im talking about these in our genome. not new one.
because if its true then we cant tell if these ervs in our genome are the result of design or real viral innertions.
Communication over distance probably began with people shouting to each other. Then can smoke signals, the use of flags (semaphores), etc. When we see opportunities to enhance our ideas, we tend to follow through with those.
Biological systems are much the same. From time to time they seize new opportunities that they discover. We call that process “evolution”. It’s a natural pragmatic system – go with what you discover that works.
but we are talking about a cell-phone. so how we can end up with a cell-phone by small steps? if the first step is shouting then it has nothing to do with a cell-phone parts. so what was the first step to evolve the cell-phone?
A directed process creating functional information.
Only 10^8? That was a library of 100 million sequences the last time I checked.
There’s no reason for a directed process to be so constrained. If you disagree, please provide the reason(s).
That’s a tiny sliver of sequence space. All are constrained to the same fold. If Axe and Gauger are right, all of those successes should have been impossible, no?
if its so easy to change a protein into another different one then why no scientists is trying to change say a globin into histone for instance?
So we have a series of say 1000 small steps. But the name “cell phone” was not appropriate until say step 800. Because you want to narrow your concern to the cell phone, you fail to see the first 799 steps. In effect, you are wearing blinders because you want to insist on a narrow directionality.
If you instead look at the evolution of communication in its various forms, then you can begin to see how it involved small steps and seizing opportunities as they were recognized.
2 Likes
Does a forensic scientist have to directly observe the criminal leaving a fingerprint during the commission of a crime in order to use fingerprints as evidence?
That’s like saying that we can’t tell if fingerprints at a crime scene were put their by God or by actual fingers.
1 Like
Apples and oranges, John.
How so, Bill? Please explain your reasoning (if any) in detail.
I’m particularly interested in how you concluded that going backward from a selected sequence is a good model for forward evolutionary search through random sequence, when we have so many forward models available that you desperately want to ignore.
Do you realize that nature is providing far better experiments than Axe’s for us to analyze?
1 Like
The fact that the evidence shows this to have happened multiple times. And that proteins share almost no attributes with cellphones and watches. Proteins are wholly unlike watches and cellphones. In fact proteins have the exact sort of properties that make such transitions possible. They are malleable entities that can change structural conformation in response to mutations, or environmental conditions.
Substituting polar for non-polar amino acids can incrementally alter both secondary and tertiary structure, and convert a water into a fat-soluble protein.
This is basic protein biochemistry. Crack open ANY respectable biochemistry textbook. Stop wasting your time trying to debate a position you are not qualified to assess.
3 Likes
It’s a different protein and function. Why don’t you look at Axe’s experiment before you shoot from the hip.
Here is Art Hunt’s analysis:Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function
That’s absurd. It’s not an explanation for going backward from a selected sequence instead of forward, like nature does. But I think you know that. You’re just fabricating again, pretending that you know things you don’t know.
And you’re not doing a good job in writing “different function,” because I pointed out that we have beta-lactamases among catalytic antibodies. What single function did Axe’s lazy experiment study, Bill?
I’m not shooting from the hip. I know that it is an exceedingly lame experiment.
Why don’t you learn some basic undergraduate biochemistry before making statements that assume proteins need to “find” binding partners and claiming that an actual biochemist is shooting from the hip?
I’m aware of Art’s analysis and I agree with it. Can you understand it, Bill?
Do you realize that nature is providing far better experiments than Axe’s for us to analyze?
Ok so Art concluded that Axes numbers were in line with other evolutionary ranges. He essentially agreed with his method of estimating AA substitutability. His disagreement was with some creationists interpretation.
I look forward to your argument.
False.
“What is interesting is that the forward approach typically yields a “success rate” in the 10^-10 to 10^-15 range – one usually need screen between 10^10 -> 10^15 random sequences to identify a functional polymer. This is true even for mRNA display. These numbers are a direct measurement of the proportion of functional sequences in a population of random polymers, and are estimates of the same parameter – density of sequences of minimal function in sequence space – that Axe is after.”
Axe is doing it backwards. My challenge to you is to explain why the backward approach is better.
“To summarize, the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes.”
@Art definitely does not essentially agree with Axe’s method. He and I agree that it backwards.
It’s not an argument. It’s a question.
I would not expect you to agree with the approach that yields the most troubling numbers for evolution.
I believe that the complete enzyme has a binding partner to the 153 AA segment that Axe is mutating.
This tells me very little about what’s going on. What does success mean here.
I think if we consider all applications of proteins we observe both approaches can be useful.
How easy is “so” easy? These statements are vacuous.
To say that evolutionary transitions of protein structure and function are both possible, plausible, and known to have happened several times, is not to say that ANY and ALL transitions should be possible, or that it is “easy”, whatever that even means?
then why no scientists is trying to change say a globin into histone for instance?
Why would they? What would that achieve? The claim that fundamental structural and functional changes in protein evolution are both possible and known to have happened, is not contingent on the plausibility of your particular fantasy transition.
To claim that it is possible to walk from one end of a continent to another is not to say that all conceivable paths across that continent must be realizable. And the plausbility of some particular move from location A to location B is not contingent on the possibility of moving from location C to location D.
1 Like