Dr. Leroy Hood: Pitching "Systems Approach" to Medical School Curriculum

[funkymunkytoes]

idiotwanna, he just showed you FIVE succinct examples of increasing complexity, move on...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[VoiceofReason]

There is no bearded man in the sky.

Your pursuit of medical science is a tacit vote of no-confidence in God's power whether you realize it or not.

 

[iduwanna]

I just showed you! Read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

That is increasing the functionality of genes, and its a productive mutation.

This activity comes from a plasmid! This has already been demonstrated more than a decade ago:

Kato, K., et al., A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer
degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2, Microbiology. 141(10):2585–2590, 1995

This has been known for more than a decade to NOT represent an increase in function of any gene.

 

[iduwanna]

idiotwanna, he just showed you FIVE succinct examples of increasing complexity, move on...

You think the ad hom attacks will suffice because that type of baseless BS works on you.

If anyone showed ONE example of mutations leading to increased complexity, go ahead and quote that because I must have missed it.

 

[starfishprime]

.

 

[starfishprime]

Religion has never done anything but oppose science.

Religion is a lot like air resistance - it's a drag, and should be ignored when possible.

 

[Lokhtar]

You think the ad hom attacks will suffice because that type of baseless BS works on you.

If anyone showed ONE example of mutations leading to increased complexity, go ahead and quote that because I must have missed it.

Another one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939710?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citationsensor

CONCLUSIONS: The two classes of beta-lactamases appear to have developed from an ancestral protein along separate evolutionary paths. Structural differentiation of the beta-lactamases from the DD-peptidases appears to follow differences in substrate shapes. The structure of the class A beta-lactamase has been further optimized to exclude D-alanyl peptides and process penicillin substrates with near catalytic perfection.

Or this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15895997?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

The beta-lactam antibiotics act through their inhibition of D-alanyl-D-alanine transpeptidases (DD-peptidases) that catalyze the last step of bacterial cell wall synthesis. Bacteria resist beta-lactams by a number of mechanisms, one of the more important of which is the production of beta-lactamases, enzymes that catalyze the hydrolysis of these antibiotics. The serine beta-lactamases are evolutionary descendants of DD-peptidases and retain much of their structure, particularly at the active site. Functionally, beta-lactamases differ from DD-peptidases in being able to catalyze hydrolysis of acyl-enzyme intermediates derived from beta-lactams and being unable to efficiently catalyze acyl transfer reactions of D-alanyl-D-alanine terminating peptides. The class C beta-lactamase of Enterobacter cloacae P99 is closely similar in structure to the DD-peptidase of Streptomyces R61. Previous studies have demonstrated that the evolution of the beta-lactamase, presumably from an ancestral DD-peptidase similar to the R61 enzyme, included structural changes leading to rejection of the D-methyl substituent of the penultimate D-alanine residue of the DD-peptidase substrate. This seems to have been achieved by suitable placement of the side chain of Tyr 221 in the beta-lactamase. We show in this paper that mutation of this residue to Gly 221 produces an enzyme that more readily hydrolyzes and aminolyzes acyclic D-alanyl substrates than glycyl analogues, in contrast to the wild-type beta-lactamase; the mutant is therefore a more efficient DD-peptidase. Molecular modeling showed that the D-alanyl methyl group fits snugly into the space originally occupied by the Tyr 221 side chain and, in doing so, allows the bound substrate to assume a conformation similar to that on the R61 DD-peptidase, which has a hydrophobic pocket for this substituent. Another mutant of the P99 beta-lactamase, the extended spectrum GC1 enzyme, also has space available for a D-alanyl methyl group because of an extended omega loop. In this case, however, no enhancement of activity against D-alanyl substrates with respect to glycyl was observed. Accommodation of the penultimate D-alanyl methyl group is therefore necessary for efficient DD-peptidase activity, but not sufficient.

There is a mutant, leading to a more efficient system - the exact definition of what you were asking for.

 

[iduwanna]

Religion is a lot like air resistance - it's a drag, and should be ignored in computation.

Absolutely.

Neodarwinism is a religion (believed by faith without observation) that has been given a free-pass by too many "scientists" who try to use the "scientific" platform to propagate their religious beliefs (that mutations created life as we know it).

 

[starfishprime]

If anyone showed ONE example of mutations leading to increased complexity, go ahead and quote that because I must have missed it.

What do you call it when a microorganism develops the ability to transport a new energy source? It seems to me like that would be an increase in complexity.

Aren't you familiar with the long-term E. coli experiment?

 

[Lokhtar]

Absolutely.

Neodarwinism is a religion (believed by faith without observation) that has been given a free-pass to too many "scientists" who try to use the "scientific" platform to propagate their religious beliefs (that there can't be a God that they might be accountable to).(that there can't be a God that they might be accountable to).

 

[starfishprime]

Neodarwinism is a religion

Was your brain especially dirty or did they wash it just for good measure?

 

[iduwanna]

Was your brain especially dirty or did they wash it just for good measure?

Hey!

F the ad hom attacks. Are you that shallow?

The belief that all life as we know it resulted from random mutations (which have only been observed to cause disease and death), requires faith in the unseen -- religion.

And the fact that you are so willing to protect your views without offering a shread of evidince makes you a zealot to Derwin.

 

[starfishprime]

without offering a shread of evidince

...

What do you call it when a microorganism develops the ability to transport a new energy source? It seems to me like that would be an increase in complexity.

Aren't you familiar with the long-term E. coli experiment?

Not to mention the half-dozen other peer-reviewed studies posted above by others. Your hand-waving "that's not real evidence" is deserving of all the insults I can produce.

Quoth T. Jefferson: "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

 

[iduwanna]

Another one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939710?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citationsensor

Or this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15895997?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed



There is a mutant, leading to a more efficient system - the exact definition of what you were asking for.

Do you only scan the abstracts for a confirmation of beliefs in Derwinism?

You recycled one desperate attempt that has was laughed at a decade ago, and one article that does not deal with a random mutation, but with an intentional (intelligently designed by the authors) base change. And the original function of the protein is lost!!

 

[iduwanna]

What do you call it when a microorganism develops the ability to transport a new energy source? It seems to me like that would be an increase in complexity.

Aren't you familiar with the long-term E. coli experiment?

You didn't even read the abstract for this one!

You are the epitome of a religious zealot.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Wahoo! I love a good debate. Anyway, back to the "god forsaken" thread topic (if you forgive the pun )

Hood is a smart bloke, I had the fortune to actually talk one-on-one with him about his work on BigDyes, and his intelligence blows you away, kinda a modern day Feynman.

I don't quite agree with what he is saying though. Correct me if I am wrong, but he is implying that there needs to be more second-order/third-order thinking going on in regards to the medical school curriculum, and the developments in systems biology/genetic profiling.

His heart is in the right place, but students don't know enough even @ year 4 to be able to make the meaningful connections that are necessary to understand pathways as they need to be. Hell, many PhD's in one specific field feel like they are stumbling around in the dark, I don't understand how he can expect even 4th years to make those connections yet. Students should already be integrating 2nd/3rd order thinking as they memorize new topics, and integrate it with what they already know. I don't think that his PBL approach is either especially new or useful to all involved.

He may be onto something that doctors should start treating their patients on the molecular and the physiological fronts, since by the time I'm practicing, there probably will be the 1000$ genome. But teaching things that havn't been invented sounds pretty difficult to me... but hey, I'm no MD/PhD who is probably going to get the Nobel any time here... I defer the final decision to him.

Maybe something integrated with residencies would be appropriate and pertinent, since by then students really should be near the frontier of their field, and could/should start challenging their treaments and ideas on the physiological/molecular front, instead of relying on a memorized decision tree that leads to a differential.

 

[Lokhtar]

Do you only scan the abstracts for a confirmation of beliefs in Derwinism?

You recycled one desperate attempt that has was laughed at a decade ago, and one article that does not deal with a random mutation, but with an intentional (intelligently designed by the authors) base change. And the original function of the protein is lost!!

So?

 

[Lokhtar]

I think we might be going around in circles, and that might be due to a disconnect in terms of what you're looking for and what I think you are looking for. So let me paint a scenario and you can tell me which option you think can't happen or hasn't been shown to happen:

Let's say you have a gene consisting of the following sequence of nucleotides:

ATCGGATTA

And that this gene codes for a specific protein that has a specific function.

Are you saying:

1. That the nucleotides in this gene cannot mutate?
2. It can do the above, that the genome cannot increase in size?
3. It can do all of the above, but a post-mutation gene cannot do the job better than pre-mutated gene?
4. It can do all of the above, but that a post-mutation gene cannot do a job different than what the pre-mutated gene did?

I think if you can answer which numbers you agree with, we can move forward and narrow our discussion down and this way, I know exactly what type of evidence you are looking for.

Of course, if you agree with all four, there is no discussion here, because that's pretty much evolution.

 

[majahops]

I can't believe you guys are letting this dude suck you in and take his religious contentions seriously. He has no intention of listening to reason on this specific topic, I assure you (even if he claims he does). He gains his own sense of self-righteousness in his religiosity when you take him seriously by actually engaging in debate with him (because he can then think "well, at least it's debatable," when you and I know it's really not). Please save your breaths for the rational, truth-seeking, non-superstitious world. We need your minds nice and fresh over here in "reality."

 

[Luna1]

I disagree with you there. I think religion was (and still is) crucial for a functional society. I would even argue that most of our morals have a religious root.

What's to stop the poor, jealous people from simply killing the rich successful ones in our society? Because they believe they're going to have to answer someone in the afterlife.

If there was no hope (false or not) for anyone in this world it would be a hell of a lot uglier than it is now.

So here comes out the real reason for perpetuating "religion" - to control the masses and anesthetize them with threats about the afterlife, while the select few on top suck out their lifeblood.

Also please do not confuse faith with religion. Non of us doubts your entitlement to faith, believing in whatever you want, Scientology or not. However, religion as an organized faction wants to threaten us into making policy decisions and judgments about scientific achievements based on faith. By definition science is based on empirical observations and creationism or it's latest disguise, intelligent design, just doesn't cut it as science.

No other developed country has such a big number of evolution doubters as the US. For shame!

 

[Upgrayedd]

Can't we talk about Dr. Hood!!! Who cares about this whole religion debate. Leave it to Dawkins and Ben Stiller, they are far more entertaining anyway!