Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Missense Meanderings

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

MISSENSE MEANDERINGS IN
SEQUENCE SPACE: A BIOPHYSICAL
VIEW OF PROTEIN EVOLUTION
Mark A. DePristo, Daniel M. Weinreich and Daniel L. Hartl

“Taken as a whole, recent findings from biochemistry and evolutionary biology indicate that our understanding of protein evolution is incomplete, if not fundamentally flawed.”

Abstract | Proteins are finicky molecules; they are barely stable and are prone to aggregate, but they must function in a crowded environment that is full of degradative enzymes bent on their destruction. It is no surprise that many common diseases are due to missense mutations that affect protein stability and aggregation. Here we review the literature on biophysics as it relates to molecular evolution, focusing on how protein stability and aggregation affect organismal fitness. We then advance a biophysical model of protein evolution that helps us to understand phenomena that range from the dynamics of molecular adaptation to the clock-like rate of protein evolution

Summary:

**In addition to functional properties, proteins have a wide range of biophysical characteristics, such as stability, propensity for aggregation and rate of degradation. These properties are at least as important as function for cellular and organismal fitness.

**Proteins tolerate only narrow ranges of stability, aggregation propensity and degradation rate. Many individual missense mutations perturb these traits by amounts that are on the same order as the permissible range of values, and are consequently common causes of human genetic disease.

**The narrow range of tolerance of deviations from optimum characteristics and the significant effects of mutations give rise to a substantial degree of epistasis for fitness. Moreover, mutations simultaneously affect function, stability, aggregation and degradation. For these reasons, mutations might be selectively beneficial on some genetic backgrounds and deleterious on others.

**Mutations that change function often do so at the cost of protein stability and aggregation. Compensatory mutations therefore function by relieving the biophysical strain that is introduced by adaptive mutations.

**We propose a new model of protein evolution that is reminiscent of a constrained ‘random walk’ through fitness space, which is based on the fitness consequences and distribution of mutational effects on function, stability, aggregation and degradation.

**This model can account for both the micro-evolutionary events that are studied by biochemists and the long-term patterns of protein evolution that are observed by evolutionary biologists.

—–

Taken as a whole, recent findings from biochemistry and evolutionary biology indicate that our understanding of protein evolution is incomplete, if not fundamentally flawed. The neutral theory of molecular evolution1, which states that all mutations that reach FIXATION in a population are selectively neutral, appeals to evolutionary geneticists in part because it can account for the approximately constant rate of protein evolution. However, its premise that most missense mutations are selectively neutral has been systematically rejected by protein biochemists, who recognize instead that almost all missense mutations have large biophysical effects2. Indeed, nucleotide sequence analyses have uncovered pervasive positive selection for amino-acid replacements3?5.

Another important challenge to evolutionary theory, which emphasizes the independent and additive effects of mutations, arises from studies of compensatory evolution. Here the deleterious effects of mutations are rapidly and effectively compensated by conditionally beneficial mutations. Compensatory mutations often occur in the same gene as the initial deleterious mutation, are common in ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION6?8 and have an important role in many human diseases9. There are currently no models that reconcile the constant rate of protein evolution with the biochemical reality that missense mutations have large, context-dependent effects and that few, if any, are selectively neutral.

There is a growing appreciation of the role that the biophysical properties of protein stability, aggregation and degradation have in FITNESS and disease10 TABLE 1. Moreover, these properties have been identified as significant factors in many cases of adaptive8,11,12 and compensatory evolution13?15. These properties ? and not function ? seem to be the forces driving much of protein evolution.

Here we review the literature on biophysics as it relates to molecular evolution, with a particular focus on how missense mutations affect protein stability and aggregation. We then develop a biophysical model of protein evolution that helps to explain such diverse phenomena as compensatory mutation, the dynamics of molecular adaptation and the rate of protein evolution. Throughout this review, we bring together the fields of protein biophysics and molecular evolution by highlighting the shared questions, complementary techniques and important results concerning protein evolution that have come from both fields.

Comments
Cambion, I like your reasoning and logic in post #15, but I think your premise provides part of what is seen by some as the tautology of molecular clocks; specifically, they are calibrated upon the initial assumption of evolutionary timelines and rely upon the presumed existence of common ancestors. Then if the clocks are used as support for the same the circularity sets in.Charlie
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Cambion - I think your making a rather fallacious assumption: that you can't currently see a reason for dinosaurs, therefore there must not be one. If you look at it holistically, perhaps the dinosaurs prepared the ecosphere in some way to prepare the way for later mammalian evolution. Or maybe you can't get certain productive branches without also getting some other nonproductive branches. Who knows? But to say that at out current fairly small level of knowledge that we can see all the implications of 4 billion years of evolution seems rather arrogant. As to the level of information in the genome: one could say that part of the information is there, and part is "encoded" in laws of nature themsleves (in how proteins fold, how different functional proteins are related, etc.) If you take Dawkins's celebrated "Methinks it is a weasel" example, in english it doesn't work. But one could imagine a language in which each intermediate phrase actually had meaning, and furthur each followed upon the other to tell a continuous story. Part of the information, then, would be in the phrase itself, but most would be in the language itself.jimbo
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Oh, one thing, I was thinking of the beanbags the size of hackysacks, not the armchair kind.cambion
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Also, if the whole point of this phylogenetic program is to end up at humans, it seems like a pretty nonsensical way of going about it... Why both to continue evolution on branches that will not lead to humans, and will not interact with the human ecosystem. Here I'm thinking of hyperthermophylic bacteria living in the Yellowstone Geysers. These Archeobacteria probably evolved from some of our earliest ancestors. Or similarly, what about deep sea fauna? Also, why both at all with the dinosaurs? The mammalian clade of reptiles branched off early, in the Triassic, why not unfold millions of years of evolution of the dinosaurs (it's a lot of work to write all that code), when all you really want is mammals.cambion
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
DaveScot, The genome of any sort of uber-dubia could not contain enough information to specificy the entire unfolding of life on Earth. I'm going to use some back of the envelope calculations here. I will try to be as conservative as possible in my estimates. I'm sure you will let me know if you disagree with any of the parameters... From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity : "Estimates of the present global macroscopic species diversity vary from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near 10 million" and "99% of the species that have ever lived on earth are today extinct" So, 10 million extant genomes and 1 billion genomes ever existing (this is completely discounting polymorphism, and assuming each species has just a single genome). From http://www.ensembl.org/Saccharomyces_cerevisiae/index.html : "Base Pairs: 12,156,590" So, the yeast genome (one of the simplest eukaryotes known - using eukaryotes because they make up the majority of those species - but, not of course biomass) is around 12 million base pairs. From http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00415.htm : "Since DNA is double stranded, i.e., one nucleotide pairs with a nucleotide on the opposing strand, then we can say the average molecular weight of a nucleotide PAIR in DNA is 660 daltons. " (This gives nearly the same numbers http://www.jtbaker.com/conversion/conversions.htm) From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_(unit) : "1 u ≈ 1.66053886 x 10-27 kg" Cool, now let's do the math (but first note that the haploid human genome weighs 3.3 x 10^-15 kg 10^9 genomes * 1.2 x 10^6 base pairs per genome = 1.2 x 10^15 base pairs ever existing 1.2 x 10^15 x 660 daltons x 1.66053886 x 10^-27 kg/dalton = 1.315 x 10^-9 kg or 1.315 ng in uber-dubia's genome without compression So, without compression, we need a genome of around 400,000 times the size of modern day humans. I would say that this number would not be biologically feasible, one would need cells the size of beanbags... So, now we get to argue about how much compression is possible... I would like to add however, that this includes no room at all for the program that is necessary to unfold the phylogeny of life. It only contains the what is "printed out" by our running phylogeny program. You would have to add a significant chunk of DNA to account for this. I just don't see how it's possible.cambion
October 1, 2005
October
10
Oct
1
01
2005
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Cambion Be a sport and see if you can dig up a molecular clock that can tell me when a.dubia split from its MCRA. Them there molecular clocks been a tickin' for billions of years ya think? :-) Also, ya got any incontrovertable evidence that prokaryotes didn't come along AFTER eukaryotes? I can't find any. It's (again) just an a priori presumption that smaller genomes preceded larger genomes. So many prokaryotes are parasites of eukaryotes it makes me really question which came first, the host or the parasite. Logic says the host came first. Moreover, we have to consider viruses. They're exclusively parasites and have even simpler genomes than prokaryotes. They even parasitize prokaryotes. It's almost a foregone conclusion that viruses evolved after their hosts. I see no good reason to presume that prokaryotes didn't cleave off from eukaryotes instead of the dogmatic presumption to the contrary. Everything we know about evolution on the planet earth falls neatly into place if you ditch the belief that the first cell evolved on this planet from a primordial soup of inanimate chemicals. That geocentric notion of origins dictates a path of less complex to more complex and is full of gaps and unexplained events. If one allows in the belief that life evolved (or was created) elsewhere and arrived here (again either by chance or design) in a complex seed then everything thereafter falls into place. No more gaps. The gap is moved off this planet into a far larger temporal and spatial environment where more is reasonably possible. To get an idea just how much larger in time and space (the causally connected universe where life could have evolved): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone Of course the GHZ presumes carbon based life and I'm no carbon chauvinist! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinist It's been very recently discovered that we only have a good handle on 5% of the "stuff" that makes up the observable universe. 95% of the "stuff" that reveals itself only through gravitational interaction is mysterious stuff termed "dark matter" (20% of the unknown stuff) and "dark energy" (the other 70% of the unknown stuff). With 95% of the stuff of universe undescribed by modern physics I'm pretty damn hesitant to proclaim much of anything about what might be out there in terms of intelligent entities. Hopefully this begins to explain why I'm agnostic and leads others into my state of not knowing anything for sure (misery loves company, after all).DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
I don't buy the lame explanation that a.dubia is carrying around almost 700 BILLION base pairs of junk DNA. C-value doesn't correspond with complexity but it sure as hell corresponds with nucleus size in eukaryotes and nucleus size corresponds with cell size and cell size corresponds with time it takes for cell division and cell division time corresponds with energy required for cell division and energy required for cell division corresponds to competitive fitness. A.dubia should have been eaten alive (literally) by its smaller, faster, nimbler, more efficient competitors if there's no survival value in all that extra DNA. Period. Either you believe that or you have to throw out the whole concept of survival of the fittest. Takes yo pick.DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
"If someone could demonstrate for me that that feat [feat = packing a genome with enough information for vast diversity] would be indeed possible, I would consider it a possible alternative hypothesis." No problemo. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/9/4/317 The C-Value Paradox The lack of a correlation between genome size and organismal complexity has so surprised biologists that it has come to be known as the "C-value paradox" (Thomas 1971). For example, Homo sapiens has a genome size 200 times smaller than that of Amoeba dubia (Li 1997). Moreover, it has been well established that the genomes of most eukaryotes contain thousands of times more DNA than required to carry out all necessary protein coding and regulatory functions. Some early attempts to explain this lack of an association between C-value and complexity proposed that the superfluous DNA present in large genomes acted as a storehouse of genetic variability that could be recruited by evolution should the need arise (Jain 1980). The fallacy of ascribing such foresight to the evolutionary process is now well recognized, but several plausible solutions to this puzzle remain. --------------------------- I'm not at all convinced that the "fallacy of ascribing such foresight to the evolutinary process" is well recognized. I believe that's a dogmatic conclusion based upon an a priori presumption that evolution is without foresight. However, I am convinced that ameoba dubia, with a genome 200 times the size of the human genome, is sufficient to contain enough information to launch at least a couple hundred phyla which corresponds rather nicely with the number of phyla that have been identified over the course of evolution. Nothing says a.dubia is the biggest either. It's just the biggest so far discovered in an extant critter. There is absolutely no reason in the world why an uber-dubia (say, that's got a nice cadence, dunnit?) couldnt't exist with an even larger genome. What say you now?DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
Actually when lots of lots of data are used you get lots and lots of different answers. Surely you've read of different proteins giving different answers to MRCAs. Molecular clocks as dating devices for phylogenetic divergence are "seriously innaccurate". Don't take my word for it, take Richard M. Bateman and William A. DiMichele's word for it. I gave you a link to peer reviewed literature. Where's your link contradicting mine? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Cough up some corroboration for your claims.DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
DaveScot, There's a lot to respond to here. I'll just touch on a few points... The molecular clock as tautology: I'll admit that inferring selection when the molecular clock doesn't match up to the fossil record is a bit iffy at best. Being able to say that a high rate of change for this particular gene at this particular branch infers selection is a bit strong, especially when multiple tests come into the equation. I'm not too familar with the matching up of molecular clocks and fossil clocks, however, I will take the statement "Dating phylogenetic divergences via molecular clocks remains seriously inaccurate, and ultimately relies primarily on fossil benchmarks" at face value. I think one part of things that people might not be taking into account is the enourmass variance caused by a Poisson process like neutral molecular evolution. If each year there is a 10^-9 chance of mutation becoming fixed, then the clock will proceed at an average rate of one change per million years, however the variance around this million year average is huge (you can plot this out easily enough with Mathematica or similar software). Thus, if the scientist sees that there are 3 mutations in a million year timespan (following the previous numbers) that is no reason to reject the clock. This clock is only useful as a heurestic, a null hypothesis as it were. I would think you would be very happy to agree with it, as it allows for genetic change to occur without invoking natural selection whatsoever. One final point on this matter. When a molecular clock is run with lots and lots of data (say a full genome, as they've done with human-mouse and other comparisons), the large variance is swamped out by all the signal and estimates that very closely match the fossil record are arrived upon. Distinguishing common descent and common design: Historically this has been quite an issue. My metric lies in those pieces of an organism that lack function. Thus, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that whales and other mammals shared a common ancester lies in the fact that they have vestigal pelvic bones, which are absolutely useless to the whale, but show perfect homology to the pelvic structures of other mammals. So, one could use this same metric at the level of DNA. There are many regions of the genome that serve no purpose, mostly slowly decaying defunct parasitic elements. By comparing patterns such sequences convergent evolution or convergent design can be safely ruled out. Ontogeny / phylogeny: On this point, have you read any Philip K. Dick? In his book VALIS, he outlines a very similar scenario. I think the most that I can saw is that I think it would be impossible to package all of the information required for subsequent unfolding of phylogeny into the Earth's earliest cell. If someone could demonstrate for me that that feat would be indeed possible, I would consider it a possible alternative hypothesis. As it stands, it's very difficult for me to believe in any sort mechanism by which a designer would continually inject information into the evolving biosphere.cambion
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
"I think it’s entirely possible, that very different things are happening at the two scales." I'm more intrigued by idea that the same things are happening on very different scales. Particularly ontogenesis and phylogenesis. The parallels seem too numerous and I suspect they're the same process on different timescales. Consider ontogenesis as the unfolding of a preprogrammed sequence from single cell to adult form. All the information required to construct the adult form is contained, unexpressed, in the original cell. What's phylogenesis? It's almost certainly the story of a single cell progressing through a sequence into an adult form. Ostensibly any species today can be traced through an unbroken cell line to a single celled LUCA some 3.5 billion years ago. Now we know nature loves a fractal - similar patterns unfolding from the same seed on vastly different scales. Let's take the ontogeny/phylogeny comparison a hypothetical step closer to fractal similarity - suppose that phylogeny is the unfolding of a single original cell *in a preprogrammed sequence* into an adult form. Only instead of typical ontogenetic gestation periods measured in days, weeks, and months, it's a different scale - the phylogenetic gestation period is one measured in thousands, millions, and billions of years. That's not a big conceptual step when you think about it. It makes good sense. Other interesting parallels include death of individuals and extinction of species. Adult forms resulting from ontogenesis live a span of days, months, or years, then die out. Phylogeny is a story of adult forms (species) that live a span of thousands or millions of years then die out. In both cases they appear to have the goal of reproducing into slightly modified forms that repeat the cycle of birth, life, and death, but on timescales that differ by a few orders of magnitude. The death of the old makes room for life of the new in both individual organisms and individual species. Intriguing, is it not? Let's examine another question that we seldom hear asked. Has phylogenetic evolution stopped? When's the last date where we've marked the emergence of a new kingdom, order, family, phyla, or genus? It looks to me like either evolution at the genus level and higher either took a break beginning a few million years ago or it stopped altogether. How can we say whether it is still occuring today beyond minor adaptations which can be easily attributable to changes in allele frequencies? So macroevolution has either stopped or is on hiatus. We can't tell the difference because the only way to do so is by waiting it out over macroevolutionary timescales. Suppose it's ended. Suppose rational man is the adult form that phylogenesis was intended to reach. Why not? We're unique enough. Now take it one step further. Suppose phylogenesis has entered a new phase. I call this phase technological evolution (as opposed to biological evolution). If intelligent design wasn't a part and parcel of biological diversity in the past it sure is now and I'll pelt anyone who tries to disagree with variety of rotten genetically engineered fruits and vegetables. Now we've entered yet another timescale for phylogenetic evolution. Through intelligent designers wearing labcoats genetic evolution has entered a new era. If we don't wipe ourselves out macroevolution is heading somewhere new and it's going there FAST. No more waiting around millions of year for random variation (if there is such a thing in the first place) to produce interesting new things - now it's getting done at the speed of engineering workstations coupled to gene splicing machines... Food for thought.DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Cambion By the way, how does your example of phlyogenetic homology support anything at all about constancy in the rate of protein evolution? You're preaching to the choir about common descent. I have no strong doubts about a hypothetical LUCA that existed 3.5 billion years ago. The genetic code is virtually identical in every living thing ever examined from the most simple prokaryote to the most complex eukaryote. That's pretty compelling evidence for common descent although one must logically acknowledge that common design is also a valid inference. I know of no way to distinguish between common descent and common design. Feel free to expound on a way to discriminate between the two if you know of one.DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
I agree one can make a lot of inferences... How can we falsify those inferences? How can you rule out horizontal gene transfer as the mechanism that linked the genes instead of common ancestry? How can you rule out convergent evolution for that particular gene? Lots and lots of inferences. All valid. None falsifiable because you can't duplicate historical evolution by experiment and you can't sequence genes that no longer exist. You know the difference between theoretical science and experimental science, right? Is historical biology a theoretical or experimental science?DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
DaveScot, You can make a lot of inferences about what ancestral sequences would have looked like using only extant sequence data. Let's say we sequence a gene in mice and sequence the same gene in humans. Let's say a piece of the sequences we get looks like: mouse: ATA GCG GAT human: ACA GGG CCT We would infer that the most recent common ancester (MRCA) between humans and mice (which lived somewhere around 90 million years ago) had a sequence something like: MRCA: A-A G-G --T Where we know the first blank to be either T or C, and the second blank to be either C or G, and so on. Thus, we infer a total of 4 mutations occuring along the two branches leading from this MRCA to present day mouse and human. We do not know, however, which branches they occured in; all 4 could have been in mouse, or 2 in human and 2 in mouse, and so on... We also cannot know whether these 4 mutations occured at the same time, or if they occured in a spread-out clock-like fashion. Okay, so, two extant sequences doesn't get us very far. However, we have the sequences from a number of species that lie within this phylogeny. To update what we had before: mouse: ATA GCG GAT rat: ATA GCG GCT gibbon: ATA GGG CCT human: ACA GGG GCT chimp: ACA GGG GCT Thus, we infer the MRCA to be ATA G-G GCT. We can also infer much more precisely on which branch individual mutations fall: There is a T->C mutation on the primate branch leading to human-chimp, there is a G->C mutation on the gibbon-specific branch, there is a C->A mutation on the mouse-specific branch, and there is either a G->C mutation on the branch leading to mouse-rat, or a C->G mutation on the branch leading to the primates. Thus, by adding more and more extant sequences we can partition where ancestral mutations occur with finer and finer accuracy. When this is done for a gene with hundreds of base pairs and a few dozen mutations, the mutations fall out onto the branch more or less as one would expect if mutations constantly accumulating at a very slow and steady rate. This has been done over and over again, for many genes, with the result that in the vast majority of the time, a purely neutral accumulation of mutations cannot be statistically rejected. Finally, I think it's very interesting and not at all explained, how protein evolution can occur in such a constant fashion, while morphological evolution occurs in such fits and starts. I think it's entirely possible, that very different things are happening at the two scales. Compare this to physics, with random noise and quantum mechanics when you look very close and Newtonian motion when you look from farther away.cambion
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Oops - forgot the second article. I was laughing too hard. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=151321 This one rather candidly remarks that molecular clocks are "seriously innaccurate" for dating phylogenetic divergence. If they're seriously innaccurate for dating phylogenetic divergence then exactly what the heck are they *useful* for? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris Bueller? Anyone?DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
cambion Here's a couple of good articles... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution A good example of tautology is at the bottom where the neutral theory is used to detect selection i.e. if fossil dating doesn't agree with molecular dating it's declared as evidence that the gene underwent selection pressure (i.e. it non-neutral). It's a circular argument with no wrong answers. When fossil dating and molecular dating agree it's confirmation for neutral evolution. When fossil dating and molecular dating disagree it's confirmation for natural selection. There's no way to falsify either one of them! It's Darwin of the Gaps!!!! :-)DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
cambion Just out of curiosity - how does one determine that a given gene mutates at a "constant rate" over geologic timespans when no copy of the gene except from living tissue is available to sequence? How do we know that it didn't undergo bursts of rapid mutation and long periods of stasis? The indisputable testimony of the fossil record is a story of bursts of rapid evolution followed by long periods of stasis. Why should individual proteins exhibit constant, predictable behavior when the speciation that ostensibly results from cumulative mutations is unpredictable and erratic?DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
This is interesting. I must admit that I haven't been keeping up that much with the latest literature on the neutral theory / hypothesis. Which predictions does it make, that are falsified by experimental data? Any references that you could provide would be much appreciated...cambion
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
cambion The neutral theory (eh? neutral HYPOTHESIS actually) behind genetic clocks is another classic example of a historical biology hypothesis that fails its predictions (falsified) but instead of being abandoned like falsified hypotheses should be it is instead propped up by ad hoc modifications to the theor... er, hypothesis. As with most of these failed predictions it's what I call "Darwin of the Gaps" to the rescue. In the large number of cases where radiocarbon dating and molecular dating disagree why we then just blame it on natural selection! RM+NS to the rescue again!!! Nothing in historical biology makes sense without the all-powerful, unfalsifiable RM+NS gap filler. Karl Popper is spinning in his grave...DaveScot
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Hmm... I'm still having a little trouble trying to follow you. If you had to say something, make a hypothesis as it were, (rather than "we just don't know"), regarding what is happening to protein sequences over millions of years, what would it be? It seems that you don't think they are changing in a slow and constant fashion, instead (if I'm following you correctly), they only give the 'appearance' of slow and constant change. What appears clock-like at first glance, is in fact large pieces of divergence thrown in at the appropriate times?cambion
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
cambion said, "The observation is a almost constant rate of sequence change during the course of particular protein’s evolution. " There are sequence divergence in proteins. That is undeniable. The cause of that divergence is presumed to act at a clock-like rate, but that is a presumption not an observation. Further, no one knows what the initial conditions of the ancestors were. For example, what if the creatures suddenly appeared with the sequence divergences intact (like at the cambrian explosion), and every speciation event added an appropriate amaount of divergence until the tree of life was filled out. This of course would be too fantastic a story to accept, and that is why it is rejected in favor of a molecular clock. But if the molecular clock is broken, and worse, if it never existed, we must come to terms with it, no matter how un-palatable the alternatives. There is one alternative that is always available: "we don't know". I'm predicting that to sustain the molecular clock, the "just so stories" would have to be so fantastic to rescue the theory that any postulated evolutionary sequence of events would be indistinguishable from appeals to magic. Salvadorscordova
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Hi jonnyb, I apologize for that problem. I have subscription to Nature, plus I have institutional access, and many times I don't realize my links won't work for others. An Abstract can be found: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/7/1561 "Our results show that it is invalid to extrapolate molecular rates of change across different evolutionary timescales, which has important consequences for studies of populations, domestication, conservation genetics, and human evolution. " There is a diluted version with a decidedly (gasp) creationist spin is here: http://creationsafaris.com/crev200507.htm#20050715d This is an important field of study as I have personally gone out on a limb and made a bold empirically verifiable prediciton that this is a disaster waiting to happen in evolutionary biology. Mutation rates are difficult to measure directly in some cases, especially the kind that is of interest which may have an occurrence of 1 out every million to a billion. I predict measured rates will not be consistent with the speculated rates of the evolutionary biologists. Preliminary lab results for the few direct measurements have been consistent with my predictions and have been unfavorable to prevailing theories. The paper by Ho is further evidence to that end. And the paper Bill cited yields even more problems. I certainly have my biases, but here is case where I am coming out with a bold testable prediction, and if I'm right, 20 years from now, there's going to be a lot of egg on some faces, so to speak. I credit Denton and Hoyle who forsaw all these difficulties 20 years ago. Frankly, I agree with Denton, the molecular clock hypothesis is more like mideaval astrology than a serious scientific theory. In the following link, with a (gasp, my apologies) heavy creationist bent, a medical doctor and medical technologist explain what the molecular clock is all about and even cites some reasonable reservations about Denton's interpretation: http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/The%20Molecular%20Clock%20Hypothesis.html Salvadorscordova
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
scordova: I'm pretty familar with the writings on the molecular clock. However, I don't really understand what you mean by calling Hartl's "scientific" explanation of it a tautology. The observation is a almost constant rate of sequence change during the course of particular protein's evolution. The (current) hypothesis for this observation is that the vast majority of sequence changes are completely neutral in the eyes of natural selection. I would think that a tautology would require the observation and the hypothesis to be basically the same thing. What am I missing?cambion
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
scordova: Can you provide a link to the abstract? The link you provided was to purchase the article, but the page itself didn't even give the title.johnnyb
September 30, 2005
September
09
Sep
30
30
2005
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Pav, Looking at sequence divergences in proteins, molecular evolution appears to proceed at a clocklike rate. To explain this rate, a mechanism was first proposed by Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandl, and is known as the molecular clock hypothesis, which is not really a mechanism, but rather a tautology! See Denton's Evolution a Theory in Crisis, and the chapter on "Biochemical Echo of Typology" to see that their was a looming disaster in evolutionary biology which Denton predicted 21 years ago. This recent paper is essentially bearing out this disaster. Sure, they propose "a new model", but I'm confident it is little more than a just-so story tautology! Denton wrote prophetically 21 years ago, "the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery . The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists. ... the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies." I have Hartl's graduate level population genetics book. The "scientific" explanation for the apparent molecular clock was little more than a tautology. I'm confident Hartl's latest paper is little more than an improved tautology! These guys are incredibly predictable. For interested parties, an equally devasting problem for the molecular clock is arising elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/b5s7r The evolution (pun intended) of the molecular clock hypothesis in peer-reviewed literature is like wathcing a train wreck. Salvadorscordova
September 29, 2005
September
09
Sep
29
29
2005
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
But when they're talking about a "constrained" 'random walk', aren't the constraints imposed by nature, and hence flow from the laws of nature? I have the paper downloaded now, so I'll read it over and hopefully I'll understand exactly what they mean by 'constraint'. From an informational point of view, however, I suspect you would differ from Denton in saying that the "laws" of nature cannot "add" information, and hence the complicated "configuration spaces" that proteins embody represent information (quantum bits, almost), and, so, the "laws" of nature alone do not suffice in explaining the rise of this atomic information. Is that roughly on the mark?PaV
September 29, 2005
September
09
Sep
29
29
2005
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
No. Denton is arguing that life is built into the laws of nature and that these laws are inherently teleological, directed toward bringing about not just life in general but humanity. At the Mere Creation conference in 1996 he remarked that what he was doing in Nature's Destiny was "pure Aristotle."William Dembski
September 29, 2005
September
09
Sep
29
29
2005
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
**We propose a new model of protein evolution that is reminiscent of a constrained ‘random walk’ through fitness space, which is based on the fitness consequences and distribution of mutational effects on function, stability, aggregation and degradation. Bill: Is this Denton's point in Nature's Destiny?PaV
September 29, 2005
September
09
Sep
29
29
2005
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply