The book Darwin Devolves

[lee_merrill]

The sickle-cell mutation does not break or degrade its gene.

I would call a mutation that causes a degraded protein a degraded gene, though.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I would call a mutation that causes a degraded protein a degraded gene, though.

Blessings,
Lee

You may, but not relevant to genetics and evolution. Back peddling does not address the fact both Roy and I cleared up your misinformation that; "The sickle-cell mutation does not break or degrade its gene."

[NorrinRadd]

Though I think I'm allowed to quote from an abstract!

Blessings,
Lee

That's not the point. Those with the scientific expertise to do so need to be able to look at the actual studies to see how the conclusions in the abstract were arrived at, and evaluate whether said conclusions are even valid.

[Roy]

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.

Actually, they use yeast as an example:

Evolution in brewer's yeast is long-term and lab-based. But maybe Dory thinks it's harvested anew from the wild every time a new vat is filled.

And how often does whole-genome duplication occur?

Often enough that your views on evolution can be ignored if you aren't aware of it.

Do your own research.

[Roy]

Once you've raised the subject of flagella and said "that's not reality" I expect to hear what is reality about the flagellum.

You did: "Showing that a hammer cannot evolve into a fishing rod tells us nothing about real constraints on protein evolution." But your quote-mine omitted that sentence.

This is not having a discussion, counterpoints are welcome.

You're right, this isn't a discussion. This is highlighting your ignorance and dishonesty.

There is no point trying to have a discussion with a wilfully ignorant quote-miner.

[Roy]

And mutations that break or degrade genes are indeed relevant to evolution, as in sickle-cell anemia.

The sickle-cell mutation does not break or degrade its gene.

I would call a mutation that causes a degraded protein a degraded gene, though.

The sickle-cell mutation does not cause a degraded protein.

What you call things is irrelevant. Your ignorance is not an argument.

[TheLurch]

Evolution in brewer's yeast is long-term and lab-based. But maybe Dory thinks it's harvested anew from the wild every time a new vat is filled. Often enough that your views on evolution can be ignored if you aren't aware of it.

There are long term yeast experiments, but this one happens to be studying existing genomes from a variety of fungi and tracing their history.

[TheLurch]

Ok, i've got to do nested quotes, because this is just incoherent.

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.t.

Actually, they use yeast as an example.

What does using yeast have to do with ANYTHING at issue here? The issue is whether Behe's claim, that evolution usually acts by disabling genes, is true. The organism used is completely orthogonal to that issue. So why in the world are you bringing it up?

And why do you next use a quote that confirms that Behe is wrong by showing that the evolution of new genes is at least as prevalent as their loss?

along the lineage leading to modern brewers’ yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), historical rates of gene loss and gene gain are nearly matched

After that own goal, you seem to randomly shift to asking irrelevant questions.

Yes, but what is selected by evolutionary pressure? And how often does whole-genome duplication occur?

What's that got to do with anything? They're so vague and general that it's impossible to tell what you're getting at, or how you think they relate to what we're discussing.


Again, i'm going to step back from the issues here, and look at the overall picture. You make a statement. I describe how it's wrong, and you ignore that for a while but pretend that the statement's still right in the mean time. I bring the issue up again, and you respond with incoherent gibberish, accidentally confirming the statement's wrong in the process. You then hit me with a couple of questions that are irrelevant to the subject at issue. At this point, I can't tell whether you're intentionally trying to waste my time, or simply so deep in Dunning-Krugerr that you've gotten involved in a debate where you can't even realize that you're not asking coherent and relevant questions. It's at the point where i'm reminded of a variant of Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

So, show me that i'm not wasting my time in trying to address your questions. Put in some effort here. Acknowledge that the evidence we've discussed shows that Behe is wrong, describe where you'd like to go with this discussion next, and then ask questions that are relevant to that.

[Roy]

There are long term yeast experiments, but this one happens to be studying existing genomes from a variety of fungi and tracing their history.

True. My point is that brewer's yeast in particular is lab-grown and has been for decades. Citing brewer's yeast as a counterpoint to something only likely to be true in lab-based long term evolution experiments is absurd.

[lee_merrill]

What does using yeast have to do with ANYTHING at issue here? The issue is whether Behe's claim, that evolution usually acts by disabling genes, is true. The organism used is completely orthogonal to that issue. So why in the world are you bringing it up?

I assumed they were using yeast in the wild, which may have been incorrect.

… but what is selected by evolutionary pressure? And how often does whole-genome duplication occur?

What's that got to do with anything? They're so vague and general that it's impossible to tell what you're getting at, or how you think they relate to what we're discussing.

The mutations (as you have said) are not evolution, mutations have to be selected due to evolutionary pressure. So even if the number of loss-of-function and gene gain mutations are about the same, until selection gets involved, evolution has not occurred.

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.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

The sickle-cell mutation does not cause a degraded protein.

Hemoglobin is a protein, however.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I assumed they were using yeast in the wild, which may have been incorrect.

It is correct (although this still doesn't explain how you think that relates to Behe being wrong). Which makes your next sentence completely mystifying.

The mutations (as you have said) are not evolution, mutations have to be selected due to evolutionary pressure. So even if the number of loss-of-function and gene gain mutations are about the same, until selection gets involved, evolution has not occurred.

They are not looking at mutations as they occur - they are looking across the history of 17 different groups of fungi. The vast majority, if not all, of those changes have had time for evolution to act on them. Selection has occurred in these cases, which you'd realize if you knew anything about the biology that you refuse to accept.

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.

Again, it wasn't said to do that. Learn some biology.

And again: it would be preferable if you'd learn some biology before starting to claim that one of the fundamental theories of biology has gotten it wrong.

[lee_merrill]

They are not looking at mutations as they occur - they are looking across the history of 17 different groups of fungi. The vast majority, if not all, of those changes have had time for evolution to act on them. Selection has occurred in these cases, which you'd realize if you knew anything about the biology that you refuse to accept.

All right, I didn't realize they were looking at genomes, not just mutations.

Again, it wasn't said to do that.

Source: Wapinski et. al.

Whole-genome duplication circumvents this constraint and relaxes the dichotomy, resulting in an expanded functional scope of gene duplication.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And there was a whole-genome duplication event, which as implied above, skews the dichotomy.

Blessings,
Lee

[Roy]

My emphasis:

Source: Wapinski et. al.

Whole-genome duplication circumvents this constraint and relaxes the dichotomy, resulting in an expanded functional scope of gene duplication.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And there was a whole-genome duplication event, which as implied above, skews the dichotomy.

So the authors say whole-genome duplication relaxes the dichotomy, i.e. decreases the difference - and (since "skew" means bias or distort) Dory seems to think they mean the difference increases.

Add that to his admission that he quoted an article about historical rates of gene loss without realising it was talking about historical mutations and his not seeming to know what the dichotomy referred to above even is, and it's clear he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

He did get one thing right, though:

Hemoglobin is a protein, however.

I suggest we stop on that high note.

[TheLurch]

I suggest we stop on that high note.

Spoil sport. I was going to ask him to explain what he thinks "relaxes the dichotomy" means in this context.