Science and Freethinking

_{Gil Dodgen

September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

DrBot, My point is that whether the criteria for success changes or doesn't has no affect on what type of variations can arise and what they can accomplish. The second question I raised is how changes in the success criteria enable variations to accomplish evolution. That part is very controversial, at least among those who ask the question. Whether the environment is uniform or static determines how the differential variation differentiates. Got that. But in neither case does that variation result in evolution. That's the leap of faith.ScottAndrews_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

So, Bot, apart from your lack of responsiveness and substantiation, you now deny that evolution needs to explain the evolution of man from microbe. And this is my problem not yours? You are a time-waster, sir.Chris Doyle_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

While it is not designed for a specific activity, it is designed to more likely give sequences that fold in a specific way. That is a very strong design choice, which makes the selected library equivalent to a much bigger random library (very difficult to say how bigger).
My point is the library is selected. Can you think of a way to design protein coding sequences without using selection? Another point is that while the library used in the experiment is a selected subset of a purely random set, the original set was produces by a stochastic process. It did not require resources larger than the universe to produce and refine via selection. It was done with very limited resources compared with the number of microbes that might be found in a shovel full of earth. So I have two points. 1. Protein coding sequences cannot be designed without using the Darwinian process of selection. That is how the "designed" library was produced. The functional set was the result of further selection. Anyone here is free to suggest a method that does not require Darwinian selection. 2. If this can be done in the limited time available to the experiment, it suggests the landscape of functional sequences is not as rugged as some have asserted. I might note that no one thinks coding sequences pop up in fully optimized form. Optimization would be microevolution.Petrushka_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Chris, there is evidence in abundance - but none of it relates to the theory of evolution that you seem to believe exists, it all relates to the one that biologists have developed.DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

How do the variations “know” whether the criteria for reproductive success has changed? They have no awareness of the criteria or purpose to meet it.
Why do they need to know? If the criteria has changed then so does the reproductive success of each entity, ones that were most successful may now be less successful than some other varieties. This isn't exactly difficult or controversial, even grossly over simplified computer models can illustrate how this very simple mechanism works - and the entities in the model don't need to know that the criteria for success has changed.DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Bot, I can understand why increasing numbers of evolutionists don't want to face up to the massively increased problems that evolution must solve. So they take refuge in vague phrases like "evolution will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance" rather than try to explain, with evidence, how it is that such "evolution" can turn a single-celled eukaryote (though not a prokaryote) into a human being. At least Charles Darwin, wrong as he was about almost everything, was brave enough to confront the problem head-on! So, you believe the evidence to support statements like "Erosion will occur when you have fluid flow over a surface" and "falling will occur when you have an unsupported mass in a gravity well" is equivalent to the evidence that human beings (and all other plants and animals) evolved from a single-celled eukaryote? If not, if in fact you have no evidence to support this belief, then who are you trying to kid? On the other hand, if you do have evidence, why not talk about that instead of erosion and gravity?Chris Doyle_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

DrBot, How do the variations "know" whether the criteria for reproductive success has changed? They have no awareness of the criteria or purpose to meet it. Aside from that, variance is still just variance regardless of the environment. Why should variance in a non-uniform environment lead to evolution? I can understand why someone might think it might, but the dots from variance to evolution are still not connected. Those are very important dots.ScottAndrews_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Differential variation means, expressly, that there will be more of some variations than of others so the varieties that produce more will start to dominate the population. Of course if the environment is uniform and static then you will get stasis, but if it is variable and changing then the criteria for reproductive success will change and so will subsequent populations, and populations in different parts of the environment will change in different ways. So yes, I stand corrected - you need a non uniform environment as well as differential reproduction with variance.DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

On the contrary, Bot, I think it is you who misunderstands evolution. An absolutely essential component of evolutionist belief is ‘ambition’.
I think you must be talking about a different sort of evolution than the one biologists are referring to. evolution will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance Erosion will occur when you have fluid flow over a surface, falling will occur when you have an unsupported mass in a gravity well - more unjustified assumptions!DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

I don’t see how anyone can really separate the problem of abiogenesis from the problem of evolution.
How would you separate the theory of plate tectonics from the theory of planetary formation? I take your point in part though, for evolution to occur you need replicating entities so their origin needs to be explained, but the theory of evolution relates to what happens when you have those entities, not how they were created. There is a line between the two but until we know exactly how the first replicators came to exist and by what process then we can't draw the line clearly - If they were intelligently designed with half of the basic protein domains present then that is the point at which evolution starts.
The “probabilistic resources of the universe” have been used by Dembski (as the UPB of 10^150, 500 bits) as an upper limit to what a random system can generate in the physioal universe.
Yes, but we are not talking about totally random systems so I think you are missing the point. Nested contingencies in this context have nothing directly to do with biology, it is about chemistry and physics. Random systems do not generate regular or complex patterns like crystals or sedimentary layers. Some 'configurations of matter' may be effectively impossible to find by a random search because they are the result of a series of contingent interactions (nested contingencies) but actually occur easily in the universe because of the way matter behaves - Reaction A enables B which enables C and D etc .. I keep seeing the 'randomness cannot generate this' argument put forth here and I think it is a bad argument because it doesn't take into account how physics and chemistry work. I'm not using this to argue that abiogenesis could have happened, I'm trying to make the point that IF it happened it wouldn't have been the result of all the bits coming together all at once from a soup of atoms, it would have been a result of many of the required bits forming through chemical processes, then coming together. You don't need to generate 130 bits in one go, what you have are segmented bit 'chunks' which, if put together in the right order, for a replicator. Think about it this way, how many bits are required for a proto cell membrane? If a suitable membrane can result from natural processes (as I think people have already shown) then those bits are already present in the environment, they don't need to form spontaneously with everything else. This reminds me of an issue I have with the whole idea of measuring things in functional bits - if you have a minimal replicator of 130 bits and you remove one bit, it stops being a replicator and therefore has zero functional bits - put the bit back and you have 130 functional bits - zero to 130 bits in one move! Or course I'm not arguing that this happened, I'm trying to make the point that the difference between a replicator with 130 bits of functional information, and a chemical soup with zero functional bits could only be a dozen bits.DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, And from gpuccio's Doctoral eye for detail, in such research papers, we find:
We also purified several of the de novo proteins. (To avoid contamination by the natural enzyme, purifications were from strains deleted for the natural gene.) We tested these purified proteins for the enzymatic activities deleted in the respective auxotrophs, but were unable to detect activity that was reproducibly above the controls. IOWs, as far as we can say, the new proteins do not exhibit the same function as the knockout protein they rescue, not even at very low levels. The fact remains that they provide a minimal rescue, but we don’t know what they really do. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-and-freethinking/
not exactly what you were hoping for was it Petrushka?bornagain77_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

On the contrary, Bot, I think it is you who misunderstands evolution. An absolutely essential component of evolutionist belief is 'ambition'. If you want to claim that there is scientific support for your belief that human beings evolved from a single-celled eukaryotic ancestor then you need to show a whole lot more ambition than mere "differential reproduction with variance". You need to provide some serious evidence too. And you can't have your cake and eat it either. You can't pretend that bacteria have apparently evolved at the same time as implying that they didn't need to. Especially when you almost admit that they haven't changed in 3 billion years (albeit through a misleading rhetorical question like "why change if you don't need to?"). So, which one is it, Bot? Have bacteria evolved or haven't they? If the former what have they evolved into apart from bacteria? Nothing else at all? Where's the ambition? If bacteria cannot and did not evolve into human beings (let alone anything else), then why should we believe that human beings (or indeed anything else) have evolved from a single-celled eukaryotic ancestor (and other creatures with dramatically less evolutionary advantages than bacteria)? It is simply not good enough to try and ignore the need for evolution to be far-reaching and ambitious with comments like "There is no end goal in evolution, no rules that say everything must get more complex". The fact is, you and I are here having this discussion and if this event was an unintended accident the onus is on you to explain (with detailed evidence) how lifeforms as astounding as human beings could have evolved from a single-celled eukaryote. Please note, dismissive assumptions that explain nothing (like "evolution will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance") are no substitute for reason and evidence.Chris Doyle_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Dr Bot, Of course I understand the distinction between the problem of OOL and that of evolution. But I still think that the basic reasoning to show abiogenesis and evolution are implausible is the same. Whenever there is enough novelty between taxa, the same reasoning applies as per the implausibility of abiogenetic OOL. The ID claim is the same: spontaneous generation of information is implausible. One cannot throw the same solution method at every problem. It so happens that at a microlevel what you describe occurs given an adaptible biological system. However the information leaps between taxa preclude continuous evolution.Eugene S_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

DrBot,
When you add in differential reproduction – where some ‘varieties’ will produce more offspring than others – then you get evolution.
The first part of your sentence is correct. Differential variation means, expressly, that there will be more of some variations than of others. Why does that mean you get evolution? One does not necessarily follow the other.ScottAndrews_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

If by “evolution” you mean apparently open-ended improvement, that’s not warranted.
No I don't mean open ended improvement and in biology evolution does not imply open ended improvement. Evolution is highly constrained.
No, variance will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance.
No, variance will occur whenever you have reproduction with variance. When you add in differential reproduction - where some 'varieties' will produce more offspring than others - then you get evolution.DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Bacteria, perhaps the creatures with the most evolutionary advantages on this planet, has not evolved into anything at all: no body parts, no organs, no body plans, nothing except bacteria. Bacteria have not evolved into things like fish, birds, roses or humans. They are the same today as they were 3 billion years ago.
You are simply demonstrating that you don't understand evolution - As you implied, bacteria are very successful, why change if you don't need to. Also, how did you determine that bacteria today are the same as they were 3 billion years ago? It looks like you may be stuck on a teleological issue. There is no end goal in evolution, no rules that say everything must get more complex, it is just a process - it is what you get when you have differential reproduction with variance.DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

DrBot: I don't see how anyone can really separate the problem of abiogenesis from the problem of evolution. After all, about half of basic protein domains were already present in LUCA, so I suppose they were generated in the course of abiogenesis or not a lot of time after that. Maybe we should remember that many of the basic proteins, complex proteins, that we observe on life are absolutely necessary for replication itself. So, if those proteins were generated to allow replication, why shouldn't the same mechanism be responsible for the generation of the other half of basic protein domains, the half which gradually appeared after LUCA and after abiogenesis? You may say that the proteins in LUCA, the proteins necessary for any known biological replication, were generated by evolution of different replicators, such as in the RNA world or similar. My answer is simple: there is no evidence of that. As far as we can say, it's only a fairy tale. Like every non design OOL theory at present. But I can concede that evolution after OOL can be approched independently. And the ID theory can well show that it cannot be explained by a non design theory. You are wrong, however, at least IMO, when you say: the universe is not a soup of chaos, it has structure and rules so most of the arguments (the infinite monkey ones) don’t apply because they don’t allow for the nested contingencies we routinely see in physical (non-living) processes. Infinite monkeys are unlikely to produce lots of patterns we routinely see in the universe that are a result of purely natural processes because the ONLY produce randomness. I think you miss the point. The biological context is well known and specific. The "probabilistic resources of the universe" have been used by Dembski (as the UPB of 10^150, 500 bits) as an upper limit to what a random system can generate in the physioal universe. A very generous limit, I would say. But it can certainly be applied to a limited biological system. A protein of 150 aminoacids is beyond that limit, if the target space is small enough and if no selectable intermediaries can be shown. But for me, for a realistic biological system, like our earth and its life span, a much lower limit is enough. I have proposed many times 130 or 150 bits, that is about 30 - 35 AAs. No random biological system can reasonably explore that search space in realistic earth times. And I must remind you that the mechanism proposed by the darwinian theory for variation are absolutely random. There are no "nested contingencies" that can make the generation of a new AAs sequence anything but random in respect to the functional sequences of proteins. No known biochemical law favours sequences that can fold and have biological activity. Random variation is, indeed, random. You may say: but natural selection is not. I know. NS is a principle of necessity. It has its powers and its limitations. Both have been discussed here. But it can act only on what has been randomly generated. And it must not be considered a divinity, or a fairy tale. Wherever you assume that NS has acted, you have to ahow that it could act. IOWs, in any tentative explanation of the emergence of a complex protein function, you have to show that the complexity of any step which is supposed to emerge randomly is in the range of what random variation can realistically do. IOWs, you must deconstruct the sequence into simpler, naturally selectable steps, which has never been done. instead of appealing to "nested contingencies" that don't exist.gpuccio_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

DrBot
remember, evolution will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance
No, variance will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance. If by "evolution" you only mean that reproductions are not all exact clones, then your statement is correct. If by "evolution" you mean apparently open-ended improvement, that's not warranted.ScottAndrews_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Bot said: "evolution will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance." That, of course, is simply not true. And Bot doesn't even attempt to substantiate his claim. I suspect he'll go on about Intelligently Designed hardware being programmed by Intelligently Designers to achieve a planned goal providing all the evidence he needs. But let's look at the real world instead. Bacteria, perhaps the creatures with the most evolutionary advantages on this planet, has not evolved into anything at all: no body parts, no organs, no body plans, nothing except bacteria. Bacteria have not evolved into things like fish, birds, roses or humans. They are the same today as they were 3 billion years ago. The variance in "Differential reproduction with variance" is limited to trivial variety within the pre-existing and pre-defined strain or species it occurs in.Chris Doyle_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, you, emotionally, state;
As for your epigenetic claims, you are accusing the authors of fraud and the journal editors of incompetence. Pretty strong stuff. Perhaps you should write to them.
But alas, I am merely looking at the results:
De Novo Designed Proteins from a Library of Artificial Sequences Function in Escherichia Coli and Enable Cell Growth Abstract: A central challenge of synthetic biology is to enable the growth of living systems using parts that are not derived from nature, but designed and synthesized in the laboratory. As an initial step toward achieving this goal, we probed the ability of a collection of >106 de novo designed proteins to provide biological functions necessary to sustain cell growth. Our collection of proteins was drawn from a combinatorial library of 102-residue sequences, designed by binary patterning of polar and nonpolar residues to fold into stable 4-helix bundles. We probed the capacity of proteins from this library to function in vivo by testing their abilities to rescue 27 different knockout strains of Escherichia coli, each deleted for a conditionally essential gene. Four different strains – ?serB, ?gltA, ?ilvA, and ?fes – were rescued by specific sequences from our library. Further experiments demonstrated that a strain simultaneously deleted for all four genes was rescued by co-expression of four novel sequences. Thus, cells deleted for ~0.1% of the E. coli genome (and ~1% of the genes required for growth under nutrient-poor conditions) can be sustained by sequences designed de novo. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015364
Thus Petrushka, the experiment itself does not establish any specific molecular functionality, novel or otherwise, for the proteins, but the experiment merely notes that the presence of 'specific sequences from our library' 'rescued' four genes by co-expression of 'four novel sequences';!!! Do they note ANY molecular functionality of the proteins whatsoever??? NO they don't!!! Thus, whatever you may think this experiment says for the generation of functional proteins, the plain fact of the matter is that you have not established your case that any novel functional protein was actually generated but have only established that 'the presence of 'specific sequences from our library' 'rescued' four genes by co-expression of 'four novel sequences' Perhaps this apparent propensity of yours to read far more into experimental results than are actually there is what makes you such a dogmatic neo-Darwinist??? One who refuses to dine on the 'overwhelming' evidence for design, but instead chooses to rummage through the bottom of trash cans looking for whatever morsel, however putrid, to satisfy your never ending hunger to deny design!bornagain77_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

One sometimes hears the expression: “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”. The discussion above covers some of the major unfounded assumptions – beliefs – of materialistic darwinism. My guess is there are hundreds of others. But has anyone condensed the list down to, say, a set of top 20 major unproven assumptions embodied in the accidental-mud-to-mozart believers? A list, link or reference would be much appreciated!steveO_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, The study demonstrates what happens when first, proteins are selected using an intelligently designed test, and second, are tested with living organisms. What bearing does that have on the supposed ability of the organisms themselves to create and test new proteins on themselves? The two concepts are fundamentally different. If Edison could have automated the process of testing filaments rather than testing each one, would that make his process darwinian? Would we say, "Who invented the light bulb? No one. Selection did it." The entire process, from beginning to end, is intentional, intelligent, and designed. You confuse intentionally designing, enabling, and executing a search with that same search executing with no intention, design, or enabling.ScottAndrews_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

The probabilistic resources of the universe (taking into account the size of the search space of available configurations, the rarity and isolation of solutions in that space and finally, the timeframe of 10^17 seconds) are not enough to spointaneously generate such huge an amount of information without intelligent agency.
You said this:
The problem with TOE is that it is highly unlikely in our universe.
then responded with a claim that isn't about TOE - the Theory of Evolution. Please can you explain why evolution is unlikely in our universe, not why abiogenesis is unlikely - remember, evolution will occur whenever you have differential reproduction with variance, the replicators could have been designed, or not, it makes no difference to the theory of evolution because it is not a theory of biogenesis. If you want me to address biogenesis then you need to provide a better argument that that - the universe is not a soup of chaos, it has structure and rules so most of the arguments (the infinite monkey ones) don't apply because they don't allow for the nested contingencies we routinely see in physical (non-living) processes. Infinite monkeys are unlikely to produce lots of patterns we routinely see in the universe that are a result of purely natural processes because the ONLY produce randomness.DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Petrushka et al. : While O have not followed all the discussion here, I would like to make a couple of comments about the paper linked by Petrushka. Very simply: 1) The starting library of 1.5 x 10^6 sequences is definitely designed. While it is not designed for a specific activity, it is designed to more likely give sequences that fold in a specific way. That is a very strong design choice, which makes the selected library equivalent to a much bigger random library (very difficult to say how bigger). From the paper: Because folding into a stable 3-dimensional structure is a prerequisite for most biological functions, we did not construct this collection of proteins from random sequences. Instead, we used the binary code strategy for protein design, shown previously to facilitate the production of large combinatorial libraries of folded proteins. and: In brief, the binary code strategy posits that stably folded proteins can be encoded by specifying the sequence pattern of polar and nonpolar residues (the binary pattern) to coincide with the exposed and buried parts of a structure, respectively. and: For the current studies, we used the binary code strategy to design and construct a library of sequences designed to fold into 102-residue 4-helix bundles. No doubts about the design here, I suppose. I am aware of no "non designed" scenario that would allow auch a library to be spontaneously generated in a random system. This point, alone, changes completely the meaning of the paper. But there is more. 2) It is a rescue study. Now, that is a big limit. They have correctly shown that a few sequences in their library can rescue a hew knockout strains, although with minimal efficay, but failed to demonstrate what the mechanism of rescue is. In particular, although they tried a lot of indirect strategies, there is no evidence from their work of what the new sequences do, or that they have, even at low level, the same activity that is lacking in the knockout strain. From the paper: We also purified several of the de novo proteins. (To avoid contamination by the natural enzyme, purifications were from strains deleted for the natural gene.) We tested these purified proteins for the enzymatic activities deleted in the respective auxotrophs, but were unable to detect activity that was reproducibly above the controls. IOWs, as far as we can say, the new proteins do not exhibit the same function as the knockout protein they rescue, not even at very low levels. The fact remains that they provide a minimal rescue, but we don't know what they really do. That means that we can in no way know, at present, how complex is the "rescue function" found in the designed library. That's all. And, I would say, that's enough.gpuccio_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

The proteins were not derived via natural selection. The sequences the proteins were derived from were artificial- scientists made them.Joseph_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

You keep going off on tangents and avoiding the question. How were the sequence libraries designed? Looking at the literature, they were created using random variation and selection. As for your epigenetic claims, you are accusing the authors of fraud and the journal editors of incompetence. Pretty strong stuff. Perhaps you should write to them.Petrushka_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Re 10.1.1.1.2 by DrBot DrBot, "How did you work that out? Can you explain how you calculated the probability of evolution happening in our universe?" It was not me who showed that. I think it has been discussed a number of times here on this site. Once again. The probabilistic resources of the universe (taking into account the size of the search space of available configurations, the rarity and isolation of solutions in that space and finally, the timeframe of 10^17 seconds) are not enough to spointaneously generate such huge an amount of information without intelligent agency. Please refer to the FAQ page of this website, Question 25 where it discusses the issue. I find this credible enough. It agrees well with common sense to me. Also, please see here and here for a number of articles on this subject, notably on the capability of chaos to cause genuine self-organisation of matter. I find the arguments against the plausibility of spontaneous generation of information convincing enough as they agree with practice and common sense.Eugene S_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Petrushka:
How could it have been designed without using Darwinian selection? How could anyone design a protein coding sequence without using selection? How were the sequence libraries used in the experiment produced? How could they have been designed while not using selection?
1- Darwinian selection isn't selection at all- it is a result of three processes 2- A targeted search will do just fine as a design mechanism to design proteins.Joseph_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Petrushka,
How could it have been designed without using Darwinian selection?
It is interesting the cherry picking you will go to to try to deny design, for from the abstract we read:
De Novo Designed Proteins from a Library of Artificial Sequences Function in Escherichia Coli and Enable Cell Growth Excerpt: designed by binary patterning of polar and nonpolar residues to fold into stable 4-helix bundles.,,, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015364
Thus the investigators, from their knowledge of stable protein structures, clearly imparted information about where a likely functional protein would be found in a search space. But what is interesting in this is that we don't even know for sure if the supposedly functional proteins were truly functional in doing any useful molecular functions in the cell or if the protein, which you have presupposed to be molecularly functional, has done anything at all other than introducing epigenetic information BACK INTO the genome sufficient to 'rescue the cells' from the genetic deletion events that were imposed on them by the investigators. Perhaps the extremely sophisticated programming in the cell used the epigenetic information, from the supposedly functional protein, in a completely unexpected way to introduce a compensatory mutation calculation on the genetic deletion events. Thus, until you can satisfy that question, it is simply unwarranted for you to say for sure that a truly functional protein was found by the design/selection process that you have chosen to focus on. Thus you are not even sure if in this extremely biased example that selection (from a library of 'quasi-designed' proteins) has done what you think it has done!!!
Welcome to CoSBi - (Computational and Systems Biology) Excerpt: Biological systems are the most parallel systems ever studied and we hope to use our better understanding of how living systems handle information to design new computational paradigms, programming languages and software development environments. The net result would be the design and implementation of better applications firmly grounded on new computational, massively parallel paradigms in many different areas. Cells Are Like Robust Computational Systems, - June 2009 Excerpt: Gene regulatory networks in cell nuclei are similar to cloud computing networks, such as Google or Yahoo!, researchers report today in the online journal Molecular Systems Biology. The similarity is that each system keeps working despite the failure of individual components, whether they are master genes or computer processors. ,,,,"We now have reason to think of cells as robust computational devices, employing redundancy in the same way that enables large computing systems, such as Amazon, to keep operating despite the fact that servers routinely fail." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616103205.htm Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html
Now Petrushka, a more appropriate, and far more honest, example that you should have used, to illustrate the extraordinary effort it takes for humans (who are considered intelligent agents by the way!!!) to find a specific protein, in conjunction with the 'selection process', that will perform a specific function is found here:
Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093
Now Petrushka, I highly doubt you will start using this example to honestly show the limits for what even human intelligence added to 'selecting the best candidate' can accomplish, but none-the-less, a honest person would readily admit that this is severely damaging to claims that neo-Darwinian processes accomplished alone what it could not with the best of human assistance!!!bornagain77_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

The problem with TOE is that it is highly unlikely in our universe. It is so unlikely that it does not make sense to talk about this as a working scientific theory.
How did you work that out? Can you explain how you calculated the probability of evolution happening in our universe?DrBot_{September 26, 2011
September
09
Sep
26
26
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply