Stephen L Talbott's ideas on biology

Yes, I chose a small one. I'm not sure what you mean by intermediate proteins. I calculated the time required to try all 30-residue peptides, assuming 99% of the combinations are lethal.

Yes you did choose a small length - you could have chosen 4 - and I guess you chose the value to fit your argument!

I meant that half formed proteins could well have an undesirable catalytic effect!
It's not obvious that linking will work, but it's not obvious that it won't. My point is simply that an exhaustive search may not be necessary, which completely changes the math. The ID argument is "oh my gosh, look at those big numbers!" I don't think I would draw any conclusions from such an argument.

http://www.genomebiology.com/2010/11/7/126

~~Paul

The thing is, if two domains remain intact when fused, there doesn't seem to be much chance that new functionality will result. To me one of the big problems is that for most proteins to be beneficial, there has to be a control structure in place - otherwise NS would strongly select against the new protein!

In a sense, all this is trying to patch up a broken theory. If genes had been rather as Darwin expected - relatively simple objects, his theory would have made sense - but they weren't, and logically his theory should have been dropped.

David
 
Hey Dave.

I like his ideas quite a bit. I have only read a little of his stuff. There are some obvious things he brings to light. Just to pull back from the biochemical details for a bit, because I think his point is beyond the biological ideas of bits interacting. He has a holistic view, the thing as a whole. I actually see it corresponding to an ancient view of animism.

My only critique is, I think he mistates the machine metaphor a bit, but in the same breath high lites that in our technological sytems it is the external agent that tinkers. But actually it is from within the organism itself that this derives in the case of life. I am happy to call it spirit actually.

There is no doubt a machine code like and algorithmic process, but it seems more of manufacture and operating systems. ID proponents have speculated on other sources of information particuly to do with morphology and of course we are finding other sources such as RNAs and in other places. The selfish gene concept of the central dogma is very defunct. Yeah I don't think you can get the whole of life from a machine code either actually.

You have probably seen it, but there is a fascinating video of the development of a tadpole where a bioelectric precursor is observed to be in operation in cell differentiation? It has an electric face before the cells "decide". The could block the signals and prevent the formation of an eye for example.

Amazing stuff.
 
BTW, did you happen to see that Jeremy Narby lecture in the Plant Medicine thread?

I see a lot of correspondence with those concepts. Nature is quite obviously intelligent. It sometimes shocks me people could say otherwise.

I really think it is about what we identify as intelligence from our human constructs, our imposed separation of man and nature, it is us and nature and not the simple basic truth that we are part of nature. That is sort a result of the materialistic reductionism, it is imposed, it is... not natural.
 
Last edited:
Yes you did choose a small length - you could have chosen 4 - and I guess you chose the value to fit your argument!
It's clear that trying all possible 300-residue proteins is impossible, so other processes must be at work. As you can see from the article I posted, there is evidence that it is not necessary to try every one. I'm not sure why you insist that brute-force searching is all we've got. Perhaps brute force was only required up to 50 or 60 residues.

I meant that half formed proteins could well have an undesirable catalytic effect!
Right, which is why I killed off 99% of the offspring.

The thing is, if two domains remain intact when fused, there doesn't seem to be much chance that new functionality will result. To me one of the big problems is that for most proteins to be beneficial, there has to be a control structure in place - otherwise NS would strongly select against the new protein!
There seems to be evidence that new functionality can result. And perhaps many of those proteins are neutral until a control function evolves. The most important thing to remember, I think, is that things were much simpler in the beginning.

In a sense, all this is trying to patch up a broken theory. If genes had been rather as Darwin expected - relatively simple objects, his theory would have made sense - but they weren't, and logically his theory should have been dropped.
What is "his theory"? Why would scientists drop the current theory when it is so fruitful? You have a view of science that I simply don't understand. It appears to be something like "I don't understand the whole picture, so it must be a different picture."

~~Paul
 
What is "his theory"? Why would scientists drop the current theory when it is so fruitful? You have a view of science that I simply don't understand. It appears to be something like "I don't understand the whole picture, so it must be a different picture."

~~Paul

I find it odd and confusing as well. Talbot describes the fruits of science using this line of investigation. And this should be taken to mean that this line of investigation should be dropped?

Linda
 
It's clear that trying all possible 300-residue proteins is impossible, so other processes must be at work.
This the problem - given hypothesis H1 that evolution happens by NS, H1 is treated as a fact, and combined with evidence that this can't work for a typical protein, to deduce another mechanism, which also doesn't look particularly viable!

Right, which is why I killed off 99% of the offspring.


There seems to be evidence that new functionality can result. And perhaps many of those proteins are neutral until a control function evolves. The most important thing to remember, I think, is that things were much simpler in the beginning.
Well there does seem to be an irreducible complexity to the cell, and even after decades of work there seems to be no adequate hypothesis as to how it all started.
What is "his theory"? Why would scientists drop the current theory when it is so fruitful? You have a view of science that I simply don't understand. It appears to be something like "I don't understand the whole picture, so it must be a different picture."

~~Paul
I suspect his theory is non-materialistic, but he avoids saying so explicitly, so as not to antagonise his opponents too much!

David
 
This the problem - given hypothesis H1 that evolution happens by NS, H1 is treated as a fact, and combined with evidence that this can't work for a typical protein, to deduce another mechanism, which also doesn't look particularly viable!
I don't know why you say this as if it's a fact. Why do you think natural selection requires exhaustive search to find each protein?

Well there does seem to be an irreducible complexity to the cell, and even after decades of work there seems to be no adequate hypothesis as to how it all started.
Ooh, entire decades! Do you require it all be done in your lifetime?

Which cell is irreducibly complex?

I suspect his theory is non-materialistic, but he avoids saying so explicitly, so as not to antagonise his opponents too much!
Methinks you're projecting.

~~Paul
 
Back
Top