The book Darwin Devolves

[Roy]

Most people here don't seem to understand the point Behe is making in his fantastic book, and his peer-reviewed scientific paper he built the idea in.

Everyone here (except possibly Dory) understands it. You are confusing criticism with misunderstanding.

Let me make it clear and simple, so even the densest Darwinist among us can understand it.

Beneficial adaptation can be found much easier by breaking than by constructing.

Well, that's a fail.

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

[lee_merrill]

The yeast example shows that many of the changes that have been selected for survival involve gene duplications - which are selected for at least as often as the loss of a gene.

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

So yes, if you ignore one of the major sources of non-disabling mutations, disabling mutations look much more frequent. That doesn't make this a good argument, though.

But Behe looks at many examples, while mentioning gene duplication, and cites a trend.

The example Behe himself cites is also problematic. It is a loss of function mutation seen in Lenski's experiment - but it's one we do not see in populations in the wild. All of them have intact DNA repair systems. If it really is generally advantageous to disable these genes outside of lab experiments, we'd be seeing it happen.

I have heard that bacteria under stress from medications can turn on a fast mutation mode, possibly mentioned here. It would be interesting to know if such fast mutation modes were degradative mutations.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

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 means that most selected mutations will be degradative. Evolution doesn't distinguish between a desperate remedy and a wholly beneficial one.

Blessings,
Lee

[HMS_Beagle]

Most people here don't seem to understand the point Behe is making in his fantastic book, and his peer-reviewed scientific paper he built the idea in. Let me make it clear and simple, so even the densest Darwinist among us can understand it.

Actually pretty much everyone in science understands Behe's ignorance and duplicity. Science has known for 70 years evolution works my modifying existing structures found in the previous generation. That sometimes means "breaking" genes which are no longer useful and changing them into something which is beneficial. It also means making copies of functioning genes so the duplicates are free to mutate and provide new beneficial functions as the environment changes. Behe ignores basically the whole scientific literature which documents the evolutionary formation of new functions and relies 100% on his dishonestly selected cherry-picked examples.

The "peer reviewed scientific paper" by Behe wasn't any actual research by him. it was a literature review where all he did was cherry-pick the work of others, made unjustified conclusions, and once again ignored all the scientific work which directly refuted his claims.

Behe's approach is like claiming since erosion can't explain mountain formation then mountains must be Intelligently Designed, completely ignoring all the other known geologic processes like plate tectonics.

There's are good reasons why Behe is viewed as a disingenuous clown by the large majority of the scientific community, and why Behe only published this horsecrap in popular press books for scientifically illiterate laymen.

[HMS_Beagle]

This has been total dominance by Michael Behe. He's singlehandedly answered every one of his critics' issues, and he's done so clearly and thoroughly, with dozens of citations, and eloquent writing. Oh, and he's done it all while being polite. What a scientist, and more importantly, what a man!

LOL! Tell us Baghdad Bob, how much did the DI pay you to write that steaming pile of butt-kissing science-free drivel? Even David Kinkyfluffer the DI's resident propaganda hack isn't that over-the-top. Or are you Behe himself writing phony reviews like Dembski got caught doing?

[shunyadragon]

Which combined with the fact that it's easier to break a gene than it is to generate new material means that most selected mutations will be degradative. Evolution doesn't distinguish between a desperate remedy and a wholly beneficial one.

Blessings,
Lee

This sounds like your describing an anthropomorphic description of evolution where evolution distinguishes(?) between the degree of how beneficial a mutation is. Your desperate ignorance is revealing itself.

Actually factors like the environment, changing environment, and competition for resources and living space are the determining factors whether the population evolves and changes via natural selection based on the genetic diversity of the population.

Sickle cell was a beneficial mutation because of the resistance to malaria was more important for survival of the population despite the down negative effects like anemia. In the history of life on earth large size was a survival advantage in competition between prey and predator, and resources. When the environment changed as in islands, and catastrophic events the large size became a 'desperate' disadvantage and large animals became extinct.



Evolution itself does not distinguish anything.

[TheLurch]

Which combined with the fact that it's easier to break a gene than it is to generate new material means that most selected mutations will be degradative.

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.

[TheLurch]

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

So, let me get your argument crystal clear:
You accept the evidence that there is no net loss of genes in this lineage, as duplications occur at a rate roughly equal to gene loss.
You ascribe this to a rare event: whole genome duplication.

Is that an accurate summation?

But Behe looks at many examples, while mentioning gene duplication, and cites a trend.

It's not a trend if it's not actually true. Unless there's something that's not been mentioned here yet, he hasn't shown what the overall rate of gene loss is.

[lee_merrill]

This sounds like your describing an anthropomorphic description of evolution where evolution distinguishes(?) between the degree of how beneficial a mutation is.

No, I said evolution does not distinguish...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

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:



Behe examines clover and horses, humans and dogs, bears and mammoths, showing for instance that dog breeds often vary by breaking genes. He also makes this point:



Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

So, let me get your argument crystal clear:
You accept the evidence that there is no net loss of genes in this lineage, as duplications occur at a rate roughly equal to gene loss.
You ascribe this to a rare event: whole genome duplication.

I'm saying that whole genome duplication, a rare event, adds substantially to net gain of genes.

It's not a trend if it's not actually true. Unless there's something that's not been mentioned here yet, he hasn't shown what the overall rate of gene loss is.

Well, that would be a herculean feat! But his argument does include some general conclusions, as above, and as here:

Source: Darwin Devolves

no

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I'm saying that whole genome duplication, a rare event, adds substantially to net gain of genes.


Well, that would be a herculean feat! But his argument does include some general conclusions, as above, and as here:

Source: Darwin Devolves

no

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

Hypothetical ideas based on an agenda "if they are right" does not reflect the reality of evolution in the real world.

[shunyadragon]

No, I said evolution does not distinguish...

Blessings,
Lee

It is still an anthropomophic depiction of what evolution would not or would distinguish. It does not make sense in the real world.

[TheLurch]

I'm saying that whole genome duplication, a rare event, adds substantially to net gain of genes.:

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.

Well, that would be a herculean feat! But his argument does include some general conclusions, as above, and as here:

No, it would be comically easy, given how many genomes we now have. You want to know why Behe isn't focusing on cross genome comparisons?

I'll give you 3 guesses.

First two don't count.

Because they don't support his argument.


How many genes are there in humans? A bit over 20,000. How many in chimps? A bit over 20,000. How many in mice? Broken record time - a bit over 20,000. Elephants? Same. Most of the difference in the count simply comes from how many different functional olfactory receptors a mammalian species has. You have to go all the way back to the platypus to find something with a significant difference, and that's got about 19,000. Marsupials, as evolution would predict, are somewhere in between with over 19,000. So, somehow, mammals have added genes compared to species that branched off their ancestors. If Behe were right, that shouldn't be possible.

Oh, and just to be clear: there have been no whole genome duplications within this lineage.

[TheLurch]

Well, Behe examines bacteria, citing this research:

Your quote doesn't address the issue i mentioned. I"ll ascribe that to the fact that you don't actually understand biology very well, rather than anything in particular about Behe's arguments.

That's perhaps the dumbest quote i've seen. Any branching tree will produce the sort of pattern Behe is talking about, regardless of the mechanism. Unless there's further information outside the quote you've chosen, this is just grasping at straws.