Utilizing Front Loading Concepts
by BradfordSea Urchins' Genetics Add To Knowledge Of Cancer, Alzheimer's And Infertility is a Science Daily article reporting that humans and sea urchins share more than 7,000 genes and that this fact may facilitate the treatment of diseases and even cancer. The hope is that mapping the sea urchin genome may lead to a better understanding of gene function which in turn could help treat or even prevent some common human maladies.
Interestingly the article also indicates that although sea urchins lack eyes, ears and a nose they contain genes found in humans which are involved in the function of these sensory organs of ours. It has been claimed by some that a thorough understanding of evolution is essential to the medical treatent of bacterial resistence. Would those holding this view affirm that a thorough understanding of front loading is essential to the study and treatment of human diseases?
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 am
dang you bradford for capturing my interest in this bloody time of finals! SO I get this part as front loading "Interestingly the article also indicates that although sea urchins lack eyes, ears and a nose they contain genes found in humans which are involved in the function of these sensory organs of ours." (I didnt get how the part of understanding sea urchants help us understand cancer, has much to do with frontloading). Why can't someone come up with a research program to manipulate these to form sensory organs? I guess its because we dont have billions of years on our hands. It still seems like one day they will be able to do that
Comment by gore — April 22, 2008 @ 1:50 am
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 am
No. A thorough understanding of evolution would be sufficient. Remember, there is no way (apart from the actual front-loading action) to distinguish evolution from front loading– and the main proponent of front-loading is not interested in finding such distinctions. So, as long as there is no tangible difference between the two, studying the well defined field of evolution should be sufficient. Once the two can be distinguished (and front-loading actually has experimental support) I would suggest that a study of both would be warranted.
Comment by hrun — April 22, 2008 @ 8:16 am
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I would begin by challenging this claim. Bacterial resistance is dealt with by modifying lead compounds and exhaustively testing them on microbes. We have organic chemistry to thank for this, not evolutionary biology.
This won't change as long as evolutionary biology remains impotent in predictive power. The drug companies will be funding nanotech and gentech labs, not evolutionary biologists.
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
hrun,
But it has plenty of experimental support - after all, front loading is a design concept, one we use in everything from factory construction to programming to business development. The principles are sound, even if they're extrapolated out to cosmological development, biological evolution, OoL.. hey, just about everything.
Besides - if studying front loading is indistinguishable from studying evolution, well - what's it matter what you call it? Your evolution is my front loading. Except, of course, when you're trying to study evolution in order to learn ways to develop particular things. Then you're studying front loading outright.
Comment by nullasalus — April 22, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I don't have a problem that some people call evolution front-loading. I think it would be confusing in a scientific setting, but other than that I don't have a problem with it.
The only problem that arises is that it implies a front-loader and an act of front-loading. But that seems to be such a minor point to front-loading in general that it is being virtually ignored.
Comment by hrun — April 22, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The problem is that the organisms keep evolving.
Pharmaceutical companies spend a considerable amount of money on evolutionary biologists.
Journals of genetics, epidemiology and virology are filled with articles on evolution. There are entire scientific journals dedicated to the study of the evolution of disease organisms; Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics of Infectious Diseases; Infection, Genetics and Evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Indeed. No need to dwell on what's common sense, given our experience as designers.
Zach,
Sure, but the interest is in developing technologies. Which, as has been reasonably asserted, is a distinct thing from mere natural history. Unless you approach natural history as if it were itself a technology, I suppose.
Comment by nullasalus — April 22, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Zach,
No, the problem is we can't predict what evolution will do. We don't need evolutionary biologists to tell us that organisms keep evolving.
How much? And what prediction has evolutionary biology made that led to the creation of an antibiotic?
It's important to know what evolution has done in the past. But science is losing the battle against antibiotic resistance, to the point where less and less funding is going into antibiotic research because it's just not as profitable as lipitor and viagra. If somebody comes up with a predictive methodology that can head off resistance before it becomes a problem, then they will begin to win the war. This strategy most likely will come from an bioengineering approach, not evolutionary biologists.
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Mod help?
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
We don't know everything, but we do know some things. In science, that means being able to make predictions. University students duplicate the predictable evolution of antibiotic resistance every day. This ability to make predictions is why pharmaceutical companies are spending large sums of money to understand how pathogens evolve, and have evolved.
That's like saying you don't need scientists to tell us the world moves. But it's only because of science that you do know that particular fact. It's only because of science that you know organisms evolve. You accept these facts as 'common sense' only because of education.
This contradicts your previous stance. I'll take that as a correction.
Antibiotics are among the most important drugs, a global market of about $25 billion annually. They're pervasive. It's doubtful research into new antibiotics will be abandoned anytime soon, though it may take coordinated action due to the high costs and times for development involved.
Current countermeasures include drug cocktails, patient compliance, and avoidance of over prescription. You're right that bioengineering may be an important area of research. For instance, RecA is a protein implicated in initiating rapid evolution in bacteria under stress. Disrupting RecA could delay the evolution of resistance. This has nothing to do with ID "science," but everything to do with evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
mod help, please
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:41 am
What is "front-loading"
Comment by np1986 — April 23, 2008 @ 2:41 am
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Zachriel,
When I asked you "…what prediction has evolutionary biology made that led to the creation of an antibiotic?" I expected an answer other than they predict that evolution will happen.
When I asked you "…what prediction has evolutionary biology made that led to the creation of an antibiotic?" I expected to hear about an actual prediction, not historical analysis.
The difference, is that physicists can predict where the earth will move. This is useful.
Tell me, what does evolutionary biology predict about antibiotic resistance that has ever led to the creation of an antibiotic? Please don't tell me again that evolutionary biology predicts that organisms evolve - we've pretty well settled that.
Maybe it contradicts your preconception of what a fundie like me must be thinking, but it certainly doesn't contradict anything that I said in the real world.
Have you been watching Discovery Channel again? I love that, even though it doesn't refute a thing I've said. For instance I never said antibiotics aren't important, and I never said they don't make a lot of money, and I never said they aren't pervasive, and I never said that antibiotic research will be abandoned soon.
Who are you arguing against?
Wow, more Discovery Channel. That must have been a great episode. Tell me, did the show mention how evolutionary biologists made a prediction that led to the creation of an antibiotic?
No kidding.
Ahh, now I see why you seem confused. When I say evolutionary biology is lacking in predictive power and suggest that gentech or bioengineering might be more useful,…
…your mind imagines that I am saying that evolution does not happen, that antibiotics are unimportant, and that ID is the answer.
I have an alcoholic friend who's mind works in very much the same way.
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
That was in response to your false statement that "we can't predict what evolution will do."
This is the original exchange:
Hence, I pointed to simple and relevant predictions, including the Lederberg Experiment.
That is incorrect. Even though most evolutionary biologists do basic research, their results are of great value to medicine, and they are, indeed, employed by drug companies.
I never made that claim. However, evolutionary biology has been important in understanding the origin of resistant strains of bacteria, and in the development of treatment strategies. The cost of developing these new strategies is much less than the cost of developing new antibiotics. It's because we can make empirical predictions that the development of these effective strategies is possible. Saving lives.
"”
You started this thread with this claim.
Bacterial resistance is "dealt with" by understanding how this resistance evolves.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
If knowing what evolution has done in the past is important, then hiring evolutionary biologists would be expected. Your statements appear contradictory.
You asked for "predictive methodology that can head off resistance". When I point to such methodologies, and research into new technologies that are firmly based in evolutionary biology, you wave your hands.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Don't leave out LexA.
This is a coordinated, hierarchal response to an obstacle in the environment. This isn't some organism blindly and unknowingly 'hoping' to be the lucky recipient of a random mutation that might just endow it with the ability to overcome the insult.
It might have everything to do with evolution, but certainly not with the view of evolution that you hold to.
Comment by Doug — April 23, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Let me know when someone is able to predict when changes to an archaebacteria in response to such and such environmental factors lead to eubacteria.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Zach,
Ok. so in addition to the risky prediction that "organisms keep evolving", we can add the Ledergerg's prediction that antibiotic resistance exists in nature.
But it is duly noted that your examples are between 56 and 130 years old.
Not quite relevant to a discussion of Big Pharma fighting superbugs.
Never said they weren't. Ho Humm…
I didn't wave. Honest. I just don't think that "drug cocktails, patient compliance, and avoidance of overprescription" came about through any prediction from evolutionary biologists. I think they are reactionary, not proactive towards combatting resistance.
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Doug,
Yeah, Lederberg didn't predict that, did he?:grin:
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
The Lederberg Experiment demonstrates that the mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Yes, you do need to try to catch up.
But more than sufficient to either cause you to modify your previous statement that "we can't predict what evolution will do," or to demonstrate that you won't.
Despite what you claim, drug companies will not be abandoning research into evolutionary biology.
This is a life and death issue. The reason we use drug cocktails is because pathogens rapidly evolve. Here's a simplified description of why drug cocktails are used, and the relationship with evolution.
Of course, in real life, the population is not stable, but changes rapidly during the onset of an infection, and during treatment. Lindi Wahl has done some good work in predicting the evolution of multiply-resistant strains in dynamic populations, such as HIV.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The LexA binding sequence is conserved among related bacteria and monophyletic for several phyla. Here's the phylogenetic analysis.
Mazón et al., Reconstruction of the evolutionary history of the LexA-binding sequence, Microbiologia 2004
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Zach,
I never said anything about LexA being strongly, weakly or not conserved at all.
I'm commenting on the fact that the response is coordinated and hierarchal. Reflecting something other than RM&NS. And this is a prime example that gets brought out to show the power of NDS.
Comment by Doug — April 23, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 7:26 am
And I never said you did. You asked us not to leave out LexA, so I thought a bit of its evolutionary history was in order.
Actually, it seems to fit the evolutionary paradigm quite well. LexA is a family of ancient descent!
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2008 @ 7:26 am