Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent Design research published in Nature

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The following is an edited extract from a Nature paper. It is an example of real ID research. Notice that the designers only used evolutionary techniques to very slightly tweak the enzymes scaffold structure that had been designed with “borrowed components” from existing enzymes tacked together.  The novel active site was completely intelligently designed. doi:10.1038/nature06879

Kemp elimination catalysts by computational enzyme design

“We designed eight enzymes with computationally designed active sites. In vitro evolution enhanced the computational designs, demonstrating the power of combining computational protein design with directed evolution for creating new enzymes.

Natural enzymes bind their substrates in a well-defined active site with precisely aligned catalytic residues to form highly active and selective catalysts for a wide range of chemical reactions. The design of stable enzymes with new catalytic activities is of great practical interest, with potential applications in biotechnology, biomedicine and industrial processes.

We recently developed our computational enzyme design to create new enzymes for a reaction for which no naturally occurring enzyme exists.

Our in silico design process seems to be drawn towards the same structural features as naturally occurring enzyme evolution.

Following the active site design, a total of 59 designs in 17 different scaffolds were selected for experimental characterization. Eight of the designs showed initial measurable activity.

Directed evolution

We reasoned that in vitro evolution would be an excellent complement to our computational design efforts.

Directed evolution can be valuable both in improving the designed catalysts and in stimulating improvements in the computational design methodology by shedding light on what is missing from the designs.

Seven rounds of random mutagenesis and shuffling followed by screens yielded variants that had 4–8 mutations and an improvement of 200-fold in activity.

The key aspects of the computational design, including the identities of the catalytic side chains, were not altered by the evolutionary process.

The mutations provide subtle fine-tuning of the designed enzyme.

Conclusions

We anticipate the successful use of the combination of computational design and molecular evolution that we have described here, for a wide range of important reactions in the years to come, including design catalysts for more complex multistep reactions.”

Check out this news here

Comments
Strawman. That’s fully within the edge of Darwinian processes (although some posit that this system was “designed to evolve” in response to environmental stimulus). Serious ID proponents have never claimed that they cannot produced lower levels of functional complexity. Those single protein enzymes are very simple ones which simply hydrolyze precursors to nylon. That’s a very simple task, which can be done even by small organic catalysts. It’s not CSI, it’s not IC, and it’s been discussed various times on UD before and other places.
What strawman? idnet claimed the following: "Other than ID, no other experimentally verified method of de novo enzyme design is known." I showed a counterexample: nylonase. In addition, Nylonase has about 400 amino acids and random assembly of such an enzyme is surely beyond the UPB. In addition, Nylonase is easily specified as: enzyme that hydrolases Nylon. So, the Nylonase does fulfill the requirements for specified complexity. I understand that in the link doubt is cast on how much CSI was added to the system by the frameshift mutation, but on the face of it, this is clearly a counterexample to the claim made by idnet.hrun0815
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @ 52: "Some of the other reviews seem to have been rather scathing." Whether scathing or favorable, Black Box was nonetheless reviewed, therefore contradicting statements to the contrary. OTOH, I never heard that the review process needed the blessing of a positive appraisal in order to qualify as a bona fide review.JPCollado
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Nylonase is a rather convincing example of de novo enzyme design without ID. Unless, of course, your hypothesis would be that somebody designed Nylonase by the introduction of a mutation and then released the bacteria back into the wild.
Strawman. That's fully within the edge of Darwinian processes (although some posit that this system was "designed to evolve" in response to environmental stimulus). Serious ID proponents have never claimed that they cannot produced lower levels of functional complexity. Those single protein enzymes are very simple ones which simply hydrolyze precursors to nylon. That’s a very simple task, which can be done even by small organic catalysts. It's not CSI, it's not IC, and it's been discussed various times on UD before and other places.Patrick
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
The article provides incontrovertable evidence that enzymes can be intelligently designed. This is NEW.
While I don't dispute that this is an exciting paper, the idea of rational enzyme design and enzyme engineering is certainly not novel. Pubmed searches show papers ranging back into the seventies published on enzyme design, modificationa and engineering. In any case, I bet that you can't find a single biological scientist who would not agree that enzymes can be intelligently designed. So while maybe to you, this is a major stepping stone for ID (proving that enzymes can be intelligently designed), this fact has not been disputed in the least by the scientific community.
Other than ID, no other experimentally verified method of de novo enzyme design is known. It is simply assumed that enzymes can arise through non directed processes. Assumption is no substitute for experiment.
I thought the development of Nylonase is a rather convincing example of de novo enzyme design without ID. Unless, of course, your hypothesis would be that somebody designed Nylonase by the introduction of a mutation and then released the bacteria back into the wild.hrun0815
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
larry, I believe that Behe’s Black Box was rigorously reviewed by his peers. At least that is what has been claimed by the author.
One of the "reviews" was a chat on the phone with someone who had not read it. Some of the other reviews seem to have been rather scathing. More at Wikipedia. It links to Panda's Thumb, which I know you all love, but that's where the primary evidence (i.e. the words of the reviewers themselves) are.Bob O'H
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Paul Giem:
SCHeesman says, (8) The only way I see this could become ID research is if someone were handed organisms on which such genetic engineering had been performed and it was required to determine if intelligence was involved in their production or modification from what is know to exist naturally.
[Paul] If we tried to determine whether an enzyme was natural or man-made, I am not sure excactly what SCHeesman was expecting. According to ID theory, both were probably designed, and therefore the only difference would be the elegance or purpose of the design. It might very well be possible that there would be no detectable difference between the two designs. My premise was that the original population "A" was well specified, and suddenly, from nowhere (and I mean not from a pre-existing unknown population) a variation "B" was found that is a number of single and/or double point mutations distant from "A". I propose simply that at some time it would be possible to calculate the total probability of moving from A to B, given the measured mutation rates and available generations, and calculate a probability of this occurring, much as has been proposed and estimated from natural outcomes by Michael Behe in "Edge of Evolution". Should this probability be extraordinarily low, it would be good evidence that intelligence was required to produce the change. I am making an analogy with a multi-step chemical reaction, where output concentrations can be estimated from inputs using known reaction rates, thermodynamics etc. "A" may have indeed been designed, but that does not enter into the question of how "B" came to be. Of course it is possible that "B" was also always around, but it's my argument and I get to set the premise!
SCheesman
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
larrynormanfan "One would have to imagine Dr. Dembski taking seriously the possibility that the evolutionary explanation is true. And I don’t for a moment think that’s happened." This is rot! We have all considered seriously the possibility that the evolutionary explanation is true. For the person who also considers seriously, the possibility of an "outside" Designer, the evidence is clear. I follow ID because, and only because, I find the evidence compelling.idnet.com.au
March 21, 2008
March
03
Mar
21
21
2008
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
-----larrynormanfan writes, "Atom, I’d say the requirement of intelligence is a premise disguised as a conclusion, since the vast majority of ID supporters find evolution simply unacceptable from the git-go. If it were a conclusion, one would have to imagine (for example) Dr. Dembski seriously entertaining the evolutionary explanation: that is, taking seriously the possibility that it’s true. And I don’t for a moment think that’s happened." I have been disciplining myself not to pile on, because you have been taking on so many adversaries all alone. But I simply cannot allow that comment to stand. If the design inference is built into the premise, then the entire exercise is nothing but a ridiculous tautology and a total waste of time. You have fallen into classic error of confusing motives with methods. Further, your proposition militates against the idea of logic itself. Religious bias is not going to influence a rigorous and systematically applied methodology. A researcher cannot smuggle ideology into a specifically complex organism, much less can he change the fact that it either does or does not contain 500 bits of coded information. Either the patterns are there or they are not. This is ID 101. Creation science is faith based, meaning that it begins with a presupposition; intelligent design in empirically based, meaning that it begins with an observation. Once you begin with a presupposition, ID has left the building.StephenB
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
sparc Clearly antibodies function to disrupt molecular structures. That is one of the ways they defend organisms. If an immune response is mounted to a hapten, and that immune response catalyses a chemical reaction on that hapten, then the immune system is doing what it is clearly meant to do. This is either as the blind watchmaker designed it, or as the Designer intended. I do not think it is an example of an enzyme arising de novo.idnet.com.au
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Please give me your proof that without a programmed code or a scientist, an enzyme would materialize using purely natural causes. Until this happens, all enzymes are intelligently designed.
Actually aldolase have been generated without "programmed code". Just google "catalytic aldolase antibodies". But wait, I can predict your arguments: 1. Scientists have been involved which clearly prooves ID. 2. From a related patent:
The haptens are designed both to trap the requisite Lys residue in the active site of the antibody, to induce the antibody to form the essential enamine intermediate, and to induce the appropriate binding sites for the two substrates to overcome the entropic barrier intrinsic to this bimolecular reaction.
Obviously, the scientists put information in the system and the information content can be calculated. Another clear indication for ID. 3. The mice in which the antibodies have been generated already contained all the information required to form an immune response twowards the hapten. IgH and light chain genes have just been rearranged and v-gene hypermutation can only add only little to the antibodies specificity and the over all information content has not been changed. Again proof of ID. So here we are:
A focus on the plausibility and concreteness of an intelligence designing, in various ways, structures and mechanisms that were previously seen only as a product of nature (with the usual questions about what started and/or guided it).
All science so far.sparc
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
In defense of idnet.com.au's OP.. I think he's actually on to an attitude that I've been hoping to see come out of the ID community: A focus on the plausibility and concreteness of an intelligence designing, in various ways, structures and mechanisms that were previously seen only as a product of nature (with the usual questions about what started and/or guided it). Whether these things can originate without intelligent guidance is another question (and I'm not sure that question can be settled scientifically). But it does shed light on what an intelligent force is capable of in concrete, demonstrable terms.nullasalus
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
40 "the article provides no support for the suggestion that intelligent input is required for enzymes to exist" The article provides incontrovertable evidence that enzymes can be intelligently designed. This is NEW. This isn't yesterday's news. This type of research is cutting edge, Other than ID, no other experimentally verified method of de novo enzyme design is known. It is simply assumed that enzymes can arise through non directed processes. Assumption is no substitute for experiment.idnet.com.au
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Atom: "These are questions Darwinists themselves ignore and mock those who do ask them." That is because Darwin did the same with OOL and the "eye problem." The only exception, of course, was that he kept his gentlemanly manners.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
larry, I believe that Behe's Black Box was rigorously reviewed by his peers. At least that is what has been claimed by the author. That Behe is misinformed, deceived, or a liar is another story; but to me, he seems like a trustworthy and down-to-earth kinda guy and my intuition forces me to believe him. Now, concerning Edge, I don't know if it has undergone the same treatment, but judging from the onslought of criticism that Black Box received, it is more than likely that Behe subjected the book to the same standard.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
I think Dr. Dembski (and other ID scientists) take the "evolutionary" explanation (NDE) far more seriously than you give them credit for. I think they may take it more serious than Darwinists themselves. How? By asking: "Ok, if NDE is true, what would it be required to do? How much information would it have to produce? What resources would it have available to do this with?" These are questions Darwinists themselves ignore and mock those who do ask them. It is not Dr. Dembski's fault if what he finds (after careful PhD level anaysis) doesn't bode well for the NDE case.Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Benjamin L. Harville: "Genetic engineering is not a form of evolution...Genetic engineering is a perfectly fine thing to study, but call it what it is, don’t call it evolution." That is a good point, Mr. Harville. So much for the peer-review process, when a prestigious journal fails to notice the difference.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
The ID interpretation of the article is in one sense completely uncontroversial. Nobody doubts that modern humans can intelligently design enzymes at this point. However, the article provides no support for the suggestion that intelligent input is required for enzymes to exist, or that any prehuman intelligent designer did in fact create existing enzymes or any other biological system.congregate
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
idnet, I'll quit this thread after this comment. Thanks for your patience: this post has touched a nerve. Atom, I'd say the requirement of intelligence is a premise disguised as a conclusion, since the vast majority of ID supporters find evolution simply unacceptable from the git-go. If it were a conclusion, one would have to imagine (for example) Dr. Dembski seriously entertaining the evolutionary explanation: that is, taking seriously the possibility that it's true. And I don't for a moment think that's happened. FWIW, as a Christian, I accept the overall design of things. I like Michael Heller's view, which I've only just learned about, that chance should not be opposed to the divine plan. Earlier I would have described myself as an advocate of Gouldian NOMA, but it's nice to find a Christian who thinks like Heller. I mention that because my opposition to ID is not atheistic or whatever: I just don't think ID does much real scientific research, and I think co-opting real scientific research as an ID victory is an exercise in bad faith and sets a terrible witness. A side note: Larry Norman, whose work inspired my handle, was a wonderful Christian singer and a brave witness to the world. In many ways he was a man of great integrity: he certainly blows away most of the shallow junk that passes for Christian music these days. Yet he also tended to mythologize his life a bit, to claim more for himself than he deserved. Turns out this behavior may have been a consequence of a traumatic brain injury suffered in an airplane. In any event, he lost a lot of friends as a result, because people couldn't trust him. Here's my point: ID proponents don't create an atmosphere of trust when they latch on to any development as an unwitting ID discovery.larrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan You have made your point. There is no need to repeat it over and over. It is just that others see it differently. Are you saying that the designers of this enzyme were not intelligent or that the enzyme is not designed?idnet.com.au
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
I’ll just point to the subtitle of No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. “Cannot,” as in intelligence is required for specified complexity.
The "cannot" is a conclusion of the book, not a premise. And it fits nicely with my discussion of how ID type questioning proceeds in post 35. Again, if we're showing that intelligence is at least capable of producing the effect in question, we are adding support for the ID case and doing ID research. We are answering the second question. (The third question ID asks, for those who are wondering, is whether or not we see any of these types of complexes in nature. However, we could do tons of ID research without ever looking at nature or biology specifically.)Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Atom, you write,
ID simply says that there are three potential candidate causes: natural law, chance, and intelligence. It asks (but does not presuppose) whether or not law and chance alone (or together) can produce certain effects (Functional CSI complexes).
I'll leave aside the fact that evolution involves both chance and law working together and does not reduce to one or the other. (Dr. Dembski claims to have addressed that in NFL but I don't think he's successful.) I'll just point to the subtitle of No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence. "Cannot," as in intelligence is required for specified complexity. The book is an argument for the central premise of ID: that some things require intelligence. I did use your original comment to go back to this central premise; sorry if that seemed to take liberties with your comment. But much greater liberties have been taken with this whole thread's attempt to hijack a paper -- and a whole line of research -- for the ID cause.larrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
ID is quite firm that intelligence is required for complex natural objects
larry, come on. ID simply says that there are three potential candidate causes: natural law, chance, and intelligence. It asks (but does not presuppose) whether or not law and chance alone (or together) can produce certain effects (Functional CSI complexes). It also asks (but does not assume) whether or not Intelligence is capable. For the first question, it finds (not assumes) that law and chance have not been demonstrated capable. It also seeks an explanation as to why it has not been demonstrated and finds that mathematically there are very good reasons for this. (Behe's Edge, Dembski's work, Sewell's work, etc.) For the second question, papers like this answer the question in the affirmative. So this is very much ID research. You don't have to agree with me, it is clear enough to the impartial observer I'm sure.Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan, This is what I wrote originally:
If we demonstrate that intelligence is capable of creating the observed effect, this adds weight to the model of intelligence as the most plausible historical cause for biological enzymes.
You responded:
Not really. I’m perfectly capable of using intelligence to boil water. This adds nothing to a theory that boiling requires intelligence.
Let me ask you, how does one offer evidence ("add weight") in support of a model, if not by showing your mechanism capable of producing the observed effect? Does this paper show that intelligence is capable of producing the effect seen? (Yes) Does showing intelligence capable "add weight to the model of intelligence as the most plausible historical cause" (like I originally wrote)? (Yes) Look at the two quotes above, the first from me and your response. Can you see how you completely miss my point in your haste to show this paper has nothing to do with ID? (Even though it is demonstrating that the ID mechanism is capable of producing the required effect...) Sigh.Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Atom, It's not an equivocation: ID is quite firm that intelligence is required for complex natural objects. What really missed the mark is the idea that this is in any way is an ID paper. Further, my analogy only misses the mark if I grant that no other processes are capable of producing those effects. And that's precisely what the evolutionary explanation would dispute. [Cue someone asking me to prove the evolutionary explanation in 3, 2, 1 . . . ]larrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Not really. I’m perfectly capable of using intelligence to boil water. This adds nothing to a theory that boiling requires intelligence.
Notice your equivocation. I said the paper demonstrated that ID was capable of producing the observed effect, not required to produce it. (Though I believe it is as well, the paper doens't show as such, and I never made the claim that it did.) If Intelligence is a capable causal class, and no other causal class (unguided natural, random chance, etc) has been demonstrated capable, then ID is in fact the best explanation. So please acknowledge that your boiling water example misses the mark.Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
JPC, Neither Darwin's Black Box nor The Edge of Evolution contains or reports any laboratory work from Dr. Behe. Neither book contains any original laboratory work at all. Neither book was peer-reviewed as the term is normally used within science. That's not to say the books don't have other merits. I've read both books (Edge fairly recently) and found them interesting if unconvincing. But they're not peer-reviewed, and they don't have anything to do with Behe's laboratory work.larrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan: "I am unaware of any ID papers coming out of the Behe lab." Hi Mr. normanfan, Well, I know for a fact that Black Box was peer-reviewed because of the technical content. I am quite sure Edge has received the same treatment as well. I will have to check....JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan: "these authors are not, to my knowledge, ID advocates" Scientific experiments can yield surprising discoveries and applications that might be outside the periphery of the experimenter's expectations. Advocacy is of no relevance when you have a paper with teleology written all over it and authors that seem to be unaware of it.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
JPC, I was unclear and hasty. I should have quoted from the bit provided by the moderator:
ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion
This paper does not do that -- not even remotely. So how does this support the notion that this is an ID paper? I'm glad you responded. After all, you were the one who referred to Behe's "innovative labatoratory work." What, precisely, were you talking about? I am unaware of any ID papers coming out of the Behe lab. I'm aware of ID books he's written, but that's a different story.larrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan: "nor does it critique evolutionary mechanisms" This is not a valid criteria for making a judgment against ID since the theory makes room for evolutionary mechanisms.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply