Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Unwitting Pro-ID Peer-Reviewed Articles on the Increase . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here is an ID research paper published in PNAS. Note that some important principles of evolutionary theory are criticized in the abstract. This research shows how ID is capable of being applied in biology.

Genetics
The regulatory utilization of genetic redundancy through responsive backup circuits
( evolution | gene duplications | modeling | systems biology | noise )
Ran Kafri *, Melissa Levy *, and Yitzhak Pilpel
Department of Molecular Genetics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Communicated by Marc W. Kirschner, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, June 12, 2006 (received for review March 6, 2006)

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0604883103v1

Functional redundancies, generated by gene duplications, are highly widespread throughout all known genomes. One consequence of these redundancies is a tremendous increase to the robustness of organisms to mutations and other stresses. Yet, this very robustness also renders redundancy evolutionarily unstable, and it is, thus, predicted to have only a transient lifetime. In contrast, numerous reports describe instances of functional overlaps that have been conserved throughout extended evolutionary periods. More interestingly, many such backed-up genes were shown to be transcriptionally responsive to the intactness of their redundant partner and are up-regulated if the latter is mutationally inactivated. By manual inspection of the literature, we have compiled a list of such “responsive backup circuits” in a diverse list of species. Reviewing these responsive backup circuits, we extract recurring principles characterizing their regulation. We then apply modeling approaches to explore further their dynamic properties. Our results demonstrate that responsive backup circuits may function as ideal devices for filtering nongenetic noise from transcriptional pathways and obtaining regulatory precision. We thus challenge the view that such redundancies are simply leftovers of ancient duplications and suggest they are an additional component to the sophisticated machinery of cellular regulation. In this respect, we suggest that compensation for gene loss is merely a side effect of sophisticated design principles using functional redundancy.

Author contributions: R.K., M.L., and Y.P. performed research.
Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
*R.K. and M.L. contributed equally to this work.

Comments
PaV, We went with darwinshipyards--since Darwin thinks cnc proramming is negotiable at ALL machining cells (roll forms, shears, brakes, horz and vert boring, lathes, gantry mills, cnc milling and turning. You ought to hear what some of our vendors say about our CEO! The Navy said "don't go in to battle with that guy!"idadvisors
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
We're thinking of laying off our blind-folded design engineers and replacing them with Denton's primate linguists--monkeys.idadvisors
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
I vote for 'darwinmarinedrives'. It kind of has a ring to it.PaV
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Tom English: "Thus y has greater specified complexity than x, even if n is outlandish. It seems to me it is possible to reject x as intelligently designed and accept y as intelligently designed when n is much larger than anyone would reasonably attribute to intelligence." You seem to be saying that if x is "specified" but not "complex"--which sounds like the scenario you're setting up--and y is n-fold redundant, x would be rejected as 'designed' since it is 'specified' but not 'complex', while y might pass the test of being 'complex' just because it's n-fold redundant. If I'm understanding you correctly, then neither x nor y is 'complex', and hence neither is 'designed'. The reason I say that is because simply repeating something doesn't add information. Sometimes when posting at a blog your post doesn't immediately go up, and it is not uncommon for multiple posts of your original comments to appear. But there's no added 'information' contained therein, even if you posted a thousand times.PaV
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
I am eagerly awaiting further peer-reviewed research from Dr. Dembski and his research assistant on this topic. If this falls sufficiently outside their area of Intelligent Design expertise, I assume that there are other robust ID research programs that will carry this forward. Can someone kindly provide links to the labs and researchers that have the capacity to carry this out?Dartos
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Hold it guys, in honor of Behe's E.coli rotary motor should my new hyperIDist handle at yahoo be darwinshipyards or darwinmarinedrives?idadvisors
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
I can’t emphasize how difficult it is for natural selection to create such systems, since natural selection must have foresight into contingencies to create backup systems! In fact, Wagner showed that mathematically this is true, however he never really answered the question of why it came to be so, given these facts. Natural Selection having foresight? Please explain how this is possible.charles1859
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Tom English wrote: It seems to me it is possible to reject x as intelligently designed and accept y as intelligently designed when n is much larger than anyone would reasonably attribute to intelligence.
Hey! Good to see you. It is permissible to have false negatives ( labeling a designed object as undesigned) in ID theory. The high complexity system you describe is like Michael Behe's suggestion of Rube-Goldberg solutions. If anything, Rube-Goldberg screams design more strongly since it has many pitfalls for reproductive efficiency (i.e. the emergence sexual reproduction in the first place).... Distributed redundancy to accomplish the same function as a simple primary function may indeed be a gold-mine. As an analogy, flying an airplane under partial panel conditions (some instruments dead) requires more complex coordination of the remaining functioning distributed parts than normal. In fact, it takes foresight to prepare for such contingency and to design (as in teach pilots) for such contingencies. I can't emphasize how difficult it is for natural selection to create such systems, since natural selection must have foresight into contingencies to create backup systems! In fact, Wagner showed that mathematically this is true, however he never really answered the question of why it came to be so, given these facts. Anyway, great to hear from you Tom. Salvadorscordova
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
For the record... The Disemvoweler is triggered by two means and in the six months it has been installed has never gone off by accident. 1) if the first line of any comment is [troll] then the remaining lines are disemvoweled. Theoretically a commenter could disemvowel his own comment if he knew that. 2) by IP address - any comment coming from a list of IP addresses is automatically disemvoweled. To the best of my knowledge there were not more than 3 IP addresses in the list. I would guess the recent rash of disemvoweled comments is one person commenting under multiple names and furthermore that this one person's IP address is one of the 3 on the disemvoweler's list. Those three IP addresses have been on the list for almost 6 months so it's someone testing the new moderator(s) to see what they can get away with. I think that person (and all the other disemvoweled aliases) is the poster who goes by Steve Story on ATBC. As I recall he was one of those 3 IP addresses. Possibly more than one if he has a fixed IP address in more than one location he accesses the internet from. I also had to put a block on his email address as he wouldn't stop emailing me when asked.DaveScot
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
"In 1895 Darwinists claimed that there were at least 100 vestigal features on the human body. Now all of them are known to have function." - Jehu But, vestigial organs don't have to be non-functional to still be vestigial. "The statement that vestigial structures are functionless is a convenient, yet strictly incorrect, approximation. It is analogous to the common, yet strictly incorrect, scientific claim that the earth is a sphere." "A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms." Both quotes from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html Vestigial organs like eyes on blind cave-fish are direct predictions of evolution, this is why they are used as powerful evidence of evolution. Evolution does not predict that vestigial organs will have no function what-so-ever. It only predicts that they will exist.Strangelove
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Stevie Steve is no longer with us. --WmADWilliam Dembski
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Salvador, A thought experiment for you: Say that x and y are redundant systems for performing function f. Function f has a high degree of specificity, but is not complex. System x is specified as a "doubly-redundant f" and system y is specified as an "n-fold redundant f" for some n > 2. Thus x and y have about the same (high) level of specificity. For straightforward choices of probability distribution, n-fold redundancy is less likely to arise by chance than double redundancy. Thus y has greater specified complexity than x, even if n is outlandish. It seems to me it is possible to reject x as intelligently designed and accept y as intelligently designed when n is much larger than anyone would reasonably attribute to intelligence. I don't see that redundant design and the explanatory filter (not a term Dembski uses in his latest work, incidentally) are a match made in heaven.Tom English
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
ofro, The EF can detect linguistic constructs, that was the design detection I had in mind, though the EF is not limited to that. In fact, non-randomly distributed gene duplicates were suggestive of liguistic constructs. The EF succeeds in detecting fuction because, as Lewontin pointed out in a Winter 2003 SantaFe Paper, funcitonality has no inherent meaning or inherent detection by natural selection. See: Santa Fe, Winter 2003.
How, then, are we to assign relative fitnesses of types based solely on their properties of reproduction? But if we cannot do that, what does it mean to say that a type with one set of natural properties is more reproductively fit than another? This problem has led some theorists to equate fitness with outcome. If a type increases in a population then it is, by definition, more fit. But this suffers from two difficulties. First, it does not distinguish random changes in frequencies in finite populations from changes that are a consequence of different biological properties. Finally, it destroys any use of differential fitness as an explanation of change. It simply affirms that types change in frequency. But we already knew that.
In contrast, functionality has meaning (or at least recognition) in the world of the the EF. Salvadorscordova
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
scordova: "The EF has a better chance of detecting redundancy for the very reason that redundant systems are partially invisible to knockout techniques, but hopefully not to the EF." What does “detecting” mean here. It seems to me that this is a discovery made by somebody who most likely did not follow any ID reasoning but who decided to investigate this question. I have a hard time giving EF credit for predicting or explaining this observation. The retrospective that “EF has a better chance” does not strike me as a driving force to test anything. To explain, let me condense the sentence above: "The EF has a better chance because hopefully it does"ofro
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Indeed! Although regrettably, the paper is not overtly pro-ID nor am I aware the authors' position on the issue. Perhaps this is an unwitting contribution to ID?.... The authors describe the fact:
this very robustness also renders redundancy evolutionarily unstable, and it is, thus, predicted to have only a transient lifetime.
Absolutely, which really shows the theory (Darwinian evolution) was wrong in the first place to make the prediction! Redundancy by nature is resistant to Natural Selection, therefore, it's evolution in the first place is difficult to account for. Andreas Wagner has a very good book on the issue (even though it has a highly pro-Darwinian emphasis with lots of circular reasoning), but in one of his sections it astonished me how weakly selectable redundancies like this are!
However, increased mutational robustness caused by gene duplications pales in comparison to drift and selection as a cause for the fixation of gene duplicates, especially because the advantage of robustness is weak in many populations. page 268, Robustness and Evolvability of Living Systems
I predicted the reasons these systems would be very difficult to discover through traditional Darwinian perspectives and those banal "knock-out" experiments in Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail. The EF has a better chance of detecting redundancy for the very reason that redundant systems are partially invisible to knockout techniques, but hopefully not to the EF.scordova
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Did any ID theorists predict this discovery?stevie steve
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Looking at biological features from a design perspective as opposed to a Darwinian perspective seems far more likely to stimulate research and discover utility and reason behind features that were previously not understood. Darwinism has a tendency to label such features as "vestigal" or just left over junk from evolution. In 1895 Darwinists claimed that there were at least 100 vestigal features on the human body. Now all of them are known to have function.Jehu
July 21, 2006
July
07
Jul
21
21
2006
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply