Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The book Darwin Devolves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Yes, as in a mutation that breaks or degrades a gene, yet this provides survival value.


    Yes, and Behe's argument is that mutations that help an organism survive are by and large, those that break or degrade genes. This would tend to limit what evolution can do.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Mutations are not defined as breaking or degrading genes.
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
      Sorry Dory but a mutation which increases survival potential is beneficial, not deleterious no matter what the effect is on the old genetic configuration.



      Behe's latest cherry-picked dishonesty has already been refuted by the scientific community. Why do you keep falling for the DI's anti-science propaganda?
      Because he is not interested in science per se. Rather he identifies with the unscientific goal of the Discovery Institute to replace scientific methodology with ‘pseudo-science’ consistent with Christian and theistic principles. In short, the bible takes priority and the purpose of science in his mind is to reinforce his religious presuppositions.
      “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.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
        Behe's latest cherry-picked dishonesty has already been refuted by the scientific community.
        Cherry-picking is right.

        Here's one of Behe's responses to his critics. Note the table at the bottom:
        Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/coyne-and-polar-bears-why-you-should-never-rely-on-incompetent-reviewers/


        Below is the relevant information from Liu et al.’s Table S7. Those who can understand the table will see that it supports every actual, undistorted claim I made about the polar bear.

        Table S7

        Gene Protein position Ancestral AA Polar bear AA HDivPred
        ABCC6 655 Q H probably damaging
        AIM1 821 N K possibly damaging
        APOB 716 N K possibly damaging
        APOB 749 D E possibly damaging
        APOB 2623 D N probably damaging
        APOB 3920 T P possibly damaging
        APOB 4418 L H probably damaging
        ARID5B 875 H Q probably damaging
        COL5A3 149 R S probably damaging
        COL5A3 694 K N probably damaging
        COL5A3 1117 D E possibly damaging
        CUL7 508 D N possibly damaging
        CUL7 1477 N K probably damaging
        IPO4 362 R W probably damaging
        LAMC3 791 D E probably damaging
        LYST 1046 D Y possibly damaging
        LYST 2978 R S probably damaging
        LYST 3784 Q H probably damaging
        OR8B8 48 L V probably damaging
        POLR1A 413 K N possibly damaging
        TTN 995 S I possibly damaging
        TTN 26365 E D probably damaging
        VCL 296 E D probably damaging
        VCL 600 S R probably damaging
        XIRP1 1378 T N possibly damaging

        © Copyright Original Source



        The actual table was shown here:
        cherry_table.jpg

        Behe has stripped out all the lines that show non-damaging mutations and the columns that show that some of the lines he's included may not be damaging after all.
        He has also skipped over the fact that "damaging" in this context merely means "affecting function", without any regard to whether the change is deleterious or beneficial.

        Behe thus gives the impression that all mutations are damaging, when this is known not to be the case.

        Why do you keep falling for the DI's anti-science propaganda?
        Because he wants to.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          Cherry-picking is right.

          Here's one of Behe's responses to his critics. Note the table at the bottom:
          Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/coyne-and-polar-bears-why-you-should-never-rely-on-incompetent-reviewers/


          Below is the relevant information from Liu et al.’s Table S7. Those who can understand the table will see that it supports every actual, undistorted claim I made about the polar bear.

          Table S7

          Gene Protein position Ancestral AA Polar bear AA HDivPred
          ABCC6 655 Q H probably damaging
          AIM1 821 N K possibly damaging
          APOB 716 N K possibly damaging
          APOB 749 D E possibly damaging
          APOB 2623 D N probably damaging
          APOB 3920 T P possibly damaging
          APOB 4418 L H probably damaging
          ARID5B 875 H Q probably damaging
          COL5A3 149 R S probably damaging
          COL5A3 694 K N probably damaging
          COL5A3 1117 D E possibly damaging
          CUL7 508 D N possibly damaging
          CUL7 1477 N K probably damaging
          IPO4 362 R W probably damaging
          LAMC3 791 D E probably damaging
          LYST 1046 D Y possibly damaging
          LYST 2978 R S probably damaging
          LYST 3784 Q H probably damaging
          OR8B8 48 L V probably damaging
          POLR1A 413 K N possibly damaging
          TTN 995 S I possibly damaging
          TTN 26365 E D probably damaging
          VCL 296 E D probably damaging
          VCL 600 S R probably damaging
          XIRP1 1378 T N possibly damaging

          © Copyright Original Source



          The actual table was shown here:
          [ATTACH=CONFIG]35593[/ATTACH]

          Behe has stripped out all the lines that show non-damaging mutations and the columns that show that some of the lines he's included may not be damaging after all.
          He has also skipped over the fact that "damaging" in this context merely means "affecting function", without any regard to whether the change is deleterious or beneficial.

          Behe thus gives the impression that all mutations are damaging, when this is known not to be the case.
          I admire your efforts and time put into documenting this. I just looked at it shaking my head, and could not follow Alice down the rabbit hole.


          Because he wants to.
          I call it 'Blind' devotion to 'Intelligent Design' based on an unteniable religious agenda.
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            There's a couple of publications out today that seem very relevant to the thread. The first is on the origin of completely new genes from non-coding DNA. Using a variety of rice strains and their wild relatives, researchers estimate that this lineage adds genes at a rate of over 50 every million years.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0822-5

            Were the polar bear to have a similar rate of gene addition, it would have generated more than double the number of genes Behe lists as being potentially disabled by mutations since its split with brown bears a million years ago. So, that's an indication that Behe is cherry picking on an additional level, by only focusing on one mechanism of evolution.


            The second paper's a re-evaluation of the Cambrian explosion. And, rather than viewing it as its own thing, it places it in a larger context, suggesting that it was one of a series of major radiations of different groups of animals. The first of this series date back to the Ediacaran, and other radiations took place after the Cambrian. The reason we focus on the one in the Cambrian is it involved the bilaterians, which is the group that includes us and most of the animals we care about.
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0821-6

            So, rather than "OMG, those evolutionists can't explain this!", it's more of a "well, this happened before and it happened after, so this is nothing unusual."
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              There's a couple of publications out today that seem very relevant to the thread. The first is on the origin of completely new genes from non-coding DNA. Using a variety of rice strains and their wild relatives, researchers estimate that this lineage adds genes at a rate of over 50 every million years.
              https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0822-5

              Were the polar bear to have a similar rate of gene addition, it would have generated more than double the number of genes Behe lists as being potentially disabled by mutations since its split with brown bears a million years ago. So, that's an indication that Behe is cherry picking on an additional level, by only focusing on one mechanism of evolution.


              The second paper's a re-evaluation of the Cambrian explosion. And, rather than viewing it as its own thing, it places it in a larger context, suggesting that it was one of a series of major radiations of different groups of animals. The first of this series date back to the Ediacaran, and other radiations took place after the Cambrian. The reason we focus on the one in the Cambrian is it involved the bilaterians, which is the group that includes us and most of the animals we care about.
              https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0821-6

              So, rather than "OMG, those evolutionists can't explain this!", it's more of a "well, this happened before and it happened after, so this is nothing unusual."
              The bolded part seems to be confirming of the idea that Behe focuses his attention on "Darwinian" evolution which appears to be for him to be concentrated solely on natural selection to the exclusion of other natural mechanisms[1]. Of course nobody, even Darwin, thought that natural selection was the only mechanism involved. After all, he did write an entire book discussing sexual selection for instance.





              1. IIRC Behe did at one time very briefly discuss other evolutionary mechanisms (such as genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, Epigenetics and developmental evolution -- evo-devo) only to dismiss them as unimportant.

              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)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                Behe thus gives the impression that all mutations are damaging, when this is known not to be the case.
                Well, in the book Behe acknowledges some beneficial / benign mutations in the polar bear, and says this in the article:

                Source: Evolution News

                65%-83% of helpful, positively-selected genes are estimated to have suffered at least one damaging mutation. … It has been my experience that one very common way for opponents to try to discredit an argument is to exaggerate it, to ignore distinctions an author makes, and/or to change carefully qualified claims into bizarre absolutes.

                Source

                © Copyright Original Source


                So Behe is not making an absolute claim that harming genes is the only way that unguided mutations can ever help an organism.
                Blessings,
                Lee
                Last edited by lee_merrill; 03-11-2019, 07:51 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)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  IIRC Behe did at one time very briefly discuss other evolutionary mechanisms (such as genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, Epigenetics and developmental evolution -- evo-devo) only to dismiss them as unimportant.
                  Yes, and an entire chapter of Darwin Devolves is devoted to other-than-natural-selection scenarios. Let's read the book first and then analyze his arguments!

                  Source: Darwin Devolves

                  A very interesting question that might be asked, as an example, is how evo-devo manipulations might lead to the toothed gears in the legs of Issus coeleoptratus, discussed in Chapter 2. Exactly what master genes and which switches would change gradually to lead to that remarkable structure? Yet more than three decades after the discovery of master genes, no real progress has been made toward specifying in detail exactly how they could lead to an evolutionary explanation for some identifiable complex feature.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  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)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    The second paper's a re-evaluation of the Cambrian explosion. And, rather than viewing it as its own thing, it places it in a larger context, suggesting that it was one of a series of major radiations of different groups of animals. The first of this series date back to the Ediacaran, and other radiations took place after the Cambrian. The reason we focus on the one in the Cambrian is it involved the bilaterians, which is the group that includes us and most of the animals we care about.
                    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0821-6

                    So, rather than "OMG, those evolutionists can't explain this!", it's more of a "well, this happened before and it happened after, so this is nothing unusual."
                    Yet this all seems rather vague:

                    Source: Nature

                    We propose that the evolution of metazoans may have been facilitated by a series of dynamic and global changes in redox conditions and nutrient supply, which, potentially together with biotic feedbacks, enabled turnover events that sustained multiple phases of radiation.

                    Source

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    Yet they are not showing us a lineage of Ediacaran animals to Cambrian animals.

                    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)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Yet this all seems rather vague:

                      Source: Nature

                      We propose that the evolution of metazoans may have been facilitated by a series of dynamic and global changes in redox conditions and nutrient supply, which, potentially together with biotic feedbacks, enabled turnover events that sustained multiple phases of radiation.

                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      Yet they are not showing us a lineage of Ediacaran animals to Cambrian animals.
                      And "God did it" isn't vague?
                      “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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Yet this all seems rather vague:

                        Source: Nature

                        We propose that the evolution of metazoans may have been facilitated by a series of dynamic and global changes in redox conditions and nutrient supply, which, potentially together with biotic feedbacks, enabled turnover events that sustained multiple phases of radiation.

                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Yet they are not showing us a lineage of Ediacaran animals to Cambrian animals.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        Let me take a wild guess: you've only read the abstract, and not the body of the paper.

                        I'll also guess that, based on your performances in other recent threads, even if we provided you a copy, you wouldn't read it.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I admire your efforts and time put into documenting this.
                          Wasn't me that found it - follow the links.

                          Actually, don't - I put the wrong link in. Try here.
                          Last edited by Roy; 03-12-2019, 04:42 AM.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, in the book Behe acknowledges some beneficial / benign mutations in the polar bear, and says this in the article:

                            Source: Evolution News

                            65%-83% of helpful, positively-selected genes are estimated to have suffered at least one damaging mutation. … It has been my experience that one very common way for opponents to try to discredit an argument is to exaggerate it, to ignore distinctions an author makes, and/or to change carefully qualified claims into bizarre absolutes.

                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source


                            So Behe is not making an absolute claim that harming genes is the only way that unguided mutations can ever help an organism.
                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            The bolded section is exactly what Behe did here - exaggerating the number of "damaging" mutations. He is projecting his own tactics onto others.

                            He exaggerated here too:
                            Source: ibid, my emphasis

                            A second highly-selected gene, LYST, is associated with pigmentation, and changes in it are probably responsible for the blanching of the ancestor’s brown fur. Computer analysis of the multiple mutations of the gene showed that they, too, were almost certainly damaging to its function.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Only one of the mutations of LYST was listed as not being benign by either analysis method. Most were evaluated as benign by both. And again, Behe is ignoring that "damaging" here means only that a change affects the chemical properties of the protein, it doesn't necessarily mean that the change is deleterious - it could have negligible effect on the protein's use, or even be beneficial.

                            You pointing out that he says some genes weren't damaged doesn't excuse his butchering of the data table.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              Yes, and an entire chapter of Darwin Devolves is devoted to other-than-natural-selection scenarios. Let's read the book first and then analyze his arguments!

                              Source: Darwin Devolves

                              A very interesting question that might be asked, as an example, is how evo-devo manipulations might lead to the toothed gears in the legs of Issus coeleoptratus, discussed in Chapter 2. Exactly what master genes and which switches would change gradually to lead to that remarkable structure? Yet more than three decades after the discovery of master genes, no real progress has been made toward specifying in detail exactly how they could lead to an evolutionary explanation for some identifiable complex feature.

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              The obvious response is that no progress has even been attempted toward specifying in detail exactly how they could lead to an intelligent design explanation for some identifiable complex feature.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                And "God did it" isn't vague?
                                No, that's very specific, like saying Henry Ford designed the Model T.

                                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)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X