Originally posted by TheLurch
View Post
Did you actually read this? Because that's not at all what's said in the press release your link directs to.
The point you are "granting" me is that you completely misunderstood the meaning of two fairly straightforward sentences - you interpreted them as saying what you wanted them to say, rather than what the words meant.
With that out of the way, it seems like you've finally accepted the point made by the Lehigh-based reviewers of Behe's book: the null mutations that frequently arise in lab-based adaptations are not generally adaptive, because they only provide fitness in a limited range of environmental conditions (typically 1, but i'm feeling generous).
If that's the case - and again, I haven't read Behe's book - then his whole argument is a farce. He's trying to claim that evolution mostly acts by breaking things. A hypomorphic mutation is no more a broken version of the gene than your TV is broken if you turn the brightness down. It retains function, which means (unlike a null mutation) it can be subject to further selection, which can change its activity further. In fact, a simple duplication of the gene would typically be enough to double its activity. Thus, it creates no barrier to evolution at any level.
Blessings,
Lee
Comment