Showing posts with label Heath-Robinson Machine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heath-Robinson Machine. Show all posts

Friday, 8 November 2024

Unintelligent Design - How Evolution Rescued an Unintelligent Heath-Robinson Design Blunder


A WashU researcher hand pollinates Arabidopsis.

Photo: Joe Angeles/WashU
How plants evolved multiple ways to override genetic instructions - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis

The thing about evolution that distinguishes it from intelligent design is that evolution is utilitarian. It settles for something that works better than what preceded it, which is different from designing a perfect solution to a problem. Near enough is good enough because anything which is an improvement gets pushed up the frequency listing in the gene pool. So, organisms over time have accumulated sub-optimal systems that sometimes fail and cause other problems.

One of those systems is the way DNA is replicated - which is so error prone that error correction mechanisms have evolved over time, but they don't always work either, so we have the phenomenon of the 'jumping genes' that get inserted in the wrong place in the genome, sometime in the middle of a functional gene or in a control section adjacent to a functional gene, causing genetic defects.

So, in the best Heath-Robinson approach to design, rather than abandoning that design and starting again, the way any intelligent designer would do, another layer of complexity is needed to try to mitigate the occasion when the system fails.

So, what organisms have evolved over the years is a process for neutralising these 'jumping genes' by attaching methyl groups to one of the bases which prevents it being transcribed. This is a part of the epigenetic system by which the specialised cells of multicellular organisms turn of unwanted genes and only allow the genes for their speciality to be active - a layer of complexity needed because the way cells replicate was inherited from their single-celled ancestors where the whole genome needs to be included in every daughter cell.

Animals, such as mammals have two enzymes which attach this methyl group depending on the DNA 'context', but plants have multiple enzymes for doing the same thing. The question is why do plants need these multiple enzymes?

Tuesday, 15 October 2024

Unintelligent Design - The Blunder That Causes Cancers


Ludwig Cancer Research

It has often been a theme of my blog posts how, if we regard cells as the result of conscious (I won't use the term 'intelligent' as that's singularly inappropriate, as we shall see) design then the picture quickly emerges of a bungling incompetent, cobbling together Heath-Robinson solutions to problems of its own incompetent making and lack of foresight.

The entire system of epigenetics, for example, is only necessary in a multicellular organism with its cell specialisation because specialised cells only need a small subset of the entire genome, yet, because cells replicate using exactly the same process that single-celled organisms use, where the entire genome needs to be replicated in every daughter cell, the cells of multicellular organisms such as humans each receive the entire species genome. So, most of it needs to be turned off.

This is where the epigenetic system comes in where methyl groups are attached to key bases in the DNA which prevents that section being transcribed into RNA, effectively switching the gene off. There are other components to the epigenetic system, but that is the pertinent component as far as this particular blunder is concerned.

The problem starts when a methyl group is attached to a cytosine base (C in the CGTA genetic code) which is next to a guanine(G) base.

Sunday, 8 September 2024

Refuting Creationism - Co-Evolution Of Humans And Their Gut Microbiome


Development of the infant gut microbiome

AI generated image
(complete with spelling idiosyncrasies)
Natural probiotic discovered in UK newborns’ microbiomes

In a very nice example of how humans and their gut microbiome have co-evolved, researchers from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, University College London (UCL), and the University of Birmingham, have identified a bacterium that helps digest breast milk and protects the baby from harmful pathogens.

As an example of intelligent [sic] design, this comes as close to a Heath-Robinson solution to a problem of the designer's own making as it's possible to imagine.

No designer who designed a baby's digestive system so it is susceptible to the harmful pathogens that it also designed, and created the baby to feed on breast milk that is difficult to digest, then solved those problems by creating another bacterium to fight the pathogens and help digest the milk, and infecting the baby with it, doesn't deserve the adjective 'intelligent'. 'Bloody stupid' would be a more appropriate term.

It's almost exactly as though the designer of these systems is a mindless automaton, simply obeying the natural laws of chemistry and physics and working without a plan!

The researchers have completed the largest study of UK baby microbiomes to date, carrying out whole genome sequencing to analyse stool samples from 1,288 healthy infants, all under one month old from the UK Baby Biome Study1.1.

Tuesday, 19 March 2024

Creationism's Heath-Robinson Designer - Muddling Through With Even More Ramshackle Complexity


Gut Bacteria Make Neurotransmitters to Shape the Newborn Immune System | Newsroom | Weill Cornell Medicine

The story so far, according to the Creationists Gospel:

Once upon a time, just a few thousand years ago, a magic man in the sky magicked a small flat planet with a dome over it in the Middle East, and then made some people to live on it.

It also made lots of harmful bacteria and other parasites to live in them and make them sick, but luckily, it also gave the humans an immune system to stop the parasites it made to make them sick, from doing what it designed them to do.

The only problem was that the ramshackle immune system it designed, which often doesn't do what it was designed to do, is also a little hypersensitive and prone to treating other things like the body it should be protecting as a parasite and mounting an attack on it so we suffer from all sorts of 'autoimmune' diseases that require another layer of complexity to keep in check. The other thing about it is that it needs training and until that's complete, it will treat all manner of things as parasites, including the food babies eat - and that could result in food allergies that would make life miserable!

But rather than do the simple thing and design the immune system to be able to tell the difference between food and harmful parasites, creationism's version of William Heath-Robinson went for one of the most bizarre solutions you can imagine. Rather like William Heath-Robinson's solution to an every-day problem, it co-opted things in the baby's environment to perform functions they were never intended to perform, like an upright piano being used to stand a step-ladder on to give it enough height, or a stick and some string being used to mend a broken spoke in a wheel, creationism's designer co-opted some of the bacteria that live in a baby's gut.

How it did this is explained in a free access paper in Science Immunology by a team of researchers from the Department of Pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine, led by Assistant Professor Dr. Melody Zeng of the Gale and Ira Drukier Institute for Children's Research. Their work is described in a Weill Cornel Medicine news item:

Sunday, 10 March 2024

Unintelligent Design - How Epigenetic Settings Are Passed To Daughter Cells - Even William Heath Robinson Would Be Impressed


Cracking Epigenetic Inheritance: HKU Biologists Discovered the Secrets of How Gene Traits are Passed on - Press Releases - Media - HKU

It all started when single-celled organisms started to form colonies of like-minded individuals. The easiest way to do it was for the two daughter cells of a dividing cell to stick together instead of going their own way. They in turn would have had more daughter cells until they formed large clump of cells, but, unless the cells began to perform distinct functions, there was no advantage to forming clumps like that instead of each cell going its own way and fending for itself. Fortunately, there were no large predators around, otherwise a clump of cells would have made a tasty snack and the whole idea would have been abandoned as too risky by half, and we would be stuck now with a world of single-celled organisms and nothing else.

However, with the trial and error which characterises biological development, some of the cells in the clump began to perform specialist functions. For example, as the clump got larger, specialist cells would have been needed to exchange gasses with the environment or the cells at the centre would have been deprived of oxygen and their waste in the form of carbon dioxide would have accumulated because diffusing across a large mass of cells would be too slow to keep up with production and the supply of oxygen would be too slow to keep up with the demand. The same thing applied to getting nutrients into the center of the clump.

So, the clumps which had specialist cells fared better in the competition for resources than those which were just undifferentiated clumps. In fact, the clumps with specialised cells would probably have eaten the undifferentiated clumps and become predators. And with predators there was pressure for increased specialisation for movement, ingestion and excretion, for more efficient respiration and for reproduction. And predation also produced pressure for more motility, for senses like sight and smell and maybe hearing and as the organisms became more complex so they needed nervous systems to coordinate their activities and process and respond to the stimuli their senses were receiving from their environment and some would have evolved defensive armour such as scales and spikes and hard shells and internal structures like cartilage and bone to give their bodies shape and form and to make their swimming apparatus stiffer and more powerful.

But what they never managed to do was find a different way to produce all the different specialist cells by a different method to that used by their single-celled ancestors, so every cell in their body had the full genome whether they needed it or not, and more often than not, they didn't need most of it. A bone cell doesn't need to do what a nerve cell does, and a nerve cell doesn't need to do what a muscle cell does, and neither muscle nor nerve cells need to make bone, and what else needs to make elbow skin other than an elbow skin cell, except perhaps a scrotum skin cell? Yet they all have the genes for doing everything any one cell needs to do.

So, cue creationism's intelligent [sic] designer who has been designing and modifying all these different clumps of specialised cells but who, for some reason, seems incapable of recognising that its designs are heading for disaster unless it can think up a way to make sure each specialised cell has only the genes it needs. For reasons which no creationist apologist has ever managed to explain, their putative designer always behaves as though it can't undo a bad design and start again but is compelled to try to make the best of what it has muddled through with so far. In every way, creationism’s 'intelligent [sic] designer' behaves just like a mindless process operating without a plan, handicapped by acute amnesia, and constantly surprising itself with a new problem it designed just yesterday.

Just like the eccentric British designer and cartoonist, William Heath Robinson, no solution to a problem can be too complex even if it creates a new problem for which another overly complex solution has to be found. Unlikely objects, designed for a completely different purpose, will be pressed into service; a stepladder will be balanced precariously on top of a piano and an umbrella will be used to push a button when prodded by a sink plunger swinging on a length of knotted string. A labour-saving device for peeling potatoes will take half a dozen, intense and serious-looking men to operate it and peeling the potatoes will take considerably longer than had each man been given a potato peeler and left to get on with it. Eggs will be fried in a frying pan held over a candle lit by a match rubbed against a matchbox which swings into action when released by a lever when the scuttle-full of coal, or the boulder suspended on knotted string, lands on it.
Web Analytics