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
The moderator's addition to my original comment does nothing to refute it, since this paper says nothing about how things are best explained, nor does it critique evolutionary mechanisms. Atom, you write,
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.
Not really. I'm perfectly capable of using intelligence to boil water. This adds nothing to a theory that boiling requires intelligence. People here are sure quick to claim every piece of bioengineering for ID, even though these authors are not, to my knowledge, ID advocates. Others are either ignorant or joking when they refer to Mike Behe's "innovative lab work" in ID, since Behe has published no ID papers arising out of any laboratory work he may have conducted. I'm happy to be corrected on that.larrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
RRE, no need TO SHOUTlarrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Thank you for the clarification TC. Let me begin by saying that I think Dembski may have made things more complex than they have to be with his discussion of semiotic agents and their vocabularies...I think this is overkill. There are ways of calculating CSI without reference to this, as was done in the essay on functional information Denyse posted a while back. But as for your example, again I think "algorithmically random binary string" is too broad a target to be useful, as is mine. Another broad specification would be: "Binary string with 50% 0's" It is a short specification, and for strings up to length N, a lot of strings hit that target. But the target is too broad to be of much use. I am pretty certain that Dembski's work takes into account the "broadness" of the specification, as it is vital.Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Coates @ 16, The use of the term 'guidance' in a lab setting eliminates the formulation of a mathematical filter, since direct observation and physical demonstration are at play. For anything to be guided, it most certainly will require the functioning and activation of the intellect.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Atom, An important aspect of my example was that I included binary strings of all lengths up to N, not just those of length N. To say that if a string is of length N then it is of length N is trivial (in the mathematical sense, not the pejorative). I regretted "close specification" after posting. In Dembski's latest definition of CSI, specificity is essentially a matter of how many signs there are in the "vocabulary" of a semiotic agent, and how many of those signs the agent must string together to describe an event. (From here on I'm relying on hazy memory -- forgive any inaccuracy.) Each semiotic agent's descriptions are ranked from shorter to longer, with ties broken arbitrarily. The specificity of an event is the minimum, over all semiotic agents, of the least rank of all the agent's descriptions of the event. (A low rank equates to high specificity in the event.) What I meant was "high specificity." Clear as mud, I'm sure.Turner Coates
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Turner Coates, Sorry, in re-reading your post I think you may have been in agreement with my point. I gues you were just giving your example as a way of pointing out that a specification needs to be specific (excludes other options) in order to qualify as a CSI specification. You wrote "close specification" which I assume to mean "only applies to a very small subset of all possible events." Sorry for misreading your post.Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Turner Coates, You appear pleased with your post. Let's do one better: "N-length binary string" This simple specification is hit by all N-length binary strings, not just half. Obviously we must take into account how "specific" the specification is; it is an empirical question and one that Dembski incorporates in his work. In the parlance of Dembski, it is like painting a huge target on the wall then claiming accuracy for hitting it.Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
It doesn’t take a scientist to know that anything that is guided towards a specific target or objective will absolutely involve intelligent agency.
Permit a scientist to set you straight on Dembski's theory. The "target" with the simple specification "algorithmically random binary string" is "hit" by no fewer than half of all binary strings of length N or less, where N is some constant of cosmological scale. Both close specification and low probability ("complexity") are essential to complex specified information.Turner Coates
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
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.
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. The problem comes with the anti-ID position. Should there be a detectable difference between a humanly designed enzyme and a naturally evolved one? If one answers yes, one is obligated to, at least eventually find it. If the answer is no, then one is admitting the appearance of design in nature. But I suspect that most scientists would go the Dawkins route and claim that unguided evolution can create the appearance of design, and that therefore the appearance of design is illusory. (Daniel King, this might help you see the appearance of design more readily, or at least recognize that it exists.) That Dawkinsian claim puts advocates of unguided evolution on dangerous ground. For it is now incumbent upon them to demonstrate that in fact there is a step-by-step pathway from some other protein, or no protein at all, to the finished enzymes in nature. As an added bonus, if there is a failure to find a step-by-step process to account for a man-made enzyme, one could distinguish between natural enzymes, which would be not designed, from man-made, designed enzymes. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for such research to be completed. I at one time thought that there might be a way to distinguish between man-made and natural organisms. For example, if we find remains of intelligent organisms (1) on a planet, and learn enough about their physiology and pathology to understand that they need a protein such as insulin in their bloodstream to survive, and we discover that a major cause of disease in organism 1 is the lack of insulin, and if we then find vats of organisms (2) that make that protein but do not need it for their own lifestyle, we might conclude that organism 2 was genetically modified by organism 1 to serve organism 1's needs. The problem is that we also see this in nature. Flowers put out nectar for the needs of bees, hummingbirds, etc. One can claim that the flowers get something out of it, but so do the organisms that produce insulin for humans. They are kept alive precisely because they are useful to humans. One also thinks of aphids that are farmed by ants. The bottom line is, I don't think it is possible to distinguish the design in nature, or at least the design in biology, from that of humans. But it is possible to distinguish easily the design in biology from the non-design, or at least different design, in inanimate objects. In fact, it is arguable that part of the definition of life should be design.Paul Giem
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
RRE 10 "They are using intelligent causes as well as natural causes (natural selection and chemistry) to produce the results." They did not use natural selection. What they did was use deliberate mutation followed by artificial selection to remove the unforseen structural glitches in their designed scaffold that were preventing their designed active site from either accessing the substrate, or releasing the product. All mutations to the designed active site reduced or destroyed the function of the enzyme. This tweaking sped up the enzyme's efficiency. This tweaking is the type of process that fits with the limits to evolutionary creativity that Prof Behe wrote about in his book.idnet.com.au
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Thankyou RRE. Intelligent Design is not restricted to design detection alone. In the paper, the scaffold and the active site of this enzyme were both INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. The active site using theoretical physics, and the scaffold by combining known protein domains. The use of "guided evolution" to tweak the design showed the destructive nature of many mutations, but it also showed that at the present state of our knowledge, we are not able to do fine tuning of scaffolds. It is easier to produce and test a huge number of random substitutions than it is to design, produce and then test the effects on enzyme kinetics of small conformational changes. This is where the guided evolution was used. This is brilliant ID research. This is the sort of work that ID proponents should aspire to. This, much more than Craig Venters "copy" cell, is mirroring the work of the Designer.idnet.com.au
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
RME wrote: "THIS ARTICLE IS PROOF THAT INTELLIGENT CAUSES CAN PRODUCE NOVEL ENZYMES AND ACTIVE SITES" True, but so what? Let's take an analogy from nature. Over long periods of time, rivers will carve out valleys, and depending on silt deposits will sometimes meander in characteristic ways. It is possible, however, to not only divert those rivers, but even create whole new purposes for those rivers through the application of design - e.g., dams, hydroelectric power stations etc. Does that mean the original river 'features' were also designed - no, of course not. I think the same applies here - just because something can be further manipulated in new novel ways does not imply that existing features were created this way.tdean
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
larrynormanfan: "This is not an ID paper". Yes, it is. Or, if you want, this is a paper which has important consequences for the ID theory. "By this measure, every paper in biotechnology is a paper in intelligent design". That's exactly my point of view. Every paper which adds important and pertinent "facts" is relevant to both ID and darwinian theory, which are two alternative theories trying to explain those facts. the same facts can be explained by different theories. The duty of the reasearchers is to find the facts. Facts belong to everybody, and everybody can derive his own considerations about them. One of the critical points in ID theory is exactly to reason on the morhospace of functional proteins. Therefore, recent research about protein engineering is absolutely pertinent to ID and, in my opinion, devastating for the darwinian scenario. The important facts are: 1) You need some starting point (configuration) which is intelligently designed (or selected from existing ones) to just "land" on a specific island of functionality. Otherwise, the chances of getting function by pure random search are non existent. 2) It is perfectly possible to use "targeted" random search to "fine tune" the existing function. It will be interesting to compute exactly what probabilistic resources are at play here. 3) You definitely need a measurement of the function to recognize the fine tuning of the existing function. That is a very important point, which puts this whole kind of procedure in the context of Dawkin's famous "Methinks it's like a weasel" example. In other words, you need a definite knowledge of what to search, and a way to recognize it. On the contrary, in the darwinian model, any new function has to be selected by blind NS: in other words, it has to be powerful enough to give a reproductive advantage in an existing organism, and therefore be fixed and expanded in the general population of that organism. That is quite a difference. Anyway, I am really convinced that reasearch about protein engineering is really going to give us important facts. Perhaps, in a few months, or years. We will be able to discuss of functional proteins morphospace in realistic terms, and it will not be possible anymore to hide behind the excuse that it cannot possibly be known. Then serious probability computations will be made, and we will see if the comfortable slopes so often hypothesized by darwinists really exist.gpuccio
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
RRE (11) Sorry, but I’m with larrynormanfan on this one. Certainly, this is evidence of intelligent design of enzymes, but it’s done by humans (as you acknowledge), and using entirely materialistic methods. I can’t see that it tells us any more about the natural world than the fact that humans can design and build aeroplanes and amusement parks does.duncan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
In the article, it makes it more clear to the materialist that intelligent causes can create enzymes. It's easier then trying to get the materialist to understand that codes themselves are the product of intelligent design which then can be extended to enzymes in general simply because the enzymes were the product of a code with transciption mechanism and protein factory present. Again though, without the code or the scientist, no enzyme will be created.RRE
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
larrynormanfan wrote: "This is not an ID paper. According to the “Definition of Intelligent Design” link on the right, “Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection.” There’s nothing about detection here. " Friends of Descent wrote: "In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose." here So in the broader sense, we don't need to detect intelligent design in this article's case, because we already know that humans are intelligently designing enzymes as well as their active sites. So in the narrower sense, intelligent design means: "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." here Certain features of the enzymes are intelligently designed creating novel active sites as per the article. How do you not see that that is intelligent design? You have to have concrete in your head to not see that. You have to be a blind and deaf person in a quadriplegic vegetative state to not see intelligent design implicit in the article. DESIGN DETECTION IS IMPLICIT - THIS ARTICLE IS PROOF THAT INTELLIGENT CAUSES CAN PRODUCE NOVEL ENZYMES AND ACTIVE SITES. How can you live with yourself thinking that intelligent design plays no role when the article TELLS YOU THAT HUMAN SCIENTISTS ARE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNING ENZYMES! They are using intelligent causes as well as natural causes (natural selection and chemistry) to produce the results. The article mentioned: "We recently developed our computational enzyme design to create new enzymes for a reaction for which no naturally occurring enzyme exists." larrynormanfan wrote: "By this measure, every paper in biotechnology is a paper in intelligent design. I guess that’s one way to expand the ID research corpus. Sure beats workin’." biotechnology - The integration of natural sciences and engineering sciences in order to achieve the application of organisms, cells, parts thereof and molecular analogues for products and services. You are right larrynormanfan, every paper in biotechnology is a paper that involves engineering biochemical systems. Engineering IS intelligent design and REQUIRES intelligent agency. What do you mean by "Sure beats workin'"? Are you implying that intelligent design advocates do not work? If so then you are wrong, every human being has the potential to intelligently design, its what we do as humans. THE DESIGN DETECTION ASPECT OF THE DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS IMPLICIT IN THIS ARTICLE (HUMANS ACTING ON CHEMISTRY). THE WHOLE POINT TO THIS ARTICLE WAS TO TELL YOU THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENTIFIC AND HAS BEEN SHOWN TO PRODUCE NEW ENZYMES. PURELY NATURALISTIC CAUSES (CAUSES THAT EXCLUDE INTELLIGENT ONES) HAVE NOT YET BEEN SHOWN TO BE ABLE TO CREATE NEW ENZYMES WITHOUT A CODE (THE ORIGIN OF ANY CODE WHEN STUDIED, IS ALWAYS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, WITH NO EMPIRICAL EXCEPTION TO DATE). 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 (some by humans).RRE
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Genetic engineering is not a form of evolution. If I go into a laboratory and mechanically alter the genome of a bacterium, I do not then say that it evolved; I say that it was genetically engineered. Scientists studying evolution are interested in what nature can do on it's own, not what can be done by a human intelligence or any other intelligence. Genetic engineering is a perfectly fine thing to study, but call it what it is, don't call it evolution.Benjamin L. Harville
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Cans of worms and lots of them. Perhaps the people at NPG are unaware about the consequences that research of this sort may lead to. It doesn't take a scientist to know that anything that is guided towards a specific target or objective will absolutely involve intelligent agency. These kinds of teleological experiements create grand opportunities for ID research, especially if combined with Behe's own innovative lab work. And indeed, this sounds very similar to what is being done at the Biologic Institute.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
I believe the principles of teleological detection are applicable here. The kind of lab work exemplified in the article could also serve as a case study for validly discerning the difference between randomly occuring versus goal-directed events.JPCollado
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
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. This would then be similar to answering the question of whether HIV was a naturally-evolved virus or one produced as a result of genetic engineering (not that I'm suggesting it was, but the charge has been made, and it's an interesting question scientifically). This would then fall into the area of "edge-of-evolution" detection.SCheesman
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Granville and larrynormanfan, Hey. The research is showing that intelligent agents are capable of causing the effects known as "novel, functional enzymes." 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. It is similar to how Darwinists run genetic algorithms in an attempt to show that undirected mechanisms plausibly produced biological information in the nature. We might as well ask "What do computer chips have to do with biology?"Atom
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
I understand your point, which is that what is accomplished here is more due to human intelligence than to selection (as is often the case, particularly in evolutionary computing). But I agree with larrynormanfan that your title is misleading.Granville Sewell
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
This is not an ID paper. According to the "Definition of Intelligent Design" link on the right, "Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection." There's nothing about detection here. By this measure, every paper in biotechnology is a paper in intelligent design. I guess that's one way to expand the ID research corpus. Sure beats workin'. Moderator "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."larrynormanfan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
"Oh yeah!? Who designed the designers?" I just snorted my coffee. I'm going to be chuckling about that all day.ptfxnjxn
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
What does this have to do with the natural world? We know that humans are designers. We know that humans can interfere in natural processes. We know that humans can interfere in natural processes by design. But quite what this tells us about natural history, I’m not sure.duncan
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Oh yeah!? Who designed the designers? ;) Seriously though-this may be a first step to producing nanotechnology.Joseph
March 20, 2008
March
03
Mar
20
20
2008
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply