The book Darwin Devolves

[shunyadragon]

According to this paper, about half of the mutations are neutral, and about half are deleterious. So most gene duplications will provide only degraded genes for selection to work with (we can disregard neutral mutations, which are invisible to selection).


Agreed...

Blessings,
Lee

According to this paper?!?!?! The paper does not represent a scientific reference.

[rogue06]

According to this paper, about half of the mutations are neutral, and about half are deleterious. So most gene duplications will provide only degraded genes for selection to work with (we can disregard neutral mutations, which are invisible to selection).

Which paper?

From everything I've read neutral mutations, those that have no effect on fitness^[1], make up the vast majority of all mutations. IIRC they consist of something like 80 to 90% of all mutations.





1. In biology "fitness" doesn't mean faster, stronger etc. but being able to survive and reproduce therefore passing on the organism's genes.

[lee_merrill]

Which paper?

This paper here, quoted in "Debating Darwin's Doubt".

Blessings,
Lee

[HMS_Beagle]

According to this paper

The paper which describes the evolution of new protein function. Nice foot self-shooting there Lee.

[lee_merrill]

The paper which describes the evolution of new protein function.

Right, isn't that what is of interest? A gene duplicates, and then one copy can evolve new function.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Right, isn't that what is of interest? A gene duplicates, and then one copy can evolve new function.

Blessings,
Lee

Again, and than you have no problem with natural evolution.

[HMS_Beagle]

Right, isn't that what is of interest? A gene duplicates, and then one copy can evolve new function.

Which directly falsifies Behe's ridiculous claim evolution only works by "breaking things" and degrading information. BANG! Another shot to your own foot.

[TheLurch]

Well, I think the paper was referencing protein coding duplications: "the fitness distribution of mutations at the protein level". But surely mutations in regulatory DNA fit this profile too, where most mutations are neutral or deleterious.

You have no idea whether that's true or not.

And protein coding duplications are irrelevant if they don't also include the regulator DNA that ensures the proteins are expressed.

Why don't you bother to learn some biology if you intend to keep talking about it? It would save you from saying nonsensical stuff like this. And while you're at it, i'd also suggest saying nothing when you're ignorant.

[lee_merrill]

Which directly falsifies Behe's ridiculous claim evolution only works by "breaking things" and degrading information.

Behe doesn't say evolution only works this way, he says evolution generally devolves.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

You have no idea whether that's true or not.

I expect most mutations of any type follow the same pattern, where they are mostly neutral or deleterious. If you want to control something, and the control knob is twisted, you don't tend to get a better result.

And protein coding duplications are irrelevant if they don't also include the regulator DNA that ensures the proteins are expressed.

That's fine, that makes sense. I was intending the whole gene duplication, which would, upon consideration, include the regulatory DNA.

Why don't you bother to learn some biology if you intend to keep talking about it?

I do know some biology, though not as much as others here, but I find Behe's arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out.

This one just makes sense, selection will most often find broken or damaged genes to work with, and once selected and fixed, it is unlikely that the damage can be undone.

Blessings,
Lee

[Roy]

According to this paper, about half of the mutations are neutral, and about half are deleterious.

The three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

1) Quote their claim.
2) Quote their cited source
3) Note the glaring discrepancy.

In this case, Dory's source says this: "most of the mutations are either neutral or deleterious."

That does not mean that half are neutral and half deleterious.

[rogue06]

The three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

1) Quote their claim.
2) Quote their cited source
3) Note the glaring discrepancy.

In this case, Dory's source says this: "most of the mutations are either neutral or deleterious."

That does not mean that half are neutral and half deleterious.

If that's the case no wonder I couldn't find what he was talking about. I started to wonder what I had missed.

[lee_merrill]

The three step approach to refuting creationist garage:

1) Quote their claim.
2) Quote their cited source
3) Note the glaring discrepancy.

In this case, Dory's source says this: "most of the mutations are either neutral or deleterious."

That does not mean that half are neutral and half deleterious.

Then I quoted 40% are damaging, and 8% remove all function, and .1% are beneficial.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

I do know some biology, though not as much as others here, but I find Behe's arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out.

This one just makes sense, selection will most often find broken or damaged genes to work with, and once selected and fixed, it is unlikely that the damage can be undone.

Blessings,
Lee

facepalm mega.gif
Science isn't based on "this makes sense" but rather on what the evidence reveals. And that's ALL the evidence, not just the bits that you might think confirms what you have decided "makes sense."

[TheLurch]

Science isn't based on "this makes sense" but rather on what the evidence reveals.

He would make a great Aristotelean. Lousy scientist, but great Aristotelean.

Also, i'm debating what, exactly, this is an example of:

I do know some biology, though not as much as others here, but I find Behe's arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out.

Or, paraphrased, "I don't know as much as everybody here who's telling me that Behe is wrong, but in my ignorance, it's easy to convince myself that Behe is right." It's not quite Dunning-Kruger, but it is a sort of confirmation bias wedded with unjustified overconfidence, with a dash of the death of expertise thrown in. Is there a technical term for that?