Comments on: Cheap philosophy http://tiago.org/ps/2007/10/04/cheap-philosophy/ Computational Biology, Epidemiology, Infectious diseases, Open Science Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:07:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Pedro Beltrao http://tiago.org/ps/2007/10/04/cheap-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-319 Pedro Beltrao Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:57:21 +0000 http://tiago.org/ps/2007/10/04/cheap-philosophy/#comment-319 Any assertion that evolution has some universal direction is typically hard to show. We have a very biased view since we focus on multicellular organism that are a very small fraction of life. Even about the evolution of multicellular there is considerable discussion to what degree natural selection (directionality) has contributed to the appearance of the cellular complexity associated with these lifeforms. The strongest voice against the role of adaption is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Search&db=PubMed&term=Lynch%20M%20evolution" rel="nofollow">Lynch</a>. On the other hand we do see that even at the cellular level there are many systems that appear to be very adaptable. An example is the control of cytoskeleton. Microtubule growth and destabilization is a general process that is decoupled from any particular cell shape program. In this way the cells can use the same cytoskeleton organization features to shape the cell to do many different things. Kirchner and Gerhart call these "exploratory processes". Systems that appear to be very adaptable and therefore can be used in many different situations with no changes in the underlying mechanism but just by directing them in different ways. Their book "The Plausibility of Life" has a many discussions about this. This also sounds like a programed function that can be called from anywhere in the program and in this way can be used in a broader sense as part of many different processes. John Doyle as written a lot about this analogy mentioning many time the concept of protocols in biological systems (ex <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/446860a.html" rel="nofollow">Rules of engagement</a>). I think this is a very interesting and important discussion but we are far from settling on an answer. Any assertion that evolution has some universal direction is typically hard to show. We have a very biased view since we focus on multicellular organism that are a very small fraction of life. Even about the evolution of multicellular there is considerable discussion to what degree natural selection (directionality) has contributed to the appearance of the cellular complexity associated with these lifeforms. The strongest voice against the role of adaption is Lynch.
On the other hand we do see that even at the cellular level there are many systems that appear to be very adaptable. An example is the control of cytoskeleton. Microtubule growth and destabilization is a general process that is decoupled from any particular cell shape program. In this way the cells can use the same cytoskeleton organization features to shape the cell to do many different things. Kirchner and Gerhart call these “exploratory processes”. Systems that appear to be very adaptable and therefore can be used in many different situations with no changes in the underlying mechanism but just by directing them in different ways. Their book “The Plausibility of Life” has a many discussions about this. This also sounds like a programed function that can be called from anywhere in the program and in this way can be used in a broader sense as part of many different processes. John Doyle as written a lot about this analogy mentioning many time the concept of protocols in biological systems (ex Rules of engagement).
I think this is a very interesting and important discussion but we are far from settling on an answer.

]]> By: Paulo http://tiago.org/ps/2007/10/04/cheap-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Paulo Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:05:25 +0000 http://tiago.org/ps/2007/10/04/cheap-philosophy/#comment-307 No problem on using me as a scapegoat, as we say in Brazil "I have put my face to be slapped". You are no misinterpreting my words, but you are only considering my phrase from an anthropocentric view. Yes we can modify genomes, even will be able to create new ones. This ability can be reduced to the tools our own genome has given us, because in the end the phenotype is a reflection of your genotype (plus the environment). But and all those species that only have access to the molecular biology lab in a Petri dish? They have a "limited" toolset to "fight" the environment and this is solely based on their genome. No problem on using me as a scapegoat, as we say in Brazil “I have put my face to be slapped”.

You are no misinterpreting my words, but you are only considering my phrase from an anthropocentric view. Yes we can modify genomes, even will be able to create new ones. This ability can be reduced to the tools our own genome has given us, because in the end the phenotype is a reflection of your genotype (plus the environment).

But and all those species that only have access to the molecular biology lab in a Petri dish? They have a “limited” toolset to “fight” the environment and this is solely based on their genome.

]]>