On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:20:07 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 5:55:06 PM UTC-7, RonO wrote:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38011-9
Popular science article: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230427114523.htm
The claim is that they have determined the structures of biochemical networks that allow them to adapt. If verified it wouldn't just
facilitate evolutionary adaptation, but manipulation of the systems to produce useful variations.
It affects our understanding of how biochemical networks could self regulate, evolve, and adapt to network additions. We may be able to predict what specific manipulation of existing networks would do with obvious medical benefits.
Ron Okimoto
Quote: "Here we identify the definitive structural requirements that characterize all adaptation-capable collections of interacting molecules, however large or complex. We show that these network structures implement a form of integral control in which
multiple independent integrals can collaborate to confer the capacity for adaptation on specific molecules."
And there is more!
??!!??!!
The first line of the abstract raises immediate suspicion.
"At the molecular level, the evolution of life is driven by the generation and diversification of adaptation mechanisms."
I sense hyper-adaptionism. Continuing, it doesn't get much better up to the second sentence of the Introduction: "This ubiquitous property has been studied under a variety of guises, including robust homeostasis1 and
absolute concentration robustness (ACR)2,3, all of which are special
cases of the keystone phenomenon known as robust perfect adaptation (RPA)"
Oh my! "robust perfect adaptation". That really set off an eye twitch.
So I jumped to the indicated reference. I notice it's a 2018 article by
the same two authors.
Hmmm. By experience, I'm very suspicious of hyper-adaptionism, and
suspicious of invocations of "perfection". They don't reflect molecular evolution as I know it. I'll set this aside and calm down to read it and
some of the key references when I'm not just in a mood to tear it to
shreds. But Nobel quality work? No. Not even close.
It does make me miss Richard Norman who would be a great person
to have review the paper. His background in system biology, physiological networks, and mathematics are a near perfect combination.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)