We are intelligently designed!

[Zavier]

Scientists discover that the properties of a certain protein act to "discard" random mutations that aren't helpful before they really take hold, steering evolution towards a state of order.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive...tion=topstories

It's kind of like in Spore, where the programmers found that if there weren't predetermined rules, things just wouldn't evolve correctly (i.e.: symmetry, devolution restrictions.) This protein is those rules in reality.

[brian0918]

I wonder if you can actually consider this activity in the way these scientists are considering it. Couldn't it simply be that "unhelpful" random mutations are discarded according to normal internal checks, and the "helpful" mutations survive because they circumvent those standard checks? This is how cancer develops - DNA replication errors create cells with random mutations; these randomly mutated cells undergo their own replication leading to a buildup of mutations. A small set of future offspring will have all the mutations that happen to circumvent every biological safeguard, and will have such things as increased insulin reception (giving them more response to fuel than normal cells), and disregard for programmed cell death, allowing them to essentially survive "outside the system".

How is the current research different from what is known about the development of cancer? How do they know that their claim that proteins are "letting the good mutations through" is not simply proteins "missing certain mutations"?

After reading the article, I don't see what interesting about it. They're essentially saying that the body has internal checks again random mutations. Hasn't this been known? There's no claim that these proteins pick out the good mutations and discard the bad - they just discard what's different and stick with what is already common. That doesn't sound anything like evolution; it certainly isn't going to lead to any "progress" or change in the species over time - in fact, it should work against evolutionary change, no?

Edited November 13, 2008 by brian0918

[TheEgoist]

If we're intelligently designed, do you mind explaining why we have mutations and cancers in the first place? No?

[Ordr]

If we're intelligently designed, do you mind explaining why we have mutations and cancers in the first place? No?

It's His way, obviously.

[Maximus]

Everyone *knows* it's because the Flying Spaghetti Monster made us that way!

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Hah! We acolytes of the Supreme God Tarskyte spit upon your Flying Spaghetti Monster and all other false gods.

[Greebo]

May the Invisible Pink Unicorn forgive the blasphemers for their lack of belief, and bestow upon you blessings of Ham and Pineapple Pizza.

[IchorFigure]

In regards to the article, that is very interesting. I read a story some months ago about a team of scientists who had left a population of animals alone on a small island in Asia. Shortly after there was a war in the mid 70's and they were unable to continue their work and visit the location. Only recently more than 20 years later they returned and found out that the animals had adapted shockingly fast to accommodate for the diet found on the island. Now I have to wonder if this process would help explain the surprising speed in a case like this. I wish I could find the article.

In regards to intelligent design, I just watched Expelled the other night. My expectations of the movie were very low, but I had no idea how bad it actually is. It is 100% pure propaganda. It is shocking to me how far the proponents of I.D. are willing to go to impose their agenda on everyone. Worse yet, their movie couches itself in the idea of freedom of speech. If you have any reservation at all about just how evil the religious right is, you should watch that movie.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive...tion=topstories

It's kind of like in Spore, where the programmers found that if there weren't predetermined rules, things just wouldn't evolve correctly (i.e.: symmetry, devolution restrictions.) This protein is those rules in reality.

But it is not intelligent design, just the normal self-generated, self-sustaining mechanisms found in all life.

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.

That this is found on the biochemical level is interesting. The cell is the basic building block of life, and the cell contains all of the chemicals necessary to sustain itself (with food input and under normal circumstances) even on the level of basic proteins operating in the cells. However, I think it could have been clear that this would have to be the case just by observing that, at least for mammals, that temperature regulation is well known. And I thought they had already discovered an enzyme that would periodically read the DNA and RNA and cut out "misspellings"? Guess this is something deeper than that.

But this also explains why it took a few billion years of evolution to create man. After all, if it was not for these self-correcting mechanisms, evolution would occur more quickly, provided that viable life can exist without the self-correcting mechanism on the cellular level.

[Q.E.D.]

As far as Spore's programmers are concerned, one must take into account that the biological rules themselves evolved until the point that they were self sustaining. Evolution is like running a casino, the bias towards self-sustaining organisms is bound to produce positive results.

In regards to the article, that is very interesting. I read a story some months ago about a team of scientists who had left a population of animals alone on a small island in Asia. Shortly after there was a war in the mid 70's and they were unable to continue their work and visit the location. Only recently more than 20 years later they returned and found out that the animals had adapted shockingly fast to accommodate for the diet found on the island. Now I have to wonder if this process would help explain the surprising speed in a case like this. I wish I could find the article.

I read an interesting article in my English class about how the fishing industry is going to have to start throwing back the biggest fish they catch. By throwing back only the small fish they've made it very hard on themselves because fish have adapted to only grow to smaller sizes. The solution presented in the essay of course is to only go after medium-sized fish.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Q.E.D.