Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective (DIRECTED MUTATION!)

Princeton University ^ | November 10, 2008 | Kitta MacPherson

[GodGunsGuts]

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

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

[mlo]

"That was no answer. That was a punt."

If it isn't possible to know something, then the answer is, "we don't know".

[mlo]

"No, he's not. I have provided specific examples of the logical fallacies and non sequiturs when they were used."

You've asserted that they existed, and repeated the assertion. You have not made your case.

[AndrewC]

It's not an answer. An answer is true.

Who died and made you god? Prove it.

[AndrewC]

If it isn't possible to know something, then the answer is, "we don't know".

Prove your antecedent.

[GourmetDan]

"You misquoted me and are now trying to pretend you didn't. I call that lying. Deal with what I said."

I'm not pretending anything. The underlying fallacies that support philosophical naturalism (i.e., 'science') need to become part of the discussion. If you want the discussion to begin after everyone accepts the 'a priori' philosophical assumption of naturalism, that is a huge advantage in favor of your personal beliefs. I simply refuse to let you get away with that.

Deal with it.

[muawiyah]

For you maybe. I'm simply not into them. Frankly, if you let the stupidest bunch take ownership of all the words you will be doomed to stupidity.

Now, a thought for you ~ as you recall much "dating" for when one species branched off from another is based on an analysis of mitochondrial DNA.

Using such analysis it's been determined that humans and chimps broke off from a third species anywhere from 5 milion to 12 million years ago.

That's pretty consistent with fossil evidence.

Now, let's leap forward 5 to 12 million years to this particular finding ~ a REPAIR mechanism that fixes damaged or mutated mitochondrial DNA.

Let's say it manages to catch 9 out of 10 errors and fix them before they can be "passed on". That would undoubtedly create an observable standard mutation rate for "repair" and we could adjust our branching dates quite readily.

Let's up the efficiency of the repair mechanism (which we didn't know about at the time we determined the standard rates) and say it fixes 99 out of 100 errors.

That 5,000,000 year branch for humans and chimps becomes what? 500,000,000 years?

And if the repair mechanism catches 999 out of 1000 errors, would that give us a date of maybe 5 billion years back where humans and chimps split?

Obviously we have some problems with the current mitochondrial DNA dating mechanism.

I'm sure someone can "fix it" 'cause if they don't a whole huge segment of current evolutionary information just went down the drain ~ or, perhaps it didn't, and we really do have DNA mutations at the root of species separations that date back to a time before Earth coalesced out of dust and gas circling the Sun.

That would, of course, require someone to pull the chemistry down off the shelf and stuff it in an improved version ~

At the moment the young people who've discovered this particular protein have the world of molecular biology, if not evolution, by the CO Joneses!

[GourmetDan]

"You've asserted that they existed, and repeated the assertion. You have not made your case."

Of course I have. Fallacies and non sequiturs were pointed out when they were used and why they were such. There does have to be some ability to think-critically on the receiver's part however and that is what is missing, not arguments for making the case.

[muawiyah]

Look, "Natural Selection", in and of itself, does not identify or describe any sort of mechanism. Presumably it arises out of the sophisticated math that arises out of who eats who, and when, and how often they reproduce, and with what.

I rather prefer "a protein that corrects coding errors" ~ or "DNA that can be changed, added or deleted", and even "recoded by being reshuffled".

A real process that we can touch and feel and look at versus a magical being called "Natural Selection" ~ That's not name-calling.

Two things ~ I refuse to accept the idea that idiots should get to pick all the words to use in debate (idiots being, for example, Discovery Institute) or that people who renounce the existence of the Supernatural should be allowed to postulate the existence of "demigods".

I get to pick some of the words, and if you don't want invisible magical beings involved, then don't use them yourself!

[Rippin]

The problem is there have been no sudden changes except extinction events from the Cambrian “explosion” until now.

---

The point here is that creationists have taken the position that each ‘kind’ of animal was distinctly created while evolutionists have insisted that there is common descent. If there is only random mutation available to create new genetic material the process is unimaginably slow - while if there can be some guiding, the time required for a change could be dramatically reduced.

The sudden changes in the fossil record are a bigger problem for random mutation than for guided mutation. If a natural capacity can ultimately explain rapid dramatic changes then the creationist will no longer be able to say that sudden jumps in the fossil record support special creation of kinds.

[js1138]

The underlying fallacies that support philosophical naturalism (i.e., 'science') need to become part of the discussion.

No they don't. The methods and procedures of science depend on success, not belief. The methods of science work the same whether you are a Christian or a Buddhist or communist or whatever. They work when natural explanations are sought,and they go astray when supernatural or political explanations are sought.

[muawiyah]

Think of it like this ~ Ghenghis Khan had all the same genes most of us have. He reproduced with tens of thousands of women. Those women had all the other genes you might find anywhere.

He was competing against what?

Does not compute. Doesn't matter whether it was Ghenghis Khan hitting on your grandmother or the neighbor ladies, the consequence was essentially the same ~ to wit, the same genes got passed along.

I'd suggest there's no competition taking place at all.

[Coyoteman]

At the moment the young people who've discovered this particular protein have the world of molecular biology, if not evolution, by the CO Joneses!

And there will be a lot more such discoveries to come too.

That's why the "god of the gaps" argument is so risky. Science keeps chipping away at those gaps.

[js1138]

The “sudden jumps” you have in mind involve millions of years or hundreds of thousands of generations. The varity of morphology seen in dogs bred over the last thousand years is greater than the “gaps” in the fossil record for most lineages.

[muawiyah]

Creationists, in case you didn't notice, do not trifle with other people's gods.

Gravity is "measurable" and there's plenty of math out there to show how it intracts with matter and energy.

Natural Selection is not "measurable", nor is there any math behind it ~

[muawiyah]

The "gaps" probably don't really exist, but we can never know since we are reduced to having nothing more than sampling techniques that themselves have enormous "gaps" in them.

As I explained earlier, Demming's observation was that if you sample long enough your samples will begin to approach what you'd get with a random sample (which is really important for quality control and getting rich at the casino).

when you pull fossils out of the ground you are dealing with vast amounts of time that occurred between the deposition of one fossil and the next one. We start to get results that approach randomness so we can string them together to get a picture of what went on ~ maybe. Everybody who's studied and used sampling methodology used in developing statistical controls for quality of product has been burned more than once!~

The folks who found this particular code fixing protein just destroyed several well grounded scientific fields and reduced numerous doctorates to the status of wallpaper.

They are on the right track.

[mlo]

"Prove your antecedent."

Prove 1 + 1 = 2.

You are being silly. If you can't know, then you don't know.

No matter how many stories you can make up that provide an explanation, you can't know if they are true.

[mlo]

"Of course I have. Fallacies and non sequiturs were pointed out when they were used and why they were such. There does have to be some ability to think-critically on the receiver's part however and that is what is missing, not arguments for making the case."

Wrong. You asserted fallacies. You didn't explain why anyone should agree with you.

[mlo]

"That 5,000,000 year branch for humans and chimps becomes what? 500,000,000 years?"

No. If the mitochondrial mutation rate was established by means independent of knowning the reason for the rate, then learning the reason doesn't change the rate.

People observed and plotted the orbits of the planets long before they understood why the planets were in those orbits. Learning about gravity didn't change the observations.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Calling B.S. based on what? Your minds inability to deal with the data?

It is minds that are devoted to mindless materialism that are incapable of making proper sense of the data. You and your fellow Evos are advocating logic-defying materialist miracles. Are you seriously trying to posit that organism A can be closer to organism B both in terms of body plan and functional needs, and yet have a blueprint that is closer to the more divergent body plan and functional needs of organism C? Pure balderdash! No wonder so many Evos are starting to abandon the HMS Beagle in search of a new evolutionary ship. With logic like that, you guys should slip under the waves and hit bottom in no time.

[AndrewC]

You are being silly. If you can't know, then you don't know.

You're the one being silly. This question has been addressed by countless generations of people more intelligent than you imagine yourself to be.

Proof of 1 + 1 = 2 Take your pick

By HallsofIvy

Starting from Peano's axioms:
The natural numbers consist of a set N together with a "sucessor function" f() such that 
1. There exist a unique member of N, called "1", such that f is a bijection from N-{1} to N.
2. If a set, X, contains 1 and, whenever it contains a member, n, of N, it also contains f(n), then X= N. (This is "induction")
(Historically, Peano included 0 and used 0 instead of 1.)

We then define "+" by: a+1= f(a). If b is not 1 then b= f(c) for some c and 
a+b is defined as f(a+c).

Since "2" is DEFINED as f(1), it follows that 2= f(1)= 1+ 1.

A little harder is 2+ 2= 4. We DEFINE 3 as f(2) and 4 as f(3).
2= f(1) so 2+ 2= f(2+ 1). But 2+ 1= f(2)= 3 so 2+ 2= f(3)= 4!



Or

BY mathwonk



By definition, 1 = {ø}, and 2 = {ø,{ø}}, and adding one to any number, means forming the union of that number and the set containing that number.

so 1+1 = the union of {ø} and {{ø}}, i.e. {ø,{ø}} = 2.

equivalently, 0 = ø, and in general n = {0,1,2,...,n-1}.

then n+1 = n union {n} = (0,1,2,...,n}. 

so 1+1 = {0} union {1} = {0,1} = 2.