The Latest from Ann Gauger and Doug Axe

Ann Gauger on the Limits of Evolutionary Optimization

They discuss trying to get to shapes with meaning. Can a scribble on a page mutate to a han character with meaning? (protein folds)

“mutations and natural selection have limits and they can’t innovate anything unless the function they are innovating is already present… you already have to have the designed feature there in order to get it to improve… you cannot improve a pigment cell to an eye unless you already have something like an eye there.”


Paper

Model and Laboratory Demonstrations That Evolutionary Optimization Works Well Only If Preceded by Invention–Selection Itself Is Not Inventive

Abstract

Since biological inventions only benefit their possessors after they work, their origins cannot be attributed to their selective effects. One proposed solution to this conundrum is that selection perfects activities that already existed in rudimentary form before they became beneficial. An example of this idea for protein origins is the promiscuity hypothesis, which claims that minor aberrant side-reactions in enzymes can be evolutionary starting points for proficient new enzymes. Another example—the junk hypothesis—claims that proteins arising from accidental expression of non-genic DNA may likewise have slight activities that, through evolutionary optimization, lead to proficient enzymes. Here, we tested these proposals by observing how the endpoint of simple evolutionary optimization depends on the starting point. Beginning with optimization of protein-like constructs in the Stylus computational model, we compared promiscuous and junk starting points, where design elements specific to the test function were completely absent, to a starting point that retained most elements of a good design (mutation having disrupted some). In all three cases, evolutionary optimization improved activities by a large factor. The extreme weakness of the original activities, however, meant even large improvements could be inconsequential. Indeed, the endpoint was itself a proficient design only in the case where this design was largely present from the outset. Laboratory optimization of ampicillin-resistance proteins derived from a natural beta lactamase produced similar results. Our junk protein here was a deletion mutant that somehow confers weak resistance without the original catalytic mechanism (much of the active site having been lost). Evolutionary optimization was unable to improve that mutant. In contrast, a comparably weak mutant that retained the active site surpassed the natural beta lactamase after six rounds of selection. So, while mutation and selection can improve the proficiency of good designs through small structural adjustments, they seem unable to convert fortuitous selectable activities into good designs. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2015.2

Dr Dennis Bonnette on Adam and Eve

Dr. Bonnette makes an important distinction when it comes to the past.

 "These genetic studies, based on many assumptions and use of computer models, do not tell us how the origin of the human race actually took place. But, they do show (1) that methodological limitations and radical contingency are inherent in such studies, which are employed to make retroactive judgments about deeply ancient populations that can never be subject to direct observation, and (2) that present scientific claims against the possibility of a literal Adam and Eve are not definitive (Gauger 2012, 105-122)."

and that human reasoning is the weak link when evaluating data.

"Since the same God is author both of human reason and of authentic revelation, legitimate natural science, properly conducted, will never contradict Catholic doctrine, properly understood. Catholic doctrine still maintains that a literal Adam and Eve must have existed, a primal couple who committed that personal original sin, which occasioned the need for, and the divine promise of, the coming of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ."   

Read the entire article here:

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?

  and

Adam and Eve: Defense of Their Literal Existence as the Primal Human Couple

Dennis Bonnette retired in 2003 as Professor of Philosophy at Niagara University in Lewiston, New York, where he taught for 36 years. He received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Bonnette has authored many scholarly articles as well as two books: Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence (Martinus-Nijhoff, 1972) and Origin of the Human Species: Third Edition (Sapientia Press. 2014). 

Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backwards

This video makes a lot of sense.  Additional posts:

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome".


....and....

Interview WIth Lynn Margulis - Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.

 

 

Evolving Enzymes and Testing Darwin's Theory With Ann Gauger

Evolving Enzymes and Testing Darwin's Theory With Ann Gauger

How many mutations does it take?Hint: It is not one.

Click here to listen.