life cannot originate until it can propagate”, meaning you need some self-copying system in place before Darwinian evolution proper can begin. This presents a chicken-and-egg dilemma: complex molecules like proteins or nucleic acids are needed for self-replication, but without self-replication there’s no evolution to produce those molecules. The latest origin-of-life studies emphasize this paradox, highlighting that purely random assembly of a self-replicating system (with dozens of specific molecules) is astronomically improbable without intermediate selective processes that themselves look like early forms of evolution.
•
• Chirality and Biochemical Roadblocks: Life’s building blocks have specific orientations (chirality) – for instance, proteins use only left-handed amino acids. Synthesizing these in a primordial environment without a mechanism to select one chirality is extremely difficult. Likewise, forming long biopolymers (like RNA or polypeptides) in water faces a thermodynamic barrier, since water favors breaking bonds (hydrolysis) rather than forming them. While researchers have proposed creative routes (drying cycles, mineral surfaces, etc.), these abiotic synthesis challenges remain significant. In short, many steps required to go from simple organic molecules to a functioning cell (e.g. producing activated nucleotides, building membranes with transport proteins, encoding a genetic system) involve biochemical leaps that are hard to imagine occurring by unguided chemistry. Each time science has filled one gap (say, finding a plausible way to make one type of nucleotide), new gaps or requirements have appeared (needing a way to get just the right concentration, purity, combination, etc.). These compounding requirements suggest that the window for life’s origin – both in time and environmental conditions – would have to be remarkably narrow and fortuitous.
•
• Waiting Times for Evolutionary Innovations: Even after life began, generating new complex traits by random mutation and selection can face “waiting time” issues. One theoretical study examined how long it would take for an organism to acquire just two specific mutations that together confer a new function (neither mutation alone is beneficial). In a fruit fly–sized population, a few million years might suffice, but for a human-like population, the process would exceed 100 million years. In other words, certain genetic changes requiring coordination of multiple mutations are so improbable that they likely would not occur within the available evolutionary time (for context, humans and chimps diverged ~6–7 million years ago). These findings, published in Genetics, were actually aimed at debunking an intelligent design claim, yet they inadvertently acknowledged a limit: large, slowly reproducing animals would struggle to evolve features that need multiple mutations simultaneously. Many macroevolutionary transitions – such as going from land mammal to fully aquatic whale, or evolving powered flight, or the origin of novel organs – may require suites of changes. If even two coordinated mutations pose a timing problem, what about dozens of changes? This line of reasoning suggests that either evolution finds clever ways around multi-mutation requirements (e.g. by reusing existing parts in new roles) or that there is an inherent speed limit to what can evolve in a given timeframe. The “waiting time” problem continues to be debated, but it raises a critical question: are there biological features that simply could not have arisen under the known constraints of population genetics and time?
•
• Developmental Constraints and “Frozen” Core Networks: The evolution of new large-scale body plans or organ systems (macroevolution) encounters the obstacle of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) that control development. These networks – interacting genes and signals during embryogenesis – are highly integrated. A 2006 Science review by Davidson and Erwin noted that all major animal body plans (phyla) appeared in a geologically brief window during the Cambrian explosion, and since then, no new phylum-level designs have emerged. They propose this is because the core developmental GRN “kernels” became locked in early on. These kernel circuits (e.g., those patterning the body axes or major organs) are so central that any significant mutation in them disrupts development lethally, making them “impervious to change”. Thus, once a basic body plan exists, it cannot be radically altered – limiting macroevolution to variations on the existing themes. The implication is profound: the first establishment of each body plan (e.g., the first chordate, the first arthropod) would have required assembling a viable GRN kernel essentially from scratch, since tweaking a prior kernel to form something fundamentally new would break the organism. How such complex, interdependent developmental programs arose in the first place is not well-explained by incremental evolution, because the intermediate stages would be incomplete and non-functional. The Cambrian fossil record, which shows many novel creatures without obvious precursors, is at least consistent with the idea of “big leaps” in complexity. In modern terms, this suggests there may be an inherent limit to the kinds of large evolutionary transformations that can occur once development is wired a certain way.
•
Implications: Taken together, these biochemical and evolutionary constraints depict a scenario where both the birth of life and the origin of complex innovations face steep hurdles. Abiogenesis research has not yet demonstrated a plausible continuous path from chemistry to a self-replicating cell – instead, it has revealed more “chicken-and-egg” problems (e.g., proteins vs. nucleic acids, replication vs. metabolism, homochirality, etc.) and the need for synchronized appearance of multiple components. Likewise, studies of evolution at the population-genetic and developmental level indicate that certain large changes would require either enormous amounts of time or the altering of deeply entrenched systems – factors that are at odds with what the fossil record and molecular data show (e.g., relatively sudden appearances of complex features). These findings don’t “disprove” evolution, but they do challenge researchers to rethink standard models. They may imply that additional mechanisms (such as facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, or modular “plug-and-play” gene networks) are at work to enable complexity, or they lend support to those who argue that unguided processes alone are insufficient to account for life’s origin and diversity.
Unanticipated Complexity in Networks and Epigenetic Regulation
As scientists map out cellular networks, from metabolic pathways to signaling cascades to gene circuits, a recurring theme is the unexpected complexity and fine-tuning in these systems:
• Dense Interaction Networks: The cell operates via an intricate web of protein–protein interactions and signaling pathways. Recent interactome mapping projects estimate that the human cell has on the order of 600,000 physical protein–protein interactions. Such a densely connected network was not anticipated in early models of cellular function. These interactions form elaborate networks with feedback loops and redundancies. For instance, the well-studied p53 tumor suppressor network involves dozens of proteins that regulate each other’s stability and activity in response to stress, creating a robust system that can toggle between cell repair and cell death. The high connectivity means a single protein’s activity can ripple through many pathways. From an evolutionary view, building up such networks incrementally is problematic – adding a new protein into a web of interactions requires it to simultaneously mesh correctly with multiple partners to confer any advantage. Discoveries of just how many interactions exist suggest cells are more like integrated circuits than simple series of steps.
•
• Robustness and Error Correction: Biological networks show remarkable robustness – the ability to maintain function despite perturbations. For example, developmental gene networks often have built-in backup pathways (if one gene is knocked out, another can compensate). There are also proofreading and error-checking mechanisms at multiple levels (DNA replication fidelity, RNA splicing quality control, protein folding chaperones, etc.). These features amount to layers of quality control that prevent errors from cascading. The existence of such safeguards indicates that life is tuned to resist random change (most mutations are corrected, mitigated, or tolerated via robustness). While great for the organism, this is a double-edged sword for evolutionary theory: robust systems are less likely to exhibit a new trait from a mutation (since they buffer changes), potentially slowing innovation. The discovery of extensive error-correction machinery (like DNA repair enzymes recognizing specific mismatches, or the complex surveillance of mRNA by nonsense-mediated decay) underscores that many potential evolutionary paths (those via intermediate errors) are effectively blocked or filtered out. Evolution must work within these stringent constraints, which is challenging if a novel feature requires a transient decrease in fitness or a sloppy intermediate. In essence, life has evolved to prevent too much evolution (change), maintaining stability.
•
• Epigenetic and Transcriptional Crosstalk: Genome-wide studies have shown that genes do not act in isolation. Transcription factors bind to DNA in combinatorial fashion, and many regulatory DNA sites (enhancers) can influence multiple genes. Moreover, epigenetic marks can spread or be recognized by multiple proteins, creating crosstalk between different pathways. One striking example is the circuitry of cell differentiation: networks of transcription factors and epigenetic modifiers form self-stabilizing loops that lock cells into a specific identity (e.g., skin cell vs. nerve cell). Reprogramming a cell’s identity (as in iPSC technology) required scientists to simultaneously tweak multiple factors, underscoring how tightly interwoven the network is. It’s not just a simple on/off switch for one gene – you must redirect an entire network. The complexity discovered in these regulatory circuits was beyond early expectations. For evolution, this means that to evolve a new cell type or tissue, numerous changes in the network would have to occur in a coordinated way, since changing one node often doesn’t produce a useful effect unless others change in parallel. Recent work mapping these circuits shows many “nodes” influence each other, so the network’s output is an emergent property of many interactions. This emergent complexity makes reductive explanations difficult – you can’t easily point to a single mutation and say “here’s how a new organ formed,” because it likely involved a suite of network tweaks.
•
• Multi-Layered Signal Integration: Cellular decision-making (like whether to divide, differentiate, or die) often integrates inputs from multiple pathways. A cell will “decide” to divide only if it receives a sufficient combination of growth signals and lacks stress signals, etc. Researchers continue to find that pathway cross-talk is the rule, not the exception. For instance, the MAP kinase pathway (a classic signaling cascade) interacts with the PI3K-AKT pathway; together they may regulate a common target. The unanticipated complexity is that signaling is not linear; there are network motifs like feedback loops, feedforward loops, and bistable switches embedded in these pathways. These motifs are borrowed from control theory and engineering – they make the system behavior more complex but also more controllable and stable. Evolutionarily, it’s puzzling how a random mutation would add a perfectly calibrated feedback loop to a pathway. If it’s too strong or weak, the system could become unstable. Yet cells are full of such control motifs that give precise regulation (for example, metabolic homeostasis often relies on feedback inhibition where the end product of a pathway allosterically inhibits an earlier enzyme). The discovery of these motifs in biology has led scientists to realize that cells behave like engineered systems, with circuit-like logic. The challenge is explaining how blind evolution produced such fine-tuned circuits. It suggests any intermediate stages that lacked proper tuning would be non-functional or disadvantageous, leaving a narrow path for selection to traverse.
•
Implications: The overarching implication of these network and epigenetic findings is that biology operates on a system level that is highly sophisticated. The surprise isn’t that biological systems are complex (that’s long known), but rather the degree and integrated nature of the complexity, which often exceeds what scientists predicted. Every time we peel back a layer (be it the interactome, the “wiring diagram” of a cell’s signaling, or the chromatin state map), we find new connections and intricacies. For naturalistic evolution, this can be seen as increasing the explanatory burden – mutations and selection must account for not just genes in isolation, but their network context and multi-layer regulation. It pushes theories towards considering whole-system evolution (which is hard to simulate or conceptualize) or invoking modular events (like whole gene network duplications or horizontal gene transfer of circuits) to try to get a functional network in one swoop. Some scientists have started to explore alternatives like facilitated variation (where the genome’s structure itself encourages certain beneficial variations) or neutral networks (where underlying genotype changes accumulate neutrally until a novel phenotype “pops out”). However, the unanticipated complexity consistently found in molecular networks and epigenetic codes often draws parallels to designed systems. It has reinvigorated discussions about whether an unguided process is sufficient to account for such features or if our understanding of evolution needs to expand to include new principles.
Conclusion
In summary, cutting-edge research in prestigious journals (Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS, etc.) has illuminated a picture of life that is layered with complexity from top to bottom. From molecular machines that appear irreducibly complex, to new regulatory mechanisms that add depth to the genomic code, to fundamental chemical hurdles at life’s origin, to constraints on how life can change once it is complex – these discoveries collectively pose significant questions for the traditional neo-Darwinian narrative. Rather than a simple progression from primordial soup to single cell to conscious beings, the story emerging from the data is one of intricate systems that seem to require many parts moving together. Scientists of course continue to investigate naturalistic explanations, and some propose that these challenges will be resolved with deeper knowledge or new evolutionary theory frameworks. Nonetheless, the findings highlighted here strengthen the case that life’s complexity is not easily explained by undirected processes alone. They encourage open-minded consideration of whether additional mechanisms (or even guiding influences) might be at play in the origin and development of biological complexity. At the very least, they remind us that biological science is far from having all the answers – life consistently surprises us, and those surprises often point toward a level of engineering and integration that we are only beginning to fathom.
Sources:
• Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. (Concept of irreducible complexity introduced, flagellum as example).
•
• Yale News – discovery of 20-part SAGA complex.
•
• CSIRO/ABC Science – description of flagellum’s motor-like complexity.
•
• NASA Astrobiology/PNAS – ribosome core conservation and origin.
•
• MIT News (Feb 2025) – new splicing regulation layer via Luc7 proteins.
•
• EMBL News (2022) – Integrator complex structure and broad role in transcription control.
•
• ENCODE project summary (NIH) – function assigned to 80% of genome, 3D regulatory architecture.
•
• Cell (Hnisz et al. 2017) – phase separation model for transcriptional control (super-enhancers forming condensates).
•
• MDPI Genes (2022) – microRNA regulatory scope (~60% genes, ~200 targets/miRNA).
•
• Science (2012) – histone code complexity, 100+ modifications (summarized in Curr Opin Genet Dev).
•
• Genetics (Durrett & Schmidt 2008) – waiting time for two mutations,  >100 million years in large mammals.
•
• Science (Davidson & Erwin 2006) – developmental GRN “kernels” constrain body plan evolution (Cambrian explosion context).
•
• The Atlantic (Ed Yong 2016) – synthetic minimal cell with 473 genes, 149 unknown essential.
•
• PNAS (Kocher & Dill 2024) – origin of life perspective highlighting need for prebiotic selection (needle-in-haystack problem).
•
• PNAS (Stumpf et al. 2008) – human interactome estimated ~650,000 interactions.
•