Is There Enough Time For Humans to Have Evolved From Apes? Dr. Ann Gauger Answers

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 5, 2012

News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Eric, not too long ago there was a thread here dedicated to exploring engineering in biology. Check out this guy: http://www.amazon.com/Steven-Vogel/e/B001IQUN4S/Mung_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PST}

wd400 @148: Wow. I'm seeing lots of definitions of bioengineering along the following lines: "Bioengineers use engineering principles to analyze and solve problems in biology and medicine." or "Bioengineering is the application of engineering design and technology to living systems." Anyway, we don't need to debate the label, because the label isn't important. The key is that engineering principles absolutely apply to living systems. Make any machine you can think of and engineering applies. Now make a machine with biological matter, rather than non-biological matter, and now engineering principles don't apply? LOL! What principles do then apply, pray tell; magic fantasy principles like "Stuff Happens" (Darwin be praised)? Also, I'm seeing some definitions along this line for bioinformatics (this one from the NIH): "Bioinformatics is a subdiscipline of biology and computer science concerned with the acquisition, storage, analysis, and dissemination of biological data, most often DNA and amino acid sequences." Yeah, we wouldn't want that computer science stuff to get us all confused now, would we? Why, we might make the mistake of thinking that biology uses data storage and retrieval mechanisms, top-down protocol heirarchies, digital code, semiotics, and the like. That would really mislead us. LOL!Eric Anderson_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST}

Thanks for the Bray link Mung,,, along that line, you may appreciate this: Learning from Bacteria about Social Networking (Information Processing) - video Excerpt: I will show illuminating movies of swarming intelligence of live bacteria in which they solve optimization problems for collective decision making that are beyond what we, human beings, can solve with our most powerful computers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJpi8SnFXHsbornagain77_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PST}

wd400:
I am a bioinformaticist, and thinking biology behaves like code is a very good way to make mistakes.
What are the material requirements for the transfer of recorded information? Do you use RV + NS to design your information systems?Mung_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PST}

wd400:
I am a bioinformaticist, and thinking biology behaves like code is a very good way to make mistakes.
How does something "behave like a code"? How does a code behave?
Until then all this talk of “engineering” (possibly the worst possible way to think about biology… computing being the only close contender) is just waffle
Dennis Bray, heard of him? Wetware: A Computer in Every Living CellMung_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST}

Bioengineering is about using what we know about biology to solve problems, not using what you know about engineering to understand biology. I am a bioinformaticist, and thinking biology behaves like code is a very good way to make mistakes.wd400_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST}

wd400:
Until then all this talk of “engineering” (possibly the worst possible way to think about biology… computing being the only close contender) is just waffle
Right. As opposed to thinking of biology as some kind of accidental assemblage of non-specified mutations that is built mostly on junk. Yeah, that's the right way to think about biology! LOL! There is a reason there is a whole discipline called bioengineering and a whole discipline called bioinformatics that deals with information and codes and representations and, yes, even instructional programming protocols. If humans are ever successful in building a simple living cell it will be because it was carefully engineered and programmed with very specific functional elements. This Darwinist fantasy you are harboring about life being some kludge of anything-goes mutations in a sea of junk is such a laughable joke. Well, it has been a fun thread. And it is also been illuminating to see in action this absurd evolutionary fallback position with its rhetorical attempt to counteract the realities of real-world engineering and computational constraints, so we appreciate you participating.Eric Anderson_{November 21, 2012
November
11
Nov
21
21
2012
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PST}

The best way to think about biology: It just happened, that's all.Mung_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PST}

No, the worse way to think about biology is to think it arose and diversified via blind and undirected chemical processes. It is not only untestable but also a complete waste of time.Joe_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PST}

Now it is time for you to acknowledge that at least *some* are. It is OK to acknowledge that you were wrong, that looking at the timeframe for specific mutations in the alleged human-chimp differentiation process over 6M years is a reasonable question to consider, and that you can’t simply dismiss the whole issue with vague references to “anything goes” evolution. Show that ultra-specified co-ordinated mutations within a single regulatory element are a requirement for adaptation and I'll happily change my mind. Until then all this talk of "engineering" (possibly the worst possible way to think about biology... computing being the only close contender) is just wafflewd400_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST}

wd400, Unguided evolution doesn't make any sense, just like most of what you postJoe_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PST}

Try them again PaV, I've mainly ignored things taht don't make any sense.... like most of what has been written since last time I posted.wd400_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PST}

wd400: I've raised some questions along the line here, and you haven't addressed them. I don't know quite what to make of that.PaV_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PST}

Mung: The confusion probably arises because in one case we are speaking of something physical (the nucleotides) and in the other case we are speaking of something logical (the allele). I quite agree. In a certain sense "alleles" only exist as a way of speaking about genetic mechanisms within population, a term that predates the discovery of DNA.PaV_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PST}

Eric Anderson: I hear you on the “fixation” term. But for better or worse, that is the term that has become current in the scientific discussions (noting the two uses I mentioned elsewhere). I don't care if we call it "parchese", I was trying to highlight to wd400 that different loci along the length of DNA act differently. My point was that "neutral" cites, even after "substitution", remain "neutral" cites. What if we had ten trillion "substitutions", what then? The organism would be just like it was before the ten trillion "substitutions" took place. The Darwinists want it otherwise. I think it's required that all of this be pointed out.PaV_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PST}

PaV, I think I see your point. Single nucleotides are not alleles and different language should be employed when speaking of the two. An allele can become fixed (by substitution) in a population, and yet that allele could exhibit differences at the nucleotide level in different members of the population. The confusion probably arises because in one case we are speaking of something physical (the nucleotides) and in the other case we are speaking of something logical (the allele).Mung_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

PaV @136: I hear you on the "fixation" term. But for better or worse, that is the term that has become current in the scientific discussions (noting the two uses I mentioned elsewhere). Regardless of what term we use to describe the accumulation of neutral mutations in DNA, the real question is whether neutral mutations can do anything for us. The whole idea of neutral mutations being wonderfully helpful for evolution is a joke. That there are some neutral mutations is true. That they would somehow sit there quietly until evolution "needs" them and then they suddenly get incorporated into a wonderful new system is absurd. And it also doesn't address the probabilities (which is what neutral mutations were supposed to help with). Having a bunch of random bases sitting around in DNA is not of any help at all in getting the kind of functional complex specified information we need to build living systems. It doesn't change the probabilities in any meaningful way at all.Eric Anderson_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST}

Mung: We're not talking about genes, per se, but about mutations. The point I'm making is that neutral mutations are exactly that: neutral mutations. And a consequence of this is that it matters not what base shifts to what base---it's all the same. And, hence, it makes no sense to call this "fixation" since this shifting around of bases has no effect on the organism--i.e., it's a 'neutral' mutation. An analogy: if the color of the paint on a car changes, it affects function not one twit. But, for example, if you substituted a monkey wrench for a steering wheel, now you have a problem. IOW, there are portions of a car that are interchangeable---neutral---to function, and others that are not. Likewise, neutral locations are neutral locations. They're like changing a car's color from red to silver, and, again, it makes no sense to talk about fixation of something that has, by definition, no phenotypic effect.PaV_{November 20, 2012
November
11
Nov
20
20
2012
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PST}

wd400 @134: Good. So (granting just for purposes of discussion that we are dealing with an actual natural mutation, as opposed to an organism-induced trigger) we have one case in which we have, say, a half dozen possible ways to encourage the body to continue carrying out a function that it was already built to carry out. Did Gauger ever say that every mutation leading from the chimp ancestor to humans had to be the precise one we see? Did she ever say that there are no instances across all of human biology in which a handful of options can work? Of course not. She is saying that there are a number of specific mutations required. That is a very different matter and you are grossly misrepresenting her position. Further, even if we grant this particular example you are focusing on, and even if we grant a dozen more like it, there is still every reason to believe that many very specific building blocks have been required to get to humans. Look, you have started from what is, frankly, an absurd position, namely that no specific mutations are required to get to humans. It is clear that this assumption is not based on anything relating to the actual engineering or biology of humans, but is based on a desire to avoid dealing with the probabilities. We're happy to grant you that not *every* DNA difference between chimps and humans is important. Now it is time for you to acknowledge that at least *some* are. It is OK to acknowledge that you were wrong, that looking at the timeframe for specific mutations in the alleged human-chimp differentiation process over 6M years is a reasonable question to consider, and that you can't simply dismiss the whole issue with vague references to "anything goes" evolution.Eric Anderson_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PST}

Eric, It's one example of a recent human adaptation (you'll have to tell me how this trait could have arisen by a method other than mutation) and it's very clear that this trait could have arisen by at least 5 different mutations. The fact it never appears to have arisen by the same mutation suggests there are more ways for lactase persistence to arise. So, yes, it's very clear case in which the the ultra-specificity of the calculations Gauger is talking about aren't required to evolve a new adaption.wd400_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PST}

Holy Chocolate Cow!Mung_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PST}

wd400: So let's make sure we have this straight. Humans have the ability already built in at birth to digest lactose. In other words, there is a system already built and functioning at the outset. The activity of the lactase enzyme is often reduced after weaning in many mammals, and naturally diminishes as the growing organism ingests less and less milk. But in some populations in which milk is regularly consumed, high levels of enzyme activity persist into adulthood. There are potentially a couple of different SNP's (which perhaps arose by mutation) that contribute to a higher expression of the lactase gene. And this is the evidence you cite for the idea (the focus of this thread) that no specific mutations are required to get to humans? Holy cow! :)Eric Anderson_{November 19, 2012
November
11
Nov
19
19
2012
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PST}

PaV:
Please explain to me then why they use the word “substitution” instead of “fixation”?
Mostly historical, likely.
The principle unit process in evolution is the substitution of one gene for another at the same locus. - J.B.S. Haldane
Mung_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PST}

@wd400: . . . to 5 in 3 x 10^-9. . . .PaV_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PST}

wd400@Eric Anderson: . . . and, it [lactose persistence] seems, has come about due to a different mutation (at least 5 that I know about) in each case. So, all this means is that the odds of 'hitting' an 'exact' location improves from 1 in 3 x 10^-9 to 5 in 1 x 10^-9. This is half an order of magnitude better than a problem that is quasi-intractable for Darwinism. Is this something to hang your hat on?PaV_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PST}

wd400: The reason I haven’t answered you’re comments about fixation and substitution is there is nothing there – if you want to try again please do, but substitution and fixation are the same thing. Please explain to me then why they use the word "substitution" instead of "fixation"? You haven't answered regarding the study showing that insects ranging across different 'orders' developed the exact sequence, in the exact location, in developing resistance to a leaf toxin. As to "lactose persistence," here's part of what wikipedia has: n one study involving a Finnish population, a CT SNP at –14 kb was found in all lactase persistent individuals and absent in all hypolactasia individuals. A second SNP (G-22 kbA) was concordant with phenotype in all but a few rare individuals. Since both SNPs are located in the same gene, this has led to a genetic means of testing lactase expression in individuals. Outside of the Finnish study, a separate study also confirmed that the CT SNP at -14kb is an indicator of lactase persistence, with the exception of two individuals We're dealing with TWO SNPs. This is what 'adaptation' looks like; and, per Behe and his EofE, this is very close to that edge (if not the edge itself). This is what nature tells us. And science is about "knowing" what nature wants to tell us; it's not about our favorite theory.PaV_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PST}

So lactase persistence-type mutations gave us upright bipeds from knuckle-walkers/ quadrapeds?Joe_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PST}

Eric, Read a little about lactase persistence. It's not the wildtype, it's a new trait that has arisen almost every time humans have lived along side dairy animals (cows or horses) and, it seems, has come about due to a different mutation (at least 5 that I know about) in each case.wd400_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PST}

wd400 @120: A speed limit?! LOL! She's talking about a tiny handful of changes and asking us to actually ask some hard questions about the mutational story. If she were to include all changes she wouldn't even be able to get through the interview without doubling over with laughter. It is you who takes the completely unsupportable position that no specific changes are required. And therefore, with your metaphor, there is no speed limit, because, hey, we aren't going anywhere anyway, so we can get to nowhere in no particular time at all!Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PST}

wd400: Please answer these two questions: 1. How many functional versions of lactase enzyme exist? 2. How many non-functional sequences of the relevant DNA string are there? You seem to make much of the fact that some systems can experience minor perturbations and still function, or that some systems can have a couple of alternative forms. What you still seem to be forgetting is that these functional islands represent an infinitesimally small pinpoint among the whole range of possibilities. That a couple of alternative forms of "gene x" or "enzyme y" function, does not change the fact that many very specific mutations are needed to get to the relevant functions we see today.Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2012
November
11
Nov
18
18
2012
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PST}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply