Very interesting and thought-provoking story. But I find the idea that we are all bags of bitchy, demanding enzymes to be as misleading as Richard Dawkins's idea of the selfish gene, and for the same reason. These ideas assume an evolutionary process that cannot, and therefore does not, exist.
I raised this issue with you before, talking about how evolution could not have produced the Omicron variant through any neo-Darwinian process. Your answer was a thoughtful one, but I think it was wrong. We don't need to overthink these things, but I don't think we are. I think we're underthinking them.
For example, the issue with a homeostatic process is not what enzymes are used in that process, but how those enzymes are structured to carry out the function they do. They form a complex system that is more than the sum of its enzymatic parts. Where does that system design come from? That is worth thinking, and overthinking, about.
We've seen Omicron-like evolution in immunocompromised patients with chronic infections. That seems like a more parsimonious explanation given the high prevalence of immunocompromised patients and the common use of monoclonal antibodies
That New England Journal of Medicine letter talks about "accelerated viral evolution" in an immunocompromised patient who could not clear a Covid-19 infection for five months. That's interesting, but even though it suggests that the Omicron variant could have come from a patient like that, it's pretty weak evidence that it did, as we still wouldn't know the "how".
That's an interesting paper, Andrew. They come to the same conclusion I did regarding the evolution of the Omicron variant -- that it could not have come from the accumulation of random mutations that Charles Darwin's theory demands. And they have some impressive evidence for their conclusion that I had never seen before.
But I don't believe their conclusion that they found indisputable evidence that the variant came from a lab. There are other possible explanations.
If you do a time lapse image of the world with each country having a different color, it would look remarkably like observing different bacteria living and dying in a petri dish.
Love it. What materialists rarely attempt to explain, though, is exactly how the intricacy of this awesome mess proves it semi-randomly mutated itself into existence, rather than being driven by a transcendent mover or telos.
And how all this emerged from the primordial soup. Decades of lab attempts have yielded meager results. It is really an expression of deep faith to believe in the random mutation theory.
Very entertaining way to understand cell biology. One question remains--where did the “intent” come from? IOW--all those NZ work in unison to maintain a particular life form and reproduce. How do they “know” to do that? If DNA expression requires NZ, but DNA must first code for those NZ, how does that work?
The power of a gifted teacher! The more I learn about the miracle of life, the more I realise this could only have happened because a divine Creator.
It's impossible that something so wonderful could have happened by accident, and the time frame in which it happened rules out the possibility of just evolution.
And when a delinquent child becomes a rebellious, scientific genius, that convinces me of a Divine Influence with a plan for humanity!
Or we can recognize that the entire duration of the earth's existence cannot allow for random evolutionary changes to describe a single living thing if ever such a thing could occur. This apart from the fact that there is no conceived explanation how inanimate elements would ever spontaneously organize themselves into a replicating organism, let alone a living cell. Once this is recognized one realizes that some conscious Will much more creative, beautiful, and intelligent than we can imagine created all of this, including us, for reasons greater than we can understand. As in, nothing to fear. Not a sparrow falls that is not accorded by God.
After hundreds of millions of years, why haven't the mice evolved in such a way as to make them toxic to snakes that eat them? Can professor Perry Winkle explain that?
Some animals have (poison dart frogs, many species of poisonous fish, etc.), but sometimes evolving the ability to be toxic is hard because the toxins are costly to make, the toxins can harm the host, and evolution is a bunch of enzymatic monkeys typing at DNA typewriters - it takes time and luck for them to write a chapter that looks like a functional toxin!
if it is asking too much for the mice to become toxic to snakes, perhaps they could evolve a body odor repugnant to snakes... that shouldn't be too hard.
Thank you for a great story and explanation. I really hope there something in the mouse enzymes that make this experience a little less horrifying for the little guy than I imagine it must be. Applause to the snake and all obligate carnivores for surviving this way...I get it. I have just always had very strong, very disturbing reactions when I pay attention to this kind of nature. Thursday nightmares coming up.
LOL, People are so different. I found the snake/mouse situation difficult to (ahem as Jessica says) swallow. For whatever reason, I find sciences like biology and paleontology and anything evolutionary fascinating, but it's so hard on my nervous system - I'm just not made of sturdy stuff. Maybe that's why I'm an accountant. ~Kay *South Carolina
Very interesting and thought-provoking story. But I find the idea that we are all bags of bitchy, demanding enzymes to be as misleading as Richard Dawkins's idea of the selfish gene, and for the same reason. These ideas assume an evolutionary process that cannot, and therefore does not, exist.
I raised this issue with you before, talking about how evolution could not have produced the Omicron variant through any neo-Darwinian process. Your answer was a thoughtful one, but I think it was wrong. We don't need to overthink these things, but I don't think we are. I think we're underthinking them.
For example, the issue with a homeostatic process is not what enzymes are used in that process, but how those enzymes are structured to carry out the function they do. They form a complex system that is more than the sum of its enzymatic parts. Where does that system design come from? That is worth thinking, and overthinking, about.
Good post...your stack is empty. Pity. I subscribed just in case.
John, you were probably right thinking evolution didn't produce Omicron. Creative minds beat evo to it!
https://swinehoodsremedy.substack.com/p/unnatural-evolution-indisputable
We've seen Omicron-like evolution in immunocompromised patients with chronic infections. That seems like a more parsimonious explanation given the high prevalence of immunocompromised patients and the common use of monoclonal antibodies
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2031364
That New England Journal of Medicine letter talks about "accelerated viral evolution" in an immunocompromised patient who could not clear a Covid-19 infection for five months. That's interesting, but even though it suggests that the Omicron variant could have come from a patient like that, it's pretty weak evidence that it did, as we still wouldn't know the "how".
That's an interesting paper, Andrew. They come to the same conclusion I did regarding the evolution of the Omicron variant -- that it could not have come from the accumulation of random mutations that Charles Darwin's theory demands. And they have some impressive evidence for their conclusion that I had never seen before.
But I don't believe their conclusion that they found indisputable evidence that the variant came from a lab. There are other possible explanations.
If you do a time lapse image of the world with each country having a different color, it would look remarkably like observing different bacteria living and dying in a petri dish.
The entire statement lies in utter disregard for spirit, the vastly greater portion of who each of us are. As not unsuspected, misleading indeed.
I do not believe in God either. I guess that makes me a heathen :-)
Love it. What materialists rarely attempt to explain, though, is exactly how the intricacy of this awesome mess proves it semi-randomly mutated itself into existence, rather than being driven by a transcendent mover or telos.
And how all this emerged from the primordial soup. Decades of lab attempts have yielded meager results. It is really an expression of deep faith to believe in the random mutation theory.
Spot on.
Very entertaining way to understand cell biology. One question remains--where did the “intent” come from? IOW--all those NZ work in unison to maintain a particular life form and reproduce. How do they “know” to do that? If DNA expression requires NZ, but DNA must first code for those NZ, how does that work?
Now, that was a fun read!
I can imagine this, but if you think deeply about Gibbs Free Energy, I think membrane tranport proteins might be the bosses! 😎
OR -- created by God. Evolution is really tough sell.
Brilliantly told.
Great read! Thank you
Excellent article - totally engaging.
The power of a gifted teacher! The more I learn about the miracle of life, the more I realise this could only have happened because a divine Creator.
It's impossible that something so wonderful could have happened by accident, and the time frame in which it happened rules out the possibility of just evolution.
And when a delinquent child becomes a rebellious, scientific genius, that convinces me of a Divine Influence with a plan for humanity!
Or we can recognize that the entire duration of the earth's existence cannot allow for random evolutionary changes to describe a single living thing if ever such a thing could occur. This apart from the fact that there is no conceived explanation how inanimate elements would ever spontaneously organize themselves into a replicating organism, let alone a living cell. Once this is recognized one realizes that some conscious Will much more creative, beautiful, and intelligent than we can imagine created all of this, including us, for reasons greater than we can understand. As in, nothing to fear. Not a sparrow falls that is not accorded by God.
After hundreds of millions of years, why haven't the mice evolved in such a way as to make them toxic to snakes that eat them? Can professor Perry Winkle explain that?
Some animals have (poison dart frogs, many species of poisonous fish, etc.), but sometimes evolving the ability to be toxic is hard because the toxins are costly to make, the toxins can harm the host, and evolution is a bunch of enzymatic monkeys typing at DNA typewriters - it takes time and luck for them to write a chapter that looks like a functional toxin!
if it is asking too much for the mice to become toxic to snakes, perhaps they could evolve a body odor repugnant to snakes... that shouldn't be too hard.
Thank you for a great story and explanation. I really hope there something in the mouse enzymes that make this experience a little less horrifying for the little guy than I imagine it must be. Applause to the snake and all obligate carnivores for surviving this way...I get it. I have just always had very strong, very disturbing reactions when I pay attention to this kind of nature. Thursday nightmares coming up.
A beautiful story. Beautifully told. Gratitudes for you and for those who have shaped you.
Had a few good biology teachers and a few bad...
...that’s why I took Biochemistry 3 times
So informative, I especially enjoyed the herpetological aspect, thank you.
Robbie Branch
South Africa.
LOL, People are so different. I found the snake/mouse situation difficult to (ahem as Jessica says) swallow. For whatever reason, I find sciences like biology and paleontology and anything evolutionary fascinating, but it's so hard on my nervous system - I'm just not made of sturdy stuff. Maybe that's why I'm an accountant. ~Kay *South Carolina