The book Darwin Devolves

[lee_merrill]

It would, no question. But i'm trying to pin you down to an actual argument that can be evaluated based on evidence. Does that mean you think that, in the absence of a whole genome duplication, there would be a net loss of genes or not? It's a yes or no question.

For yeast, yes.

So, somehow, mammals have added genes compared to species that branched off their ancestors. If Behe were right, that shouldn't be possible.

Well, according to Behe, evolution cannot produce a new family.

No, it doesn't. It only does if mutations that disable genes are more adaptive over the long term, which neither you nor Behe has demonstrated, and which evidence suggests is not true.

Well, Behe examines bacteria, citing this research:

Source: Darwin Devolves

In the only work I’ve seen until quite recently that does focus on loss-of-function mutations as a general class, interesting in its own right, in 2013 researchers from Princeton and Columbia universities surveyed the literature and then conducted experiments of their own to see which bacterial genes could be broken causing the bug to grow better. They showed that “at least one beneficial [loss-of-FCT] mutation was identified in all but five of the 144 conditions considered.” In other words, a bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined. Several of the workers from the same group recently tested a more complex system, in which two different species of bacteria indirectly competed with each other, and showed that E. coli could adapt by damaging any of several genes. A brief comment on the original work by a news writer shows that the simple distinction between beneficial and constructive mutations has clicked for at least one person: “This study changes the widely held view that loss-of-function mutations are maladaptive.”

© Copyright Original Source

So "a bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined" does indicate that "mutations that disable genes are more adaptive over the long term". Also the quote about a molecular "Dollo's law" is relevant.

Any branching tree will produce the sort of pattern Behe is talking about...

Behe is talking about higher-order branches appearing first, then low-order branches, which is not what evolution is expected to do.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

For yeast, yes.


Well, according to Behe, evolution cannot produce a new family.


So "a bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined" does indicate that "mutations that disable genes are more adaptive over the long term". Also the quote about a molecular "Dollo's law" is relevant.


Behe is talking about higher-order branches appearing first, then low-order branches, which is not what evolution is expected to do.

Blessings,
Lee

. . . 'according to Behe' has not been an adequate argument as demonstrated by the Lurch, who has far more expertise in the field than either of us. Lurch has demonstrated many times that Behe's work is not science.

[TheLurch]

For yeast, yes.

So, you're using it as an explanation for the example we've discussed, but reserving the right to discard it entirely if we start discussing something else?

That doesn't make it a very compelling explanation.

Well, according to Behe, evolution cannot produce a new family.

Behe, as we've been going over, says lots of dumb stuff.

Mammalia contains multiple families. We've got genomes from many of them. If Behe wanted to demonstrate that gene loss was the primary driver of evolution, then he could do a cross-genome analysis and identify the gene losses that are driving it. If he thinks families can't arise though evolution, he should look at the changes between different families and identify the ones that acted as barriers to evolution. All the data he could possibly want has already been generated by other people - all he has to do is look at it.

He hasn't, and my bet is he never will. Nor will he bother to explain why, if gene loss is such a critical driver of evolution, all of mammalia - which has 26 orders (the level above family) - has a similar number of genes. Even bats, which have a third less total DNA than humans, have about the same number of genes as we do.

If gene losses are so incredibly important, why don't we actually see them?

So "a bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined" does indicate that "mutations that disable genes are more adaptive over the long term".

No, it doesn't. The quote indicates that most of the mutations that allow rapid adaptations to a single environmental change are losses of function. It does not indicate that same mutation is adaptive to more than one environmental change, much less the full spectrum of environmental changes seen in a natural environment.

This is basic logic here. Read the statement you're quoting carefully.

Behe is talking about higher-order branches appearing first, then low-order branches, which is not what evolution is expected to do.

You cannot possibly have a lower order branch before a higher one. Period. You can't start diversifying, say, chiroptera, until chiroptera exists in the first place. This is definitional, and i can't see how you or Behe could possibly not grasp it. The pattern we see is the only one possible.


So, in one post, you've failed basic logic not once but twice. Again, i have to ask - isn't that just a tiny bit embarrassing?

[TheLurch]

.the Lurch, who has far more expertise in the field than either of us.

That just means the evil Darwinistas have had more chance to indoctrinate me!

[Seeker]

That just means the evil Darwinistas have had more chance to indoctrinate me!

Unless this was complete sarcasm, the term ''Darwinist'' is even more innapropriate to describe evolution than ''Neo-Darwinism''. No one today subscribes solely to what Darwin said. As far as I know, it's rather a mixture of Darwinian natural selection with a couple more recently-discovered mechanisms (such as genetics, for example).

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[TheLurch]

Unless this was complete sarcasm...

Narrator: It was, in fact, complete sarcasm.

[Seeker]

Narrator: It was, in fact, complete sarcasm.

Good. Because I was afraid for a moment I couldn't trust you.

[shunyadragon]

Unless this was complete sarcasm, the term ''Darwinist'' is even more innapropriate to describe evolution than ''Neo-Darwinism''. No one today subscribes solely to what Darwin said. As far as I know, it's rather a mixture of Darwinian natural selection with a couple more recently-discovered mechanisms (such as genetics, for example).

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

This is the reason I object to the terms Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, because even though Charles Darwin developed the first comprehensive hypothesis for evolution he does not represent the science of evolution. Use of these terms comes close to advocating a scientific personality cult to the science of evolution.

I understood the Lurch's sarcasm.

[rogue06]

This is the reason I object to the terms Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, because even though Charles Darwin developed the first comprehensive hypothesis for evolution he does not represent the science of evolution. Use of these terms comes close to advocating a scientific personality cult to the science of evolution.

I understood the Lurch's sarcasm.

At least here in the U.S. "Darwinism" is almost exclusively used as a pejorative by evolution deniers. To be consistent they ought to refer to gravitational theory as Newtonism, quantum theory as Schrödingerism, the theory of relativity as Einsteinism and atomic theory as Daltonism

[Roy]

A beneficial adaptation that results from breaking can be found more easily than one that results from construction.

Which combined with the fact that it's easier to break a gene than it is to generate new material...

That's what I just said, Dory.

... means that most selected mutations will be degradative.

No it doesn't.

[Roy]

You cannot possibly have a lower order branch before a higher one. Period. You can't start diversifying, say, chiroptera, until chiroptera exists in the first place. This is definitional, and i can't see how you or Behe could possibly not grasp it. The pattern we see is the only one possible.


So, in one post, you've failed basic logic not once but twice. Again, i have to ask - isn't that just a tiny bit embarrassing?

Not only does Michael Behe not grasp this, but Stephen Meyer doesn't grasp it either. It's not surprising that Lee gets it the wrong way round when this error permeates the DI writings.

[Roy]

The quickest way to refute creationist clap-trap is to check their sources and see how often they don't support the creationist's claims.

Here's one example:

Including one whole-genome duplication, which I would say would be infrequent, given that such events are few in plants.

What does Dory's source actually say about whole-genome duplication in plants?

As of late 2012, all sequenced flowering plant species have at least one detected whole genome duplication in their evolutionary history.

Whole genome duplication is neither 'few' nor 'rare' in plants, it is common to the point of ubiquity. It is in fact far commoner in plants than in animals.

It's surprising that Dory is now saying that whole-genome duplication is infrequent, since last week he didn't know how often it occurred:

And how often does whole-genome duplication occur?
...
And whole-genome duplication was said to ameliorate the loss-of-function mutations, so then an important question is how often that is expected to occur.

Perhaps he forgot that he didn't know.

[rogue06]

Polyploid speciation among plants is common and occurs naturally (especially among angiosperms) with something like 30-70% of them thought to be polyploid, and it appears to be a very important part of plant evolution. It has also been seen in some fish such as goldfish and salmon.

[lee_merrill]

If gene losses are so incredibly important, why don't we actually see them?

That's a good point, we should see gene loss within family groupings, there should be a downward trend. Behe does examine a wide spectrum of animals, showing gene loss, but a more general search would be helpful. You might consider sending Michael Behe an email, he does respond to some emails.

So "a bacterium could improve its lot by breaking a gene in over 96 percent of environmental circumstances examined" does indicate that "mutations that disable genes are more adaptive over the long term".

No, it doesn't. The quote indicates that most of the mutations that allow rapid adaptations to a single environmental change are losses of function. It does not indicate that same mutation is adaptive to more than one environmental change, much less the full spectrum of environmental changes seen in a natural environment.

Well, certainly, but further work has been done, confirming the trend:

Source: Darwin Devolves

Several of the workers from the same group recently tested a more complex system, in which two different species of bacteria indirectly competed with each other, and showed that E. coli could adapt by damaging any of several genes.

© Copyright Original Source

You cannot possibly have a lower order branch before a higher one. Period. You can't start diversifying, say, chiroptera, until chiroptera exists in the first place.

Right, but given all the tree, evolution is expected to produce lower-order branches first. Diversification should start small, and grow large, but we see the opposite happening in the fossil record.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Whole genome duplication is neither 'few' nor 'rare' in plants, it is common to the point of ubiquity. It is in fact far commoner in plants than in animals.

Well, one duplication (or a few) in all of a plant's evolutionary history would indeed seem to be a rare event.

Blessings,
Lee