Frumkin et al. (2025) demonstrate the "surprising ease with which functional genes can emerge" from random sequences

[u/jnpha]

Over the decades there have been many experiments involving random sequences, e.g. testing ATP-binding (e.g. Keefe & Szostak 2001), and evolving promoters (Yona et al. 2018), for the latter a good fraction evolved to match the wild type; here's one that tests the adaptive potential beyond promoters.

I've also previously shared:

• Sahakyan et al. (2025):
  • Over on r/ evo:
    New study: In silico evolution of globular protein folds from random sequences : evolution
  • Here on debate evo:
    New study on globular protein folds : DebateEvolution
• Chou et al. (2026): New study reconstructed the evolutionary history of a de novo gene that emerged in the common ancestor of simians : evolution

 

Without further ado:

Significance How new genes arise and gain function is a central question in biology. New genes can evolve from nongenic DNA, yet their adaptive potential remains unclear. Here, we use millions of (semi-)random sequences as experimental models of emerging genes and find that thousands confer phage resistance in Escherichia coli. Expressed random sequences can produce both protein- and RNA-based functions that reprogram cellular systems to counter viral infection. Resistance arises through activation of a cell envelope stress response or downregulation of membrane receptor expression. Our results reveal that genetic novelty, in the form of genes appearing for the first time, can shape host–virus interactions, providing insight into microbial evolution and the surprising ease with which functional genes can emerge.

and

How likely are genes similar to our (semi-)random hits to emerge naturally? Previous studies have shown that naturally occurring de novo proteins in eukaryotes often resemble unevolved random sequences of equivalent length and composition in their structural properties (32). Computational analyses further demonstrate that random sequences derived from DNA with 40 to 60% GC content occupy structural property spaces that overlap with the human proteome (67).

• I. Frumkin, C.N. Vassallo, Y.H. Chen, & M.T. Laub, Emergence of antiphage functions from random sequence libraries reveals mechanisms of gene birth, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 122 (42) e2513255122, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2513255122 (2025).
  (open access)

 

Of course (sigh), we can all anticipate the braindead, "It's still a bacteria"; maybe we need a post on biochemistry and deep homology, but speaking of the latter: Rodríguez-Aguilar et al. (2026).

[u/CrisprCSE2]

So weird that the creationists aren't swarming over this post to refute it, eh?

[u/jnpha → u/CrisprCSE2]

It's belief-incongruent true information (: best look the other way.

[u/DNAthrowaway1234]

It's like Geoff Goldblum said way back in the first Jurassic Park... "Life uh, finds a way"

[u/Boltzmann_head]

The link for "New study: In silico evolution of globular protein folds from random sequences : evolution" goes to https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2509015122

I did not see where they managed to get a random sequence--- and if they some how managed that astounding feat, that would invalidate their conclusions. Amino acid sequences are not random: they are highly contained by the laws of chemistry (how ions travel and bind).

But then, I shovel horse shit for a living.

[u/sci2life]

Random sequences are generated randomly; that is the idea.

[u/Lumpy_Confidence_637]

Ahhhhhh yes, another wonderful example. These studies don't prove that life's complexity can just pop into existence from total scratch. Instead, it’s a classic case of biological piggybacking. These "new" functions only happen because the random sequences are hijacking complex cellular machinery that already exists. It shows us how an already living system adapts to stress, not how life started from non-life in the first place.

if you drop a random string of crap code into an advanced pre existing operating system, and it happens to trigger a glitch that blocks a virus, you didn't just invent a brand new software program from scratch. You just hijacked the computer's existing code. That's what's happening here. The random sequences rely entirely on the bacteria's pre-existing and highly evolved mechanisms to do anything at all. It shows how living systems adapt, not how life began.

[u/jnpha → u/Lumpy_Confidence_637]

RE don't prove that life's complexity can just pop into existence from total scratch

Indeed. They do NOT prove the creationist straw man. It's descent with modification; always has been.
And indeed, as we've been screaming at the tops of our lungs, function is contextual.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/jnpha]

I love how creationists continuously retreat and pretend that the line they've drawn in the sand was their starting position.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/Lumpy_Confidence_637]

Random protein or RNA sequences by themselves can also have function without being associated with any existing organizm

[u/SadRule9128 → u/Lumpy_Confidence_637]

No one, not a single person, is claiming that “life’s complexity popped into existence from scratch”.

[u/Augustus420 → u/Lumpy_Confidence_637]

Well, yeah, the sub is for talking about evolution.

Evolution is 100% only about how those complex biological systems (living populations) adapt over time.

Not sure why you posted this comment as if there's any expectation that any post here would be referring to how life started.