Posted on 01/26/2006 11:47:13 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Jeffrey H. Schwartz's Sudden Origins closed Darwin's gaps; cell biology explains how.
An article by University of Pittsburgh Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey H. Schwartz and University of Salerno Professor of Biochemistry Bruno Maresca, to be published Jan. 30 in the New Anatomist journal, shows that the emerging understanding of cell structure lends strong support to Schwartz's theory of evolution, originally explained in his seminal work, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).
In that book, Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors-like extreme heat, cold, or crowding-years earlier.
Determining the mechanism that causes those delayed expressions of change is Schwartz's major contribution to the evolution of the theory of evolution. The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air. Those changes may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.
Why does it take an environmental drama to cause mutations? Why don't cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests?
Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don't like to change and don't do so easily. As Schwartz and Maresca explain: Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules- various kinds of proteins-whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell. For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact. Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on. In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold. But extreme stress pushes cells beyond their capacity to produce protective proteins, and then mutation can occur.
This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment. Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them. And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.
The article's conclusions also have important implications for the notion of “fixing” the environment to protect endangered species. While it is indeed the environment causing the mutation, the resulting organism is in an altogether different environment by the time the novelty finally escapes its recessive state and expresses itself.
“You just can't do a quick fix on the environment to prevent extinction because the cause of the mutation occurred some time in the past, and you don't know what the cause of the stress was at that time,” Schwartz said.
“This new understanding of how organisms change provides us with an opportunity to forestall the damage we might cause by unthinking disruption of the environment,” added Schwartz. “The Sudden Origins theory, buttressed by modern cell biology, underscores the need to preserve the environment-not only to enhance life today, but to protect life generations from now.”
Schwartz, with his colleague Ian Tattersall, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, also authored the four-volume The Human Fossil Record (Wiley-Liss, 2002-05). Together, the volumes represent the first study of the entire human fossil record. Volume 1 was recognized by the Association of American Publishers with its Professional Scholarly Publishing Award. In 1987, Schwartz's The Red Ape: Orang-utans and Human Origin (Houghton Mifflin Company) was met with critical acclaim.
Schwartz, who also is a Pitt professor of the history and philosophy of science, was named a fellow in Pitt's Center for the Philosophy of Science and a fellow of the prestigious World Academy of Arts and Science.
The journal, The New Anatomist, is an invitation-only supplement to the Anatomical Record.
Dr. Lundquist was one example of many. She is a scientist, she is degreed in science at the doctoral level from a reputable university, she is certfied and practises in the pratical science of Industrial Hygiene. She has published papers and been accepted in legal proceedings as an expert scientific witness in her field.
She is a scientist.
None of which you plan to present, obviously.
...and been accepted in legal proceedings...
LOL.
"Applicable species"? When did I restrict any of this to some particular set of species?
All that handwaving in service of a rebuttal to an argument I don't make. BLAST is no substitute for reading comprehension, my friend.
I did already, is your short-term memory going?
Never and neither did I. I simply described the subjects that have histones. And,of course, my list is not an exhaustive list, thus a description. Now put up or shut up. Your fiction remains fiction. Show me something other than your strung together sequence of words.
Start with Q86QH9, Q86QI0, Q05831. Enjoy.
Yeah "we" were waiting on you. Finally you produced something that might bring your sequence "homologs such as the protamines may well have served some entirely different function before doing what histones do now. A minor change to that homolog, and presto - histones" out of the fiction category.
Now you mention protamines having a minor change and presto a histone.
The accession numbers you gave are not protamines but contain protamine-like sequences and are of histone domains. So what you evidently are saying is that the protamine with a minor change became .... well let's look at the sequences.
1 mpspsrksrs rsrsrskspk rspakkarkt pkkpraaggv kkpstlsmiv aaitamknrk
61 gssvqairky ilannkgint shlgsamkla fakglksgvl vrpktsagas gatgsfrvgk
121 apaspkkakk akspkkkssk nksnnakakk sprkkaavkk stkskakkpk spkkkaakkt
181 arkspkkkar kspkkkaakk skk
akakksprkk aavkkstksk akkpkspkkk aakktarksp kkkarkspkk kaakkskk Q05831(Protamine-like protein PHI-3)
1 aggvkkpttl smivaaitam knrkgssvqa irkyilannk gintshlgsa mklafakglk
61 sgvlvrlkts agasgatgsf rvgkapaspk kakkakspkk ksskksknks nnakakkspk
121 kkadsn
akakkspkkk adsn Q86QI0(Protamine-like OS3)
1 mpspsrksrs rsrsrskspk rspakkarkt pkkpraagga kkpttlsmiv aaitamknrk
61 gssvqairky ilannkgint shlgsamkla fakglksgvl vrpktsagas gatgsfrvgk
121 apaspkkakk akspkkkssk ksknksnnak akkspkkkad sngiryqayr yrrprggary
181 pfryqayryr rprggpgtqf al
1 akakkspkkk adsngiryqa yryrrprgga rypfryqayr yrrprggpgt qfal Q86QH9(Protamine-like OS3)
Those small parts are protamine-like. The rest of the sequence for each is histone-like. So essentially what you are saying is that the small part with a minor change, "presto", becomes the whole thing. Nope, that is still in the category of fiction. A minor change is considered somewhat less than adding 100% of something.
My point exactly. Protamines and histones are obviously related, as you can see from the sequence fragments here. In addition, we know that protamines can serve as functional alternatives to histones - Nature, 403, 261-263(2000). Or are you still chasing poor Fred and his absolute, 100%, no-way-in-hell impossibility theory?
Sorry, Hoyle loses.
Nope! This was your point exactly ---homologs such as the protamines may well have served some entirely different function before doing what histones do now. A minor change to that homolog, and presto - histones
Plus, this
AKAKKSPRKKAAVKKSTKSKAKKPKSPKKKAAKKTARKSPKKKARKSPKKKAAKKSKK
is not obviously related to this
VLRDNIQGITKPAIRRLARRGGVKRISGLIYEETRGVLKVFLENVIRDAVTYTEHAKRKTVTAMDVVYALKRQGRTLYGFGG
Especially with a minor change qualification. Evidence follows.
Sequence 1: lcl|seq_1
Length = 58
Sequence 2: lcl|seq_2
Length = 82
No significant similarity was found
CPU time: 0.01 user secs. 0.00 sys. secs 0.01 total secs. Lambda K H 0.290 0.103 0.249 Gapped Lambda K H 0.267 0.0410 0.140 Matrix: BLOSUM62 Gap Penalties: Existence: 11, Extension: 1 Number of Sequences: 1 Number of Hits to DB: 29 Number of extensions: 23 Number of sequences better than 10.0: 0 Number of HSP's gapped: 0 Number of HSP's successfully gapped: 0 Length of query: 58 Length of database: 1,122,496,163 Length adjustment: 33 Effective length of query: 25 Effective length of database: 1,122,496,130 Effective search space: 28062403250 Effective search space used: 28062403250 Neighboring words threshold: 9 X1: 17 ( 7.1 bits) X2: 129 (49.7 bits) X3: 129 (49.7 bits) S1: 44 (21.7 bits) S2: 70 (31.6 bits)
Yes, yes - I understand that you don't like how H1 has protamine analogs, and that protamines serve as functional replacements for histones. So be it.
I don't know what question you are answering, but it certainly doesn't address your fiction of a minor change from a protamine to a histone.
Your browser appears broken, insofar as it apparently refuses to load the remainder of the thread.
Other than your nearly complete (you did provide 3 accession numbers)failure to address your fiction, what has the remainder of the thread to do with that failure? Let me remind you the fiction is -- a small change in a protamine with a completely different function than what a histone now does(H4 specifically) which "presto" becomes a functioning histone.
Very nice. When you're done lawyering, you know where to find me.
Fred thanks you, by the way. "Impossible" is easy when you refuse to open your eyes.
No you don't see, for all of the smoke you're laying down. Your fiction remains fiction. Your handwaving does not address the claim you made.
No significant similarity was found
Means precisely what it states. It does not mean "differing only by a minor change".
What percentage of reality do you think any one individual can understand? Let's give it a overly conservative 10%. This person could answer every question ever presented on Jeopardy. They are left with a 90% ignorance ratio. God can easily exist outside of our 10% or less perception of reality. Hence the need for Christian faith. Humility in the face of a superior being who exists outside time.
So what is the reality of Science? Scientific studies only last until better measurements can be made, or a group more specialized disproves the prior study and sells their idea as the next best thing.
Sunblock, an ITunes cellphone and a 60" LCD HD TV aren't going to help someone live more than 90 years. What we do during those years is far more important than sciences conveniences. Discounting a Creator as Liberal Academia does is completely unreasonable.
I wouldn't know since that is another fiction of yours. I stated nothing to you other than to give evidence for your specific fiction. If you could provide evidence of a particular protein differing from a histone in a minor way and performing an entirely different function, that would not be fiction. But it would be two things... Not the claim you made, and would probably describe another histone.
Of course you're not going to bother to explain why we should expect protoamines to be highly conserved as well, but oh well.
No, because that has nothing to do with your fictional claim (unless you wish to somehow work that into it).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.