Recently, Axe has been writing on this issue. First, he and Gauger just published some experimental results in the ID journal BIO-Complexity. Second, Axe wrote a blog post at the Biologic site in which he defends his approach against critics like Art Hunt and me. Here are some comments on both.
1. Like my friend Todd Wood, I am encouraged by the fact that Biologic Institute is doing good scientific work and generating publishable data. Axe and Gauger seem to be smart and capable scientists, and they are asking good questions. May their Institute and its scientific work live long and prosper.
2. Axe is primarily interested in the evolution of protein folds. That question is both intensely interesting and important. And difficult.
3. Like Todd, I found the BIO-Complexity paper to be interesting technically but badly flawed in its theoretical approach and conclusions. Specifically, I note what I think any evolutionary biologist would immediately see: that Axe and Gauger did not test an evolutionary hypothesis. Todd explains this very well, but here's the basic problem. To test an evolutionary hypothesis, as I mentioned above, one must study an evolutionary transition. In other words, one must study a change or transition from an ancestral state to a current (or later) state. Joe Thornton's work is a great example: his group examined protein function in a reconstruction of an evolutionary transition. What Axe and Gauger did was study a "transition" that has never been proposed to have happened. They examined a transition from one currently-existing protein to another currently-existing protein. It's as though they analyzed the "transition" from a cat to a dog, when they should have analyzed the transition from ancestral mammals to dogs and/or cats. Their conclusions tell us something about protein structure and function but, crucially, not about the evolution of those proteins.
This does not mean that Axe and Gauger are incorrect in their hypothesis, namely that different proteins are separated by vast evolutionary wastelands that can only be traversed with the help of "design." That may be the case. But the newly-published work in BIO-Complexity gets them no closer to establishing that hypothesis as reasonable or even likely.
4. In his blog post, Axe continues to insist that evidence for rarity of function in the protein universe is evidence for isolation of individual functions in the protein universe. His arguments from probability, which have been used so many times before, simply do not convince me because, as I wrote before: isolation and rarity are not the same thing. I don't happen to think that Axe's data tell us much about the rarity of function (more on this below), but even if I did, I would find that insufficient to undermine the proposal that proteins are linked in a phylogenetic tree the way species are. Again, this is not to say that I know that Axe is wrong. I'm saying that his arguments are unconvincing to me, and that the experiments needed to test his conjecture have yet to be done.
5. Axe claims that I was wrong to describe his 2004 experiments as "whopping mutations on crippled proteins." But that's what they were. He nicely explains why that was the best way to do his experiment, and I think he's right about that. But the fact remains that his analysis doesn't help us understand evolution if his experiment involved a barely-functioning enzyme subjected to mutagenesis that changed ten amino acids at a time. As I think Art Hunt tries to make clear, this doesn't mean that his experiment was stupid or poorly designed. It does mean, clearly in my view, that the experiment tells us little about evolutionary change. And Axe himself seems to agree: he explains that he wasn't attempting to simulate evolution, only to estimate the rarity of protein function in the protein universe (or the protein-fold universe).
6. In my opinion, Axe significantly overstates his findings on the topic of "function." So for example, in both the 2004 paper and the new BIO-Complexity paper, the experiments involve measuring a single function for each enzyme. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that when the authors see that a particular variant (mutant) of the protein stops performing that one function, they conclude that the protein "has no function." (In the BIO-Complexity paper, it's two proteins and two functions, but the point is the same.) But of course we don't know that, and evolutionary explanations would propose that new functions frequently arise when an enzyme has more than one function (or is broad-based in its function, or is modular in its structure and function). This is why I think that Axe and colleagues can't make any headway in their efforts to understand the evolution of protein function until they focus intentionally on evolutionary transitions. Instead of showing us that mutated proteins no longer do what they used to do, they should invert their reasoning to look like something like this:
Here are the proteins in a postulated evolutionary trajectory. What can we learn about the functions of the intermediates during the transition?Those would be extensive and demanding experiments, to be sure, but they're the only kinds of experiments that can address the difficult questions that Axe wants to ask. This, by the way, is the same critique I gave Mike Behe in response to his erroneous claims in his most recent book.
7. I'm not so sure that function is as rare as Axe (and others) think. It turns out that completely novel (and foreign) protein sequences can be shown to have function, in living bacterial cells. We may be mistaken in our assumption that islands of function in the protein universe are fantastically rare.
8. Axe and his colleagues do good work, and they're asking important questions. I hope they are in close contact with scientists working on similar questions. There are many strong labs working hard on protein evolution, from various angles, and I'm sure that the scientists at Biologic Institute would profit immensely from regular interactions with the scientific community. (Consider, for example, the authors of a 2010 PLoS ONE paper on "Evolutionary Innovations and the Organization of Protein Functions in Genotype Space.") Perhaps this is happening, and if so, great. But it needs to be emphasized.
So, kudos to the scientists of Biologic Institute for working hard in the lab, and for tackling an important and formidable problem. They haven't shown us anything important about evolution yet, but I hope they keep at it, with a little more careful thought and a lot more input from colleagues.
13 comments:
You, too, have done some serious work in this post, and done it in a courteous and respectful manner -- all too uncommon, unfortunately.
These two statements seem mutually contradictory:
"I am encouraged by the fact that Biologic Institute is doing good scientific work and generating publishable data."
"interesting technically but badly flawed in its theoretical approach and conclusions"
Is the paper publishable. it was was, why wasn't it submitted to a peer reviewed journal, instead of some place that seems more like a propaganda organ?
It's a fair question. The data are surely publishable; it's the discussion and conclusions that would preclude publication in a real journal. In my opinion, the paper could have been published elsewhere if it had discussed the findings in the context of evolutionary transitions. This would have required a frank admission that the "transition" in question is not relevant to evolution. Instead, perhaps, the discussion would focus on why neofunctionalization is not a guaranteed outcome after gene duplication (as discussed widely elsewhere). Even that would be pretty trivial, but it would be publishable.
One of the things that really rubs me the wrong way about the ID movement is how little time ID advocates seem to spend formulating and experimentally testing hypotheses about ID. It's a good thing, I think, that there are at least a few ID advocates actually working in the lab to explore their speculation.
The “EVOLUTION IS
IMPOSSIBLE” aspect of the Axe and Gauger paper also seems to rely to some extent on the population model developed by Axe and published in the
same Biocomplexity. That paper was essentially an attack on Michael Lynch’s
recent work. The arguments are largely above my pay grade. Personally I’d back Lynch over Axe but do you have any thoughts?
Here’s the paper:
“The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations”
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index[…]BIO-C.2010.4
BTW, I agree that it's good to see the ID crowd (well some of them at least) getting their hands dirty and doing some actual science, as opposed to glorified literature reviews. I've always found YECs in some ways more admirable because they are actually proactive about trying to support their views. Floody geologists go out into the field and try to do flood geology. It's a fool's errand but at least they've been putting their money where their mouths are. IDists have been woefully inadequate in this regard, but maybe some of the smarter ones are starting to realise they need to actually try and do some science. Good luck to them.
Early in my Biology education at Calvin 32 years ago, the two professors teaching my evolution class spent five minutes to explain that Creation Science (as it was then called) was hooey and its practitioners were charlatans. We wasted no more time on the subject in the following years. Time has proven that we missed nothing in doing so.
What a shame that Calvin profs today feel obligated to show respect for "scientists" who go through the motions of scientific inquiry with their conclusions in place before they start, who tie themselves in knots to make the data fit those conclusions, and who protect their faulty reasoning and weak hypothesis by hiding out with like-minded individuals in the BioLogic Institute and publish in a journal whose very title betrays its agenda.
What a joke.
Biologic Institute:
Funded by 'ignorant', 'slothful', 'duplicitous', 'ludicrous', 'stupid', 'cadre's of attack dogs'. The 'confusion they purposefully generate' and the 'falsehoods they employ' in their 'misinformation effort' are 'horrific mistakes', 'intellectual tragedies', promulgated from a ''wholly corrupt' 'intellectual ghetto'. They are a 'dangerous cancer'. 'Mendacious'. 'Idiotic'. 'Creepy'. 'Silly'. 'Confused'. 'Lacking integrity'. 'Profoundly misleading'. 'Political propogandists'. 'Enemies of science.' 'Idiots'. 'Liars'. 'Bottomfeeders'.
Charley, while I understand your frustration, I know you to be wrong about the behavior of Calvin profs back then. They did show respect for creationists, meaning that they did not use harsh rhetoric (the way I have been known to do). And they did, in several prominent publications in the 1980s, address creationist errors in print.
My attempt to be charitable to Gauger and Axe is my choice, intended to show approval for experimental work. It has nothing to do with any feeling of "obligation" coming from Calvin. Thanks for the comment, though, and I do see your point.
Steve, no I haven't read that one. I doubt it is of any value. I just read one of Lynch's recent papers in PNAS and found it very interesting and informative and I guess I'm having a hard time picturing Axe (with his very simplistic views of adaptation) mounting a credible challenge to Lynch. But I'll have a look sometime.
From what I remember of the Gauger and Axe paper, they experimentally estimated the number of mutations required to go from one to another. The evolution is impossible bit came from Axe's population model arguing that that number of mutations couldn't realistically occur. That's what I recall anyway, could be wrong. But if not, it's a pretty central part of the argument. Anyway, it was largely an attack on this recent paper from Michael Lynch:
"The rate of establishment of complex adaptations"
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch182.pdf
As I said, I would side with Michael Lynch pretty much any day of the week (and not just against creationists, I really like his evolutionary biology work in general) but it would be interesting to see an evaluation of the Axe paper. It's kind of along similar lines to Behe's EoE type stuff and got the DI very excited when it came out:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/bio-complexity_paper_shows_man042611.html
Steve, it's not really worth your time, except as an exercise in spotting the errors. Axe's model is based on sequential arising and fixation of multiple novel variations in a population where the variants are neutral or slightly deleterious. The obvious issue is that waiting for alleles to arise and go to fixation greatly increases the time required - but that is not a realistic roadblock. Many significant changes in the Lenski long-term E Coli experiment have occurred without fixation of the needed changes.
Oh and while I'm on the subject of Michael Lynch, he has a fascinating looking paper in press at Nature:
"Non-adaptive origins of interactome complexity"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09992.html
Bit of a press release and also a write up:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518131425.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110518/full/news.2011.294.html
Steve, what do you make of the long list on their editorial board?
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialTeam
Are they all pro-ID types? (I mean, besides the usual suspects.)
Post a Comment