Princeton Scientists Discover Proteins That Control Evolution

[Stealth Hunter]

http://io9.com/5083673/princeton-sci...trol-evolution

Evolutionary changes are supposed to take place gradually and randomly, under pressure from natural selection. But a team of Princeton scientists investigating a group of proteins that help cells burn energy stumbled across evidence that this is not how evolution works. In fact, their discovery could revolutionize the way we understand evolutionary processes. They have evidence that organisms actually have the ability to control their own evolution.

Let's get a few possible misconceptions out of the way first. The Princeton group, composed of researchers Raj Chakrabarti, Herschel Rabitz, Stacey Springs and George McLendon, haven't proven that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. Nor are they claiming that DNA is making a set of conscious decisions about growing extra legs or wings (though that would admittedly be cool).

What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed. The researchers were tinkering with a set of proteins forming the electron transport chain, a system that regulates energy use in cells. They discovered that the proteins were correcting any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations, constantly restoring the chain to working order. A mathematical analysis revealed that these proteins seem to make these minute corrections all the time, steering organisms toward evolutionary changes that make the creature fitter.

This has been an interesting day for science...

[Catfish]

Hello Stealth Hunter,

i have read about this a year ago in a german newspaper, but it was not very detailed.
When i first read your post i instantly thought of Lamarck, or this old Lamarckism theory, where a Giraffe develops its long neck to better reach those leaves, until i read this constant protein control of changing imbalances according to exterior environment changes. Makes on think which genes are then changed when it comes to birth - is there a list of exterior impacts, that is then pressed into any genome form, and passed on ?
I already expect some people those proteins to be god's executives, but wait - they say there IS no evolution and the earth is 7500 years old

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

In "The Swarm", Frank Schätzing introduced the concept of an superior intelligent maritime race made of one-cellular life forms, that is capable to transport knowledge and experience by genetic manipulation comparable to the principle outlined in this article; the novel also focusses on the different morals coming from the fact that this lifeform survives and developes by simple chemical activation of "killing triggers" in the DNA once the swarm finds a single cell not being up to date with the code's most actual status - cell's with older levels of knowledge in the swarm' s cells simply die. In the novel, this of course brings apocalyptic problems for mankind having messed up the environment of this species for so long, since the "alien(s?)" do not know no moral value in differing between life and death, living cells and killing people - such values are just human projections that beyond human culture have no meaning at all. Like with many of his ideas, Schätzing was basing with his conception of an alien race on real sciences, and his novel is presenting one of the most alien "aliens" that I ever have read about in Science Fiction - without being that much science fiction at all.

As it sometimes is the case, Science Fiction once again maybe is ahead of science (Jules Verne can sing a song of this...)

Very good and exciting science- and envrionment-thriller. It almost minimises the apokalypse in Emmerich's "Independance Day".

[kurtz]

From the comments below the article;

It's neat that there's a proteinomic correction mechanism, but how are those changes heritable?
Changes that can't be inherited aren't evolution. Your child doesn't inherit your peg-leg.
All this article seems to be saying is that protein expression is elastic, and that the system exists in an equilibrium state that can react to mutations; but we already kind of knew that you could substantially mutate the DNA "behind" a protein without significant effect on the function and activity of the protein.
I dunno, it's hard to get a sense of what's really going on from two levels of interpretation-for-the-layman away, but I really don't think this is as groundbreaking as is suggested. Or, it may be totally awesome.

People seem to be again confused over evolution: it happens to your offspring at the moment of conception, not after. We'd be evolving all sorts of cool things if that was the case.

[Letum]

Are we talking about single generation mutations here?

[caspofungin]

what i read in the linked articles seems to be a long way from evolution/natural selection, more of a intracellular homeostatic mechanism. it's a leap to go and say, "these proteins may control evolution."

[Skybird]

"Evolution" has no independant existence of itself. It is a theoretical meta-term that serves as a crutch for our thinking. we use it to add sense and meaning to reality as we perceive and interpret it. Beyond human thinking, and even for many humans, "evolution" has no meaning and substance at all.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"Evolution" has no independant existence of itself. It is a theoretical meta-term that serves as a crutch for our thinking. we use it to add sense and meaning to reality as we perceive and interpret it. Beyond human thinking, and even for many humans, "evolution" has no meaning and substance at all.

Well, yes, but in the same way that abstract processes like plate tectonics have no
independence existence.
As long as no one is making a ontological category error (and I don't believe any
one here is), I don't think this is an issue.

No one is mistaking processes for entities or suggesting that processes posses
existence.

[Skybird]

I disagree, since tectonic action is an event we can observe directly, we can install laser senosrs and measure the movemnt, and surface tension, and height shifts of different layers etc. Evotultiohn however is a theoretical construct that we cannot directly observe, only indirectly make conclusions about. What we see and observe, is just change, wether that chnage has a purpose, or is just a random adding and deleting of features, or mybe even not that, but something totally different, we cannot say - it is subject to our interpretation only. Tectonic movement however we must not conclude - we can see, measure and experience it directly.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I disagree, since tectonic action is an event we can observe directly, we can install laser senosrs and measure the movemnt, and surface tension, and height shifts of different layers etc. Evotultiohn however is a theoretical construct that we cannot directly observe, only indirectly make conclusions about. What we see and observe, is just change, wether that chnage has a purpose, or is just a random adding and deleting of features, or mybe even not that, but something totally different, we cannot say - it is subject to our interpretation only. Tectonic movement however we must not conclude - we can see, measure and experience it directly.

We can measure earthquakes. We can measure the movement of the crust. We can
measure pressures in the crust, observe earthquakes and volcanoes.

The theory we use to explain these phenomena is plate tectonics.

We can not, however, go out in to the field, find the theory of plate tectonics and
observe it. It does not have a physical existence. We can only observe the
phenomena that have lead us to the theory of plate tectonics.


Two tourists get into a London cab as ask to see the university of London. The
cabby takes them to Kings college. The tourists complain that they have already
seen Kings College; they want to see the University of London, not Kings
College. The cabby then takes them to Heythorpe College, The Royal Veterinary
College, The London Business School and all the other Colleges, but the tourists
still complain that they want to see the University, not all these Collages.

They will never see the University of London because although it comprises of
several physically existing colleges bound together by a common idea, the
University is not a physically existing thing.

Likewise, both evolution and plate tectonics comprise of physical observations
bound together by supranational ideas, the theories them selves are not
physically existing things.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

We can measure earthquakes. We can measure the movement of the crust. We can
measure pressures in the crust, observe earthquakes and volcanoes.

The theory we use to explain these phenomena is plate tectonics.

We can not, however, go out in to the field, find the theory of plate tectonics and
observe it. It does not have a physical existence. We can only observe the
phenomena that have lead us to the theory of plate tectonics.


Two tourists get into a London cab as ask to see the university of London. The
cabby takes them to Kings college. The tourists complain that they have already
seen Kings College; they want to see the University of London, not Kings
College. The cabby then takes them to Heythorpe College, The Royal Veterinary
College, The London Business School and all the other Colleges, but the tourists
still complain that they want to see the University, not all these Collages.

They will never see the University of London because although it comprises of
several physically existing colleges bound together by a common idea, the
University is not a physically existing thing.

Likewise, both evolution and plate tectonics comprise of physical observations
bound together by supranational ideas, the theories them selves are not
physically existing things.

No, you throw two things into one box that are not the same. We say that the air is warming, because we feel and directly experience the air is warming. We say the ground is object to tectonic movement of plates, or tectonic activity, "tectonic" referring to continental plate movement. We say so becasue we can directly observe it, althoug using sensitive sensors and measuring devices, but it is a direct observation we make. However, we do not directly observe evolution, we can't, since the term evolution not so much means just changes of genetic designs, but assumes there is a special purpose, an meaningful intention behind the changes: to make a species fitter. but this "behind" is our interpretation, our assumption, we conclude on it just because we have formed according theories. That there are tectonic plates moving we know for sure, but if there is the direction and meaning of evolution that we interpret into the term, is a hypothesis only. That'S why "tectonics" have much more substance than "evolution", and that'S why I called evolution a theoretical constuct and a meta-term (a headline for several possible sub-hypothesis about it's why and how). the first we can directly monitor, measure, see and experience. The second we can't, we just interpret it into it (and sometimes become aware of designs that violate our theory but still make sense). Even wether or not it makes sense to think in any meta-category of change, like "evolution", we cannot say for sure. To do so just fits our way of putting our observations into an artificial order - and that we call science: sorting observations into our arbitrary orders like miniatures on a shelf. Tectonics also is science in this meaning, but the quality of the observation of tectonic movement or the feeling of air warming up, and our assumptions about evolution - are completely different.

Please don't make this complicated again.

[caspofungin]

the term evolution not so much means just changes of genetic designs, but assumes there is a special purpose, an meaningful intention behind the changes: to make a species fitter.

no, evolution is a random process. in a group of organisms, there will be some with various mutations. some of these mutations incur a survival benefit -- those particular mutations increase in the population as a result of that survival benefit, and eventually the entire species consists of organisms with that mutation. there is no "intent," no "meaning."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

no, evolution is a random process. in a group of organisms, there will be some with various mutations. some of these mutations incur a survival benefit -- those particular mutations increase in the population as a result of that survival benefit, and eventually the entire species consists of organisms with that mutation. there is no "intent," no "meaning."

Well, random mutation is a tool of it, and I agree on the importance of mutations. There maybe is no linearity in mutations that add and delete features to an existing design. However, it is our assumption, usually, that we associate with the term evolution, that there is a direction, defined by the improvement of a design that makes it fitter. But that is already our interpretation. Like the time arrow in Western tradition that we assume to point from the past to the future, and on its travel spends a certain quantity of "time" to move "forward" in time, never backward. That is why the thought is widespread in public that at a given time you always have just the linear endproducts of all developement projects of evolution living on the planet, and these alwass being the best designs reached so far. that indeed several different loose ends from different developement strains and different ages and phases and earlier designs live parrallel to each other (For example homo sapiens, crocodiles, sharks, dolphins and cockroaches), is not so clear in wide public understanding. We assume also that random mutations help to find helpful design features that then get added to the genpool, in that randomness helps a directed evolution that moves towards "improvement" or better "fitness" of a species. However, here you have the difference between the meta-term "evolution" and our interpretation of that it has a directed "intention", and the tool by which this concept is being realised: random mutation for example. What the public often oversees is that random mutations also can lead to the deletion to useful features, which is against greater fitness, and then there are those features that are improvement and disadvanatge at the same time: like sichel-cell anaemia being harmful to your health, but also protecting against Malaria, for example (I hope I do not mistake this example here). As a meta-term, the term evolution is free for interpretation, it is above the level were you classify tools of evolution, and interpretations of meanings or goals of evolution. the tools you observe in action, the meaning you interpret into it, but if it make sense to speak of a meta-concept of that there is an evolutionb (of whatevcer a kind) taking place, is hypothetical only, and cannot directly be tested. Even creationists accept an evolution happening: a change of species (or extinction of) and the world that is God-wanted and God-intended and God-planned, or more subtle: the mechanism of random mutation is being used by God to acchieve the design changes that He desires: randomness understood as a divine intention. So, both a Darwinian scientist and a creationist may use the term evolution, but both mean totally different things by it. Both cannot observe the reality of their concepts directly: that evolution may have a self-emerging organisation (or not), that it may have better survival chances by better fitness as a goal (Darwin's special theory of evolution), that it may have God's intention as a goal - or that it may have no goal at all, but is just a word with 9 letters, and beyond that: reality is just what it is, without caring for what man thinks about it.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, you throw two things into one box that are not the same. We say that the air is warming, because we feel and directly experience the air is warming. We say the ground is object to tectonic movement of plates, or tectonic activity, "tectonic" referring to continental plate movement. We say so becasue we can directly observe it, althoug using sensitive sensors and measuring devices, but it is a direct observation we make. However, we do not directly observe evolution, we can't, since the term evolution not so much means just changes of genetic designs, but assumes there is a special purpose, an meaningful intention behind the changes: to make a species fitter. but this "behind" is our interpretation, our assumption, we conclude on it just because we have formed according theories. That there are tectonic plates moving we know for sure, but if there is the direction and meaning of evolution that we interpret into the term, is a hypothesis only. That'S why "tectonics" have much more substance than "evolution", and that'S why I called evolution a theoretical constuct and a meta-term (a headline for several possible sub-hypothesis about it's why and how). the first we can directly monitor, measure, see and experience. The second we can't, we just interpret it into it (and sometimes become aware of designs that violate our theory but still make sense). Even wether or not it makes sense to think in any meta-category of change, like "evolution", we cannot say for sure. To do so just fits our way of putting our observations into an artificial order - and that we call science: sorting observations into our arbitrary orders like miniatures on a shelf. Tectonics also is science in this meaning, but the quality of the observation of tectonic movement or the feeling of air warming up, and our assumptions about evolution - are completely different.

Bunkum!

"Purpose", "direction" and "meaning" are terms that have no place in
discussion of natural processes.
The "purpose" of evolution is no more to make the spices fitter than the
"purpose" of gravity is to collect dense objects together.


The theory of plate tectonics is just as much reasoned speculation as to the
processes mechanisms we can not directly observe as evolution is.

The same applies to any process as processes are not physically existing
things that we can measure or directly observe.

Even simple physics theories that dictate the movement of a Newton Cradle are
ideas that we create.
We see one ball hit the other balls in the cradle and the ball at the far end fly up,
but we can not observe the process of transfered momentum because it is not a
thing that exists outside of our minds.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

Bunkum!

"Purpose", "direction" and "meaning" are terms that have no place in
discussion of natural processes.

Aren't those words normally associated with Intelligent Design?