Ready, set, mutate... and may the best microbe win

Rice University ^ | 18 May 2006 | Staff (press release)

[tgambill]

You can't believe science or physics as a complete source or reliable source. No disrespect intended, but we as humans, includes scientist..:) has only a four dimensional capability. Meaning, that humans understand only length, width, height, and time as reference to their world. They only use 10% of their brains......how can we rely on science when it changes every day.

there is more to the world than just what these humans can design. More than they can imagine.........

[Right Wing Professor]

If you have two competing environmental factors, and a linear relationship between the relative survival and the strength of the factor (and all relationships are linear looked at on a small enough grid :-)), then the interference will be second order. Unless you have some specific reason to expect there to be competition or cooperativity between the two factors (e.g, if they both act via the same gene), you would expect the coupling to be effectively zero.

There's no reason why ten or a hundred selective pressures shouldn't operate entirely indepedently on the same population.

But, I agree, the experiment could be done. I would bet dollars to donuts unless you choose two pressures that are specifically designed to interfere, they will act independently.

[grey_whiskers]

But, I agree, the experiment could be done. I would bet dollars to donuts unless you choose two pressures that are specifically designed to interfere, they will act independently.

'Tis where the rubber meets the road--did the scientists know, or have a pretty good estimate, in advance --
where the point mutations would have to be in order to increase survival within an increasing temperature environment?

If not, then I think it would be hard to know in advance which pressures would interfere, or not.

E.g. on a much earlier crevo thread I thought I read of the fact there were six mutations which all had to occur in rapid succession in order to generate a flagellum. Even with complete knowledge of the an organism's chromosome, it still looks like a tall order computationally in order to predict *in advance* the possibility of that occurrence.

Which would make the rigorous design of an experiment to predict and effect specific mutations harder to do.

(But that *would* be where the fun would be...as well as driving PETA completely Bat-sh*t.)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Gosh, remind me why I should respond to ANYONE who gets "caught up" with HGTV!

Just look at the name of the show, and tell me it's not relevant to crevo threads!

Cheers!

Full Disclosure: Candice Olson is cute, too.

[Right Wing Professor]

'Tis where the rubber meets the road--did the scientists know, or have a pretty good estimate, in advance -- where the point mutations would have to be in order to increase survival within an increasing temperature environment?

Seriously doubt it. Genomics is cheap and easy. Protein folding and protein chemistry are more difficult.

If not, then I think it would be hard to know in advance which pressures would interfere, or not.

Yes, but why would you adopt the default hypothesis that they interfere? Remember, it's a mathematical truism that any physically realistic function of two variables will in the limit of a small perturbation reduce to linear, independent functions of the variables. To counter that, you have to assume a relatively huge coupling term.

With all due respect here, you're playing the creationist game - that if you can come up with an alternative, no matter how implausible, then we know nothing. It's not science, it's lawyering. In science, we assume the simplest hypothesis first. The simplest hypothesis is that the two pressures are independent. Unless there is evidence they aren't independent, or some reason to expect they aren't independent, there's no reason to assume coupling between the two pressures will affect the rate of evolution.

[Seamoth]

I wasn't going to stalk you. The reason I emphasized it was because the only post I remember from you was a request for homework help on the religious beliefs of Founding Fathers. Actually, it was one of the first results on Google: http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1505879/posts After it was pointed out to you that your letter was an UL, you never visited that thread again.

You'll be getting reminders from me if you pull that on me, that's all.

[js1138]

placemarker

[grey_whiskers]

Seriously doubt it. Genomics is cheap and easy. Protein folding and protein chemistry are more difficult.

EXACTLY. You might be able to tell in advance which codon mistranscriptions are most likely. Going from there to say what the 3D structure of the resultant mutant protein is harder; accurately predicting in advance the change in the function of the protein, and its interaction with the other proteins, enzymes, and celluar biochemical cycles is harder yet. And precisely *BECAUSE* the end effect is so hard to gauge from the initial point mutation, I predict it is very hard to design an experiment where you systematically vary two environmental variables, in such a way that you are sure in advance that the adaptations won't step on each other.

IN OTHER WORDS: Yes, I *AGREE* that most of the time, you can approximate the treatment of a situation by mathematical separation of variables. But it does remain an approximation--and there remain times where the approximation may get you into trouble. I just happen to think that the exceptions are going to be very interesting, so I'd like to keep an eye out for them. With all due respect here, you're playing the creationist game

With all due respect here, I'm *not* playing the creationist game...

My point is that this experiment is *FINALLY* getting to the point of *specificity*, and I've been waiting with bated breath for so long for this to happen I can hardly hold in my excitement.

It is not *you know nothing*, it is (in the words of Michael Ledeen from National Review Online, concerning the Middle East) "Faster, please."

Unless there is evidence they aren't independent, or some reason to expect they aren't independent, there's no reason to assume coupling between the two pressures will affect the rate of evolution.

I have acknowledged and comprehended your assertion. I don't necessarily agree that this assertion is *NECESSARILY* true "in vivo" where there are so damn MANY environmental factors to deal with at once. Think of your design tradeoffs within (say) automobile engine design. Gas mileage or power? Torque at low RPM, high top end, environmentally friendly? There is no set answer, it depends on the environment, and changes within the environment. Or (since cars *are* intelligently designed, except for certain GM products ;-) it depends on the market and what features people expect at a particular price point.

Cheers!

[Virginia-American]

Almagest, I'd like your opinion on another Latin question:

How would "creationism" be Latinized?

The best I could come up with was "Res Paleiana", referring to William Paley (published "Natural Theology" in 1800)

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given....

Same question for "evolution"

How about "Res Darwiniana"? Thanks

[Almagest]

<< some Christians use unpopularity as a measure of the correctness of their theology >>

<< Some Christians on this site must be very, very correct indeed. >>


It's part of the game they play in their minds to never question the "rightness" of whatever cause they have embraced as the "Christian crusade" du jour. I have seen it in scores of discussion sites concerning religious topics -- and just about all the crevo discussions online.

Here's how it works:

1) Popularity and success of our "ministry" or "cause" is proof that our cause is right, that God is supporting it, that God is pleased with it, and that God is blessing our faithfulness. Doesn't seem to phase them to realize that causes they oppose and consider virtually Satanic are even more popular and successful.

2) UNpopularity and lack of success is proof that we are in the right, but that the enemy -- SATAN and his dupes -- are fighting tooth and nail to cause us problems. They use this argument even when the opponents causing such "damage" are their fellow Christians who believe their "cause" is dangerous and unbiblical.

The best thing about these two claims is that you will see people using them BOTH in the same argument! I call it their heads-I-win-tails-you-lose game.

Of course, logically -- the popularity or success of such causes is no evidence of their correctness or that God is blessing them because he is pleased with them. That is a logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populum" -- the argument "to the people," or the argument based on popularity. The answer to this argument is to point out something they oppose that is experiencing great success, popularity, and seeming "blessings from God" -- and ask them if the same argument applies.

Of course -- UNpopularity of an idea is no argument for its rightness OR wrongness. What counts is the actual evidence -- which one side in THIS argument always manages to avoid. Their arsenal seems to consist almost entirely of taking put shots at the evidence from the other side -- evidence they reveal almost total ignorance about.

When we point out this fallacy to them, they then come back with the accusation that we are using the same arguments about popularity of the "cause" when we point out that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept the theory of common descent and consider creationism patent anti-scientific nonsense.

They will throw this accusation at us, while at the same time, trumpeting the polls showing how many Americans "do not believe that we came from monkeys" or some such nonsense. They can't seem to get their minds around the idea that the vast majority opinion of biologists is entirely relevant to this discussion -- while the opinions of millions of people who have no clue about the theory are meaningless -- especially considering that so many of them have GOTTEN their weird ideas about the theory from the straw men dished out by creationists, and from the fact that evolution is so poorly addressed in the schools.

[Almagest]

<< How would "creationism" be Latinized? >>


Stercus tauri?

Okay -- to be more serious -- how about:

Res incepti = Things of the beginning [Think "Genesis"].


<< Same question for "evolution"

How about "Res Darwiniana"? Thanks >>


Well -- actually -- I like "evolution." It already comes from the Latin, from a word meaning "to unroll."

[Seamoth]

There are many verses in the Bible that may imply unpopularity should be taken as a measure of correctness of theology, so it's easy to see where some get that idea, but keep in mind that these verses were written in times where being a Christian was punishable by stoning. If you're a Christian and you're liked by people seeking to stone Christians, there's something wrong with your beliefs. Just like if you're a Republican and you're liked by Democrats, then there's something wrong with your politics. Common sense, and these verses have very little relevance in America, except perhaps on college campuses.

[Almagest]

<< There are many verses in the Bible that may imply unpopularity should be taken as a measure of correctness of theology, so it's easy to see where some get that idea, >>


Your further explanation is good -- but there is more at work here. This is very common logical fallacy, beyond the argumentum ad populum I mentioned before.

Let me lay it out logically:

Premise: If our ideas are from God -- God-haters will dispute our ideas and oppose us.

Premise: There are people who dispute our ideas and oppose us.

Conclusions: Those people who oppose us are God-haters, and our ideas are from God.

The conclusions actually reverse the if-then statement:

In logic:

P-->Q (If P is true, then Q is necessarily true).
Q (Q is true).
Therefore, P (P is true).

This is known as "affirming the consequent," and it is a fatal error in logic. P is a sufficient condition for Q, but Q is not a sufficient condition for P.

See it? In this case -- they are saying:

* P->Q = If our ideas are of God ---- then we will be opposed.
* Q = We are opposed.
* Therefore P = our ideas are from God.


This leaves out the possibility that we could be opposed for a lot of other reasons, including the fact that our ideas are NOT from God. Even if it were true that the rightness of one's ideas will cause opposition -- that does not mean that any opposition to one's ideas means that the ideas are right. That is "affirming the consequent."

I hope I have explained this well enough. Apart from the self-delusion involved, it's just flat-out illogical.

Now I await the inevitable response in someone's mind: But God's thinking is far above your man-made reasoning.

[PatrickHenry]

Magrisre, I don't mean to lecture you. I shall yield to your conclusions, which are far more informed than my own. But I have one observation to offer:

Res incepti is good. It's too good, actually, because it looks like a perfectly reasonable field of study. It lacks the often negative connotation that the English suffix "ism" can provide (communism, racism, etc.). Indeed, such negativity is what the creationists themselves attempt when they label evolution as "Darwinism." Because they've set the rules for this controversy (that is, no rules), they can't complain when their own tactics are employed.

I've made a fast search for some rarely-used case or construction that hints at irony, or derision, but I can't find it. I suspect that such exists as an oddball poetic device.

If nothing else is available, I'd just toss the thing into the ablative case, to show how weird it is. Ah, wait! The dative case is used with verbs like credo, confido, etc. That hints (at least to me) of something less than directly comprehended. Thus: rebus inceptis Fortunately, the dative and ablative plural for res are both rebus, so we can't miss. It's the same with 2nd declension nouns like inceptum, therefore inceptis works either way.

[Seamoth]

Oh, perfectly clear... you do a good job of smashing peanuts with sledgehammers. :-) Wasn't trying to be argumentative, I was adding supplemental background. :-)

Now I await the inevitable response in someone's mind: But God's thinking is far above your man-made reasoning.

Unfortunately (and this applies to all belief systems, not just religion) logical fallacies & excuses ("God's way is not our way" "Communism has never been -really- practiced") is a mechanism for many people to avoid uneasy questions.

[PatrickHenry]

Magrisre Magistre

[Arrrrrrgghhhhh!!]

[Almagest]

<< I've made a fast search for some rarely-used case or construction that hints at irony, or derision, but I can't find it. >>


So -- now we're back to "stercus tauri." LOL!

[Almagest]

<< Oh, perfectly clear... you do a good job of smashing peanuts with sledgehammers. :-) >>


Sorry about that. I sometimes get into "teacher" mode, and in my attempt to avoid a protracted back-and-forth, I try to get it all in one post.


<< Wasn't trying to be argumentative, I was adding supplemental background. :-) >>


Yes, I could see that. Nor was I being argumentative. I was just being -- uh -- maybe a little pedantic? I hope not.

Cheers.

[Almagest]

<< Magistre

[Arrrrrrgghhhhh!!] >>


Oh, that's a relief! I knew you were addressing me, and I knew you were doing SOMETHING with the word, but I also knew that warn't the usual vocative. I got to thinking -- uh-oh, I've popped off about being a Latin teacher, and this guy knows so much Latin that he's using stuff I never heard of!

[PatrickHenry]

So -- now we're back to "stercus tauri."

I prefer sentina, a word I learned from Cicero. Anyway, using the dative or ablative case (which are conveniently the same for these words), we can subtly distinguish between:

res incepti -- origin studies involving rational conclusions based on objectively verifiable data; and

rebus inceptis -- all other beliefs about origins, from whatever source derived (e.g., authoritarian mandate, communitarian consensus, revelation, or voices from Uranus).

I post; you decide.