Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Emphatic non-buttressation of ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The language in the following paper is hilarious. Basically the researchers are saying “We know this looks like an engineered feedback control loop. We analyzed it and found it statistically impossible to have come about through a stochastic processs. But we will strenuously object to anyone calling it evidence of design.” ROFLMAO

“Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins’ behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. By operating only at extremes, referred to in control theory as “bang-bang extremization,” the proteins were exhibiting behavior consistent with a system managing itself optimally under evolution.

“In this paper, we present what is ostensibly the first quantitative experimental evidence, since Wallace’s original proposal, that nature employs evolutionary control strategies to maximize the fitness of biological networks,” Chakrabarti said. “Control theory offers a direct explanation for an otherwise perplexing observation and indicates that evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows.”

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature.

Evolution’s new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
by Kitta MacPherson · Posted November 10, 2008; 10:00 a.m.

The rest of the paper is below the fold or at the link above.

A team of Princeton University scientists has discovered that chains of proteins found in most living organisms act like adaptive machines, possessing the ability to control their own evolution.

The research, which appears to offer evidence of a hidden mechanism guiding the way biological organisms respond to the forces of natural selection, provides a new perspective on evolution, the scientists said.

The researchers — Raj Chakrabarti, Herschel Rabitz, Stacey Springs and George McLendon — made the discovery while carrying out experiments on proteins constituting the electron transport chain (ETC), a biochemical network essential for metabolism. A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.

“The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a ‘blind watchmaker’?” said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. “Our new theory extends Darwin’s model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.”

The work also confirms an idea first floated in an 1858 essay by Alfred Wallace, who along with Charles Darwin co-discovered the theory of evolution. Wallace had suspected that certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner “exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident.” In Wallace’s time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices.

The research, published in a recent edition of Physical Review Letters, provides corroborating data, Rabitz said, for Wallace’s idea. “What we have found is that certain kinds of biological structures exist that are able to steer the process of evolution toward improved fitness,” said Rabitz, the Charles Phelps Smyth ’16 Professor of Chemistry. “The data just jumps off the page and implies we all have this wonderful piece of machinery inside that’s responding optimally to evolutionary pressure.”

The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating mechanism, analogous to a car’s cruise control or a home’s thermostat, allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.”

The work is likely to provoke a considerable amount of thinking, according to Charles Smith, a historian of science at Western Kentucky University. “Systems thinking in evolutionary studies perhaps began with Alfred Wallace’s likening of the action of natural selection to the governor on a steam engine — that is, as a mechanism for removing the unfit and thereby keeping populations ‘up to snuff’ as environmental actors,” Smith said. “Wallace never really came to grips with the positive feedback part of the cycle, however, and it is instructive that through optimal control theory Chakrabarti et al. can now suggest a coupling of causalities at the molecular level that extends Wallace’s systems-oriented approach to this arena.”

Evolution, the central theory of modern biology, is regarded as a gradual change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. It is a continuing process of change, forced by what Wallace and Darwin, his more famous colleague, called “natural selection.” In this process, species evolve because of random mutations and selection by environmental stresses. Unlike Darwin, Wallace conjectured that species themselves may develop the capacity to respond optimally to evolutionary stresses. Until this work, evidence for the conjecture was lacking.

The experiments, conducted in Princeton’s Frick Laboratory, focused on a complex of proteins located in the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell. A chain of proteins, forming a type of bucket brigade, ferries high-energy electrons across the mitrochondrial membrane. This metabolic process creates ATP, the energy currency of life.

Various researchers working over the past decade, including some at Princeton like George McClendon, now at Duke University, and Stacey Springs, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, fleshed out the workings of these proteins, finding that they were often turned on to the “maximum” position, operating at full tilt, or at the lowest possible energy level.

Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins’ behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. By operating only at extremes, referred to in control theory as “bang-bang extremization,” the proteins were exhibiting behavior consistent with a system managing itself optimally under evolution.

“In this paper, we present what is ostensibly the first quantitative experimental evidence, since Wallace’s original proposal, that nature employs evolutionary control strategies to maximize the fitness of biological networks,” Chakrabarti said. “Control theory offers a direct explanation for an otherwise perplexing observation and indicates that evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows.”

The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in nature.

Chakrabarti said that one of the aims of modern evolutionary theory is to identify principles of self-organization that can accelerate the generation of complex biological structures. “Such principles are fully consistent with the principles of natural selection. Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity.”

The researchers are continuing their analysis, looking for parallel situations in other biological systems.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Comments
How in the world can they possibly claim this: "the proteins were exhibiting behavior consistent with a system managing itself optimally under evolution." The system is managing itself optimally period. Control loops are set to precise UNCHANGING setpoints for a desired output that will will fall within a precise 0 to 100% range, again with no change built in. The fact that the control loops exist in fact adds countless layers of poly-functional complexity to the life system that makes it extremely more resistant to any "random evolutionary changes" of the proteins themselves. i.e. the proteins are being precisely controlled to within a specific tolerance...This Control Loop is a extremely anti-Darwinian finding to say the least.bornagain77
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PST
Having a AA degree in instrumentation; I know that This control is no small thing: the feedback (proportional; integral; derivative) pid equation for each controller is set to many independent "finely tuned" parameters for each individual process to be controlled. Not to mention the precise setting/engineering for each sensing mechanism and the precise setting/engineering for each actuator mechanism that has to implemented into each control loop that is utilized. Seeing as many proteins have different "folding" rates I can easily see where each and every protein would have to be carefully accounted for in the design of the loops. This site has the pid equations: http://bestune.50megs.com/PID.htmbornagain77
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PST
Hey this is great! These findings confirm what I have been thinking for a long time! It is not only an intelligently designed universe but and intelligently *piloted* universe... oops...there goes my career in science.William Brookfield
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PST
Here's the sentence that stands out to me: "The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues" Standard evolutionary theory offers NO CLUE! And, of course, the answer is immediately obvious from an ID perspective---hence their disclaimer---and yet ID is "not scientific". Somehow ID can explain, and predict, phenomena; yet it's "not scientific". Darwinism "doesn't [offer] a clue", but it's "science". In fact, NOTHING IN BIOLOGY MAKES SENSE WITHOUT IT.PaV
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PST
Evolution is guided by the optimization of fitness meaures that balance functionally beneficial properties.
Ligature of "fi" got me.Sal Gal
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PST
Don't rely on the press release. Two articles are available here. The opening paragraph of "Mutagenic Evidence for the Optimal Control of Evolutionary Dynamics" is a striking example of the philosophical cretinism of scientific geniuses. The authors seem to be utterly oblivious to the distinction between the model and the modeled entity. Take just the opening sentence:
Evolution is guided by the optimization of ?tness meaures that balance functionally bene?cial properties.
Wow! Axiomatic teleology, model reification, and circular definition, all in 14 words. The authors are surely competent to conduct isolated scientific studies, but are clearly incompetent to state the ramifications of their work for modern evolutionary theory.Sal Gal
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST
Patrick, I think you might be onto what I was thinking. Doesn't this experiment just simply show that when proteins are damaged they have a mechanism that allows them to rebuild so as to be better functioning? For instance, "Darwin's Finches" changed over a drought, but once the drought was over the finches went back to normal. Is not this similar to what they're finding in these proteins? If so it seems more like an anti-evolution mechanism, rather than some strange self-organization working to evolve organisms.Domoman
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PST
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's random chance. :-/ I'm reminded of the neo-darwinian experiment wherein a frog's legs are successively amputated and the frog successively jumps shorter and shorter distances in response to repeated verbal commands, culminating in the final data point of a frog with zero legs jumps zero distance, and the obvious explanation that a frog with no legs can't hear because neo-darwinian evolution dictates hearing redundancy is too expensive a trait to evolve and confers no surivability. QED.Charles
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PST
"Control theory offers a direct explanation for an otherwise perplexing observation and indicates that evolution is operating according to principles that every engineer knows." And yet, "Control Theory" is Engineering discipline, a manifestation of intelligent design by engineers. "Control Theory" isn't random chance, it is the engineering practice of using deliberate pre-planned designed-in mechanisms to effect desired pre-determined outcomes. No doubt every engineer will henceforth be sent to re-education camps to receive true enlightenment on how randomly evolved is their methodology, all the better to more consistently explain perplexing observation with perplexing theory.Charles
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PST
Chakrabarti said that one of the aims of modern evolutionary theory is to identify principles of self-organization that can accelerate the generation of complex biological structures.
Self-organization? We're not talking about the inherent properties of some chemicals that produce complexity or structures under certain circumstances. We're looking at an information-based system which has a function, with the programmed goal of tweaking information via guided self-modification to correct the damage done by mutations. They seem to want to extend self-organization theory beyond its normal scope.
The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this process may have originated, but they emphatically said it does not buttress the case for intelligent design
Of course it does not...even though ID proponents had predicted we would find such things. More on that topic: ID-Compatible Predictions: Foresighted Mechanisms Identified?Patrick
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PST
"The research, which appears to offer evidence of a hidden mechanism guiding the way biological organisms respond to the forces of natural selection, provides a new perspective on evolution, the scientists said." Gee, a hidden mechanism. I wonder if that's like dark matter or dark energy? lol.tragicmishap
November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply