Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 133

Thread: The book Darwin Devolves

  1. #51
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,019
    Amen (Given)
    47
    Amen (Received)
    421
    Yesterday yet another damning review of Darwin Devolves was released, this time by two biology professors at Lehigh University, Behe's own school.

    Evolution unscathed: Darwin Devolves argues on weak reasoning that unguided evolution is a destructive force, incapable of innovation

    The central premise of Darwin Devolves—alluded to in the title—is that the combination of random mutation and natural selection, in addition to being incapable of generating novelty, is a powerful degradative force. Darwin Devolves contains a few factual errors and many errors of omission that have been pointed out by others (Lents and Hunt 2019; Lents et al. 2019), but it is two critical errors of logic that undermine Behe's central premise that degradative mutations cripple evolution. First, Behe falsely equates the prevalence of loss‐of‐function mutations to the inevitable degradation of biological systems and the impossibility of evolution to produce novelty. By selective presentation of data, he exaggerates the role of degradative processes in evolution. Second, as he has previously, Behe attempts to argue from analogy, equating proteins with machines and convincing us that machines cannot evolve. Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality. Showing that a hammer cannot evolve into a fishing rod tells us nothing about real constraints on protein evolution.



    By reviewing Behe's latest book, we run the risk of drawing attention—or worse, giving credibility—to his ideas. Books like Darwin Devolves, however, must be openly challenged and refuted, even if it risks giving publicity to misbegotten views. Science benefits from public support. Largely funded by federal grants, scientists have a moral responsibility (if not a financial obligation) to ensure that the core concepts of our respective fields are communicated effectively and accurately to the public and to our trainees. This is particularly important in evolutionary biology, where—over 150 years after On the Origin of Species—less than 20% of Americans accept that humans evolved by natural and unguided processes (Gallup 2014). It is hard to think of any other discipline where mainstream acceptance of its core paradigm is more at odds with the scientific consensus.
    Worth the read as it goes into some detail of the blunders and deliberate misrepresentation Behe has become infamous for.

  2. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #52
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,480
    Amen (Given)
    1388
    Amen (Received)
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Could you post more specific links? Glad to make amends if I did this.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Post #53, #54, and #58

    The paper the blog is about: Gayle K. Philip and Stephen J. Freeland, “Did Evolution Select a Nonrandom ‘Alphabet’ of Amino Acids?”

    'Chance alone.' cannot explain anything, nor does it cause anything, and it is not the basis of scientific explanations. Laws of Nature are the explanation and the natural process of evolution over millions of years.

    This citation was from the abstract of an article without any article available. I requested you provide the article to put the citation in context, and you failed, and just repeated the reference.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. #53
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    784
    Amen (Given)
    236
    Amen (Received)
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    Yesterday yet another damning review of Darwin Devolves was released, this time by two biology professors at Lehigh University, Behe's own school.
    Source: Lehigh

    Behe falsely equates the prevalence of loss‐of‐function mutations to the inevitable degradation of biological systems and the impossibility of evolution to produce novelty.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Well, that's an overstatement, Behe shows that evolution usually selects mutations that break or degrade a gene.

    Source: Lehigh

    Behe rightly points out that loss‐of‐function mutations are common in evolution, and that breaking or blunting a functional gene can sometimes be beneficial. This leads Behe to conclude that irreversible and deteriorating mutations are the only inevitable outcome (the “poison pills”) of unguided evolution.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Again overstating Behe's point.

    Source: Lehigh

    Behe attempts to argue from analogy, equating proteins with machines and convincing us that machines cannot evolve. Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality.

    © Copyright Original Source


    But where is the argument here? Is this all they can say in reply?

    Source: Lehigh

    Compared to the vast majority of natural genetic variants, loss‐of‐function variants have a much lower allele‐frequency distribution (MacArthur et al. 2012).

    © Copyright Original Source


    But I'm not sure how they're getting that from the MacArthur paper:

    Source: MacArthur

    Here we apply stringent filters to 2951 putative LoF variants obtained from 185 human genomes to determine their true prevalence and properties. We estimate that human genomes typically contain ~100 genuine LoF variants with ~20 genes completely inactivated.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    As I have heard there are about 10-100 mutations per generation.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Last edited by lee_merrill; 03-14-2019 at 08:40 PM.
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  5. #54
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    784
    Amen (Given)
    236
    Amen (Received)
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Post #53, #54, and #58

    The paper the blog is about: Gayle K. Philip and Stephen J. Freeland, “Did Evolution Select a Nonrandom ‘Alphabet’ of Amino Acids?”

    'Chance alone.' cannot explain anything, nor does it cause anything, and it is not the basis of scientific explanations. Laws of Nature are the explanation and the natural process of evolution over millions of years.

    This citation was from the abstract of an article without any article available. I requested you provide the article to put the citation in context, and you failed, and just repeated the reference.
    Though I think I'm allowed to quote from an abstract!

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  6. #55
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,493
    Amen (Given)
    2392
    Amen (Received)
    1692
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    One way to verify that God is real is to ask him to reveal himself to you if he exists. "
    Merely asking the question implies belief in his existence or do you ask all the gods?

    Those who seek, find."
    Confirmation bias will likely lead you to that conclusion if you are desperate enough.

    (Jesus)
    Not Jesus, but whoever wrote Matthew around 85 CE.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. Amen Seeker amen'd this post.
  8. #56
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    46,219
    Amen (Given)
    991
    Amen (Received)
    17052
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Source: Lehigh

    Behe falsely equates the prevalence of loss‐of‐function mutations to the inevitable degradation of biological systems and the impossibility of evolution to produce novelty.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Well, that's an overstatement, Behe shows that evolution usually selects mutations that break or degrade a gene.
    Actually, that is Behe's claim, which as we can see by the polar bear example is poorly backed by cherry-picked evidence and misrepresentation.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  9. #57
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,418
    Amen (Given)
    564
    Amen (Received)
    1391
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Source: Lehigh

    Behe attempts to argue from analogy, equating proteins with machines and convincing us that machines cannot evolve. Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality.

    © Copyright Original Source


    But where is the argument here? Is this all they can say in reply?
    No, it's not all they can say in reply, or even all that they do say in reply. The argument can be found in the very next sentence:
    Source: ibid

    ]"Behe attempts to argue from analogy, equating proteins with machines and convincing us that machines cannot evolve. Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality. Showing that a hammer cannot evolve into a fishing rod tells us nothing about real constraints on protein evolution."

    © Copyright Original Source

    Why didn't you quote that sentence, Dory?

    Further expansion on the argument can be found later in the article:
    Source: ibid

    Proteins are promiscuous. They moonlight, by chance interacting with other cellular components to effect phenotype outside their traditionally ascribed roles. These adventitious functions can be strengthened by selection, allowing a protein to assume a new or a dual role. This topic was raised in a recent review of Darwin Devolves in Science, where the authors highlight a study that employed experimental evolution to strengthen the weak nascent ability of a protein in the histidine biosynthesis pathway to act on a similar substrate in tryptophan biosynthesis. For multifunctional proteins, gene duplication and divergence can parse specific functions into separate proteins, each now free to specialize to its own task.

    By acknowledging the reality that proteins are proteins, and not machines, we immediately recognize the shortcomings of irreducible complexity—a central pillar of the intelligent design movement. An irreducibly complex system, as defined by Behe, is “a single system composed of several well‐matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (p230).” Such systems, according to Behe, could not have arisen by unguided evolution. The concept of irreducible complexity is flawed for two reasons. First, it considers a system only in its current state and assumes that complex interdependency has always existed. Second, irreducible complexity does not consider that proteins perform multiple functions and, therefore, evolutionary paths that seem unlikely when considering only one function may be realized through a series of stepwise improvements on another function.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source: Lehigh

    Compared to the vast majority of natural genetic variants, loss‐of‐function variants have a much lower allele‐frequency distribution (MacArthur et al. 2012).

    © Copyright Original Source


    But I'm not sure how they're getting that from the MacArthur paper:

    Source: MacArthur

    Here we apply stringent filters to 2951 putative LoF variants obtained from 185 human genomes to determine their true prevalence and properties. We estimate that human genomes typically contain ~100 genuine LoF variants with ~20 genes completely inactivated.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source

    They probably read the paper:
    Source: ibid

    the signature of strong purifying selection against high-confidence LoF variants as a class, and the discovery of numerous known and predicted severe recessive disease alleles, indicates that many LoF alleles with large effects on human fitness exist at low frequency in the human population.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Quote-mining coprolite.
    Last edited by Roy; 03-15-2019 at 04:13 AM.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

  10. #58
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,480
    Amen (Given)
    1388
    Amen (Received)
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Though I think I'm allowed to quote from an abstract!

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Anyone can cite from anything, but you made the accusation that an article was not available only the abstract to understand what was cited. This the case with your reference, only the abstract was cited and no article was available without the article and conclusions to put your citation in context. Your citation was misleading from the context of the intent of the author's intent.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  11. #59
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,150
    Amen (Given)
    74
    Amen (Received)
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Source: Lehigh

    Behe falsely equates the prevalence of loss‐of‐function mutations to the inevitable degradation of biological systems and the impossibility of evolution to produce novelty.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Well, that's an overstatement, Behe shows that evolution usually selects mutations that break or degrade a gene.
    That's kind of the whole point: he doesn't show that, because it's not true. The review cites extensive data showing that's only likely to be true in lab-based long term evolution experiments.

    Behe wants to believe that, because it makes a nice argument. But as we all know, what we want to be true and what is true can be very different.

  12. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  13. #60
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,150
    Amen (Given)
    74
    Amen (Received)
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Though I think I'm allowed to quote from an abstract!
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    They probably read the paper:[cite=ibid]the signature of strong purifying selection against high-confidence LoF variants as a class, and the discovery of numerous known and predicted severe recessive disease alleles, indicates that many LoF alleles with large effects on human fitness exist at low frequency in the human population.
    You're "allowed" to do anything you want. To participate in an honest debate, however, you also need to make sure what you're quoting accurately represents the content of the paper.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •