Nice defense of Evolution

[TheLurch]

Sequence similarity, I would say.

And you'd be wrong. This is pretty fundamental biology. I'd point out that, if you don't know this, you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions about biology, but it's clear that your lack of knowledge will never stop you from doing so.

Genes with similar sequences could be homologs, orthologs, or paralogs. Which of these the genes are is defined entirely by their evolutionary relationships. So, Axe is using the evolutionary understanding built by others in order to do his work.

[TheLurch]

I think there's been a misunderstanding, Evolution News was referencing the paper by Tokuriki and Tawfik.

Oh yes, the one that says "We describe ways of predicting and analyzing stability effects of mutations, and mechanisms that buffer or compensate for these destabilizing effects and thereby promote protein evolvabilty, in nature and in the laboratory."

[Seeker]

LOL! Good one lee! An almost 20 year old hand-wave by Behe as your "evidence". How will evolutionary biology ever survive your intellectual onslaught?

I should apologize for having "amem'd" this post. I am not on board with overt sarcasm against Christians on this website anymore. Sorry about that Lee. It was an accident.

[lee_merrill]

Genes with similar sequences could be homologs, orthologs, or paralogs.

And I read here that "Homology is the blanket term, both ortho- and paralogs are homologs."

So, Axe is using the evolutionary understanding built by others in order to do his work.

Which should be fine, I think.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

It was an accident.

No problem!

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Oh yes, the one that says "We describe ways of predicting and analyzing stability effects of mutations, and mechanisms that buffer or compensate for these destabilizing effects and thereby promote protein evolvabilty, in nature and in the laboratory."

Yes, but you haven't finished addressing Evolution New's conclusion that this paper implies support for Axe.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but you haven't finished addressing Evolution New's conclusion that this paper implies support for Axe.

Blessings,
Lee

I can add simply no, because Axw's work implies assumptions not supported by the research cited in Evolution News. The research cited in the Evolution News was in the context of evolution, and Axe's was not. The Lurch can provide the details.

[TheLurch]

Yes, but you haven't finished addressing Evolution New's conclusion that this paper implies support for Axe.

How, exactly, does something that explains how evolution occurs provide support for something that claims evolution is impossible?

[lee_merrill]

How, exactly, does something that explains how evolution occurs provide support for something that claims evolution is impossible?

Well, we're all on a search for truth, are we not? And the claim is not that evolution is impossible, but that macro-evolution is improbable. As in the mutation of a protein to form a new function.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

And I read here that "Homology is the blanket term, both ortho- and paralogs are homologs."


Which should be fine, I think.

Blessings,
Lee

Don't think to hard. It is not fine, and it is the corruption and misuse of peer reviewed scientific research.