Pitt Professor's Theory of Evolution Gets Boost From Cell Research [Sudden Origins]

University of Pittsburgh ^ | 26 January 2006 | Staff

[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.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I offer possibilities, not certainties - of course, when dealing with arguments of impossibility, possibility is all you need to blow it all away.

[jwalsh07]

Well, you have an interesting problem in that case, given that Hoyle's claims of impossibility are just outright wrong - the calculations are grade-A fertilizer.

Yes, I know mathematics has no place in biology.

The thing is, Hoyle's theory of panspermia is really targeted at theories of abiogenesis - it doesn't implicate ID theory in the CSID sense of a designer who's tweaking various structures as they evolve.

Panspermia aside, Hoyles opinion is that Histone 4 falsifies NDT. Maybe so, maybe not. But certainly worth discussion in a science class.

So you can choose between Hoyle's theory not being ID theory, where Hoyle is still demonstrably wrong in a large portion of his theory. Or you can have it where Hoyle's theory is ID theory, and large swaths of ID theory are therefore demonstrably wrong.

Nah, Hoyles theory on h4 is a precursor to Behes irreducible complexity stuff, ID writ large.

Me, I'd probably opt for door number 1 if I were into ID theory, and realistically contemporary ID theory doesn't bear much resemblance to Hoyle's theory.

I opt for door number 3, I'm a creationist. But I'll go where the knowledge takes us, my mind is open on the details.

[jwalsh07]

I offer possibilities, not certainties - of course, when dealing with arguments of impossibility, possibility is all you need to blow it all away.

Is that science? :-}

I thought it was the responsibility of the scientist to show that his theory is sound. IOW'S, if NDT states that Histone 4 evolved through a series of small steps they have to offer some evidence of how that happened. The evidence is that the Histone gene is highly conserved while protamines are exactly the opposite. I don't think the protamine model works.

[AndrewC]

Allow me to be the first, apparently, to disabuse you of this notion that you've somehow internalized, that protamines are somehow defined from a list of compounds X, Y, and Z, and things not X, Y, or Z are therefore not protamines. It doesn't work that way, despite how convenient such a definition might be for your purposes here.

Well disabuse yourself of the notion that "minor change" does not constrain the entity under discussion. It does constrain it.

BTW

pro·ta·mine (prt-mn, -mn) or pro·ta·min (-mn)

n.

Any of a group of simple proteins found in fish sperm that are strongly basic, are soluble in water, are not coagulated by heat, and yield chiefly arginine upon hydrolysis. In purified form, they are used in a long-acting formulation of insulin and to neutralize the anticoagulant effects of heparin.

DEFINITION:

Any of a class of basic proteins of low molecular weight, occurring in combination with nucleic acids in the sperm of salmon and certain other fish and having the property of neutralizing heparin.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Yes, I know mathematics has no place in biology.

Bad math doesn't, and those sorts of a posteriori calculations are always bad mathematics - garbage in, garbage out.

But certainly worth discussion in a science class.

Sure, as long as the "science class" we have in mind is a third- or fourth-year college biochemistry course, where the students have a fighting chance ofactually understanding the pros and cons of such an argument. Otherwise, it's esoterica that's wayyyyyyy beyond the purview of 9'th grade biology. C'mon, now - the schools in this country haven't really demonstrated that they can consistently teach kids to read, and you expect them to do justice to the intricacies of histone evolution?

[Senator Bedfellow]

It's the thing that could not exist - a protamine not on the list:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8015315&dopt=Abstract

[jwalsh07]

C'mon, now - the schools in this country haven't really demonstrated that they can consistently teach kids to read, and you expect them to do justice to the intricacies of histone evolution?

Actually I agree with this 100%. I would vote to keep ID out of the science curriculum in my local school district. But I would scream bloody murder if I was outvoted and the federal courts stuck their noses in my towns business.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I dunno. Maybe the best solution is to get the government out of education altogether.

[jwalsh07]

Bad math doesn't, and those sorts of a posteriori calculations are always bad mathematics - garbage in, garbage out.

You can attack the presuppositions of Hoyles math but you can't attack the math itself. That would be a bit, shall we say, presumptuous. But nonetheless the math is as Dawkins stated. Histone is highly conserved, almost impervious to mutation. (note: almost impervious /= "immune")

Evidently there is no path down which results in two questions coming to my mind. Why not, what mechanism protects histones from mutagens? And secondly, what does the path down say about the path up?

[AndrewC]

It's the thing that could not exist - a protamine not on the list:

What do you mean it is not on the list? It was human engineered, most likely from a basic protamine example. Since I don't have access to the full article I will only point out what I can see in the abstract

The present study assesses the efficacy and toxicity of three protamine variants having +16 and +18 charges in reversal of LMWH (Logiparin, LHN-1): [+16] P(AK2A2K2)4, [+18] PK(K2A2K2A)3K2AK3, and [+18B] acetyl-PA(K2A2K2A)4K2-amide. The [+18B] compound was made by acetylating and amidating the [+18] to decrease in vivo degradation and to increase the alpha-helix forming propensity.

Memory lane

akakksprkk aavkkstksk akkpkspkkk aakktarksp kkkarkspkk kaakkskk Q05831(Protamine-like protein PHI-3)

Doesn't look like that article helps your fiction at all, since a minor change to synthetics won't make them, "presto", a histone.

[jwalsh07]

Maybe the best solution is to get the government out of education altogether.

:-} I have come around to that way of thinking, reluctantly. I agree with Jefferson on the virtue of public education but public education is doing nobody any favors today I think.

Of course that option has no chance of realization so we're stuck with what we have. But vouchers are possible which have there own set of problems.

Life is hard man! LOL

[Senator Bedfellow]

Swoosh goes the point, flying over your head. I'm generous tonight - I'll assume it's deliberate.

[Senator Bedfellow]

No easy answers, that's for sure.

Alrighty, cranky baby here - she likes The Who, so I'll bow out for a bit and turn up the stereo for a while ;)

[Torie]

I don't think Hoyle beleives in ID. He believes in Panspermia. Am I mixed up on this?

[jwalsh07]

God bless her, she has a fine Daddy.

[AndrewC]

Swoosh goes the point, flying over your head. I'm generous tonight - I'll assume it's deliberate.

You are the one that missed the point. The sequences I gave already included protamine-like sequences which is what your citation had. A minor change to those things do not make, "presto", a histone. You gave me the citation, I don't think you can provide me a sequence of the three compounds discussed in the paper.

[jwalsh07]

I don't think Hoyle beleives in ID. He believes in Panspermia. Am I mixed up on this?

Hoyles designer is a greater intellect from Whoknowswhere, Behes designer is God. That's the only difference and it "falsifies" Judge Jones holding.

[Senator Bedfellow]

A minor change to those things do not make, "presto", a histone.

And you can, of course, point to the post where I said you can do that with these synthetic protamines. No? Of course not, because you just kinda made that up. Par for the course.

[AndrewC]

And you can, of course, point to the post where I said you can do that with these synthetic protamines

You presented these as something to be considered as belonging to the class of substances meeting the criteria in your fiction. If not, then why wave a red herring? Your fiction remains...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

And I still think you can't provide me the sequences of the three synthetics.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I didn't present them as being one step away from a histone, did I? No, of course not, but obviously you're not going to let that stop you from inventing the claim for me.

No, I'm done here - my assessment was entirely correct. You do not enter the discussion in good faith. I doubt you are capable of discussing the issue in good faith, based on your record of repeated and deliberate distortion here.