With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Darwin's Mechanism Doesn't Produce Design
- From Michael Behe
By Dr. Michael Behe - Author/Professor
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dr Behe should know better
In fact, Behe's claim is either tautological or it is wrong. Tautological because a Darwinian mechanism can never produce 'design' since design is the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance, in other words design can never include scientific explanations or the design disappears.
But perhaps Behe means that Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain what ID proponents have come to conclude were designed. That of course is a wrong statement because science not only can explain information and complexity, it can also explain perfectly natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems. In a recent change of heart, Behe has attempted, mostly based on overly simplistic arguments that evolution cannot explain certain specific aspects which he calls the "edge of evolution". Examples include a two site binding site. However, once again, Behe presents an overly simplistic strawman of evolution.
I find it troubling how ID scientists have to ignore scientific data and findings to support their claims and instead seem to resort to careful cherry picking of data and facts that suit their purposes. An example is the malaria resistance which Behe argues must have happened in two independent steps without the possibility of intermediates when in fact the opposite is the case as papers in this area have documented. Others have similarly shown how Behe's claims are contradicted by the evidence. So far, ID seems to have ignored these evidences.
And one still wonders why ID is considered to be scientifically vacuous by so many people, including many Christians. As a Christian and as a scientist I am appalled by the lack of scientific content of ID, but I am even more concerned by its dangerous theology which insists that God should be exposed to scientific disproof. After all, is that not what would happen if science were to show how a flagellum evolved? After all, the flagellum is argued to be 'designed' and since the design inference is 100% reliable lest it would be useless (Dembski), any scientific contributions which strengthen the already strong case of how the flagellum could have evolved, would undermine the concept of design, would it not?
Well, not really, after all the concept of design is not about the existence of a designer but about scientific processes being unable to explain a particular system. Surprised? I bet many would be and in fact, many would accept the erroneous claim that disproving ID would disprove God. ID is unable to place any of its hypotheses at any danger since it is an argument based on a negative.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 6:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PvM should know better
"In fact, Behe's claim is either tautological or it is wrong."
And to think that you accuse US of promoting a false dichotomy. :/
"Tautological because a Darwinian mechanism can never produce 'design' since design is the set theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity or chance, in other words design can never include scientific explanations or the design disappears."
So the only "scientific" explanations are ones which refer only to chance, law, or both, but not agency? Care to explain why?
"But perhaps Behe means that Darwinian mechanisms cannot explain what ID proponents have come to conclude were designed."
Pretty sure you can remove "perhaps" from that sentence. Behe spent the entire article explaining why he felt this was the case. He also pointed out why the excitement over the Lenski experiment should only be coming from our side.
"That of course is a wrong statement because science not only can explain information and complexity, it can also explain perfectly natural pathways to irreducibly complex systems."
Assuming that you're referring to materialistic science, I'm very eager to hear you explanation for how the first life emerged without resorting to any form of agency whatsoever.
"In a recent change of heart, Behe has attempted, mostly based on overly simplistic arguments that evolution cannot explain certain specific aspects which he calls the "edge of evolution"."
This is not a "change of heart," Behe has been stating for quite some time now that there are certain aspects of living systems which are beyond the reach of chance and necessity. EoE was just a more detailed explanation for where the edge lies based on data from HIV and whatnot.
"Examples include a two site binding site. However, once again, Behe presents an overly simplistic strawman of evolution."
See the above point. This conclusion was not based on a straw man, it was based on existing data from HIV (which has a mutation rate that some would call the evolutionary speed limit), E. coli, Malaria, etc. Doesn't seem to be any straw man there.
"I find it troubling how ID scientists have to ignore scientific data and findings to support their claims and instead seem to resort to careful cherry picking of data and facts that suit their purposes."
I'll drive the point again for the third time: his conclusions where based on existing data widely cited in the field of biology, if you can direct us all to experiments that show HIV, E. coli, Malaria, etc. are capable of more than what the studies he cites suggest, then it would prove he engaged in cherry picking.
"An example is the malaria resistance which Behe argues must have happened in two independent steps without the possibility of intermediates when in fact the opposite is the case as papers in this area have documented."
Just where on earth did he say it had to happen in two steps? I see in the book right now (hardcover) citing data for how often Malaria gains chloroquine resistance, but where'd you get the claim of a two-step change?
"Others have similarly shown how Behe's claims are contradicted by the evidence. So far, ID seems to have ignored these evidences."
Please show the visitors of this site just what those papers are. Give us some links at least, then I'll believe you.
- F2XL
March 5, 2009 6:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
PvM should know EVEN better.
"And one still wonders why ID is considered to be scientifically vacuous by so many people, including many Christians."
Yes, I most definitely do wonder why it is held to already have been falsified. What doesn't surprise me is that certain theistic critics happen to resurrect the same tired arguments over and over again. Especially when some of them (such as Ken Miller) decide to use them under oath:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/idea-co-founder-disembowels-ken-millers-strawman /
"As a Christian and as a scientist I am appalled by the lack of scientific content of ID, but I am even more concerned by its dangerous theology which insists that God should be exposed to scientific disproof."
I guess I can believe the christian part, you do seem to be following Ken Miller's model of debate. But why are you accusing ID of bringing god into the debate when clearly articles on this site by ID'ers discourage this, and then you yourself decide to engage in the same thing? No one on here is trying to say that the existence of the judeo-christian god is a scientific question, rather ID claims that it's possible to detect whether or not a feature of the natural world is likely to have arisen by an undirected process or a pre-planned one.
"After all, is that not what would happen if science were to show how a flagellum evolved?"
Have you guys come up with anything better then Matzke co-authoring a paper explaining that parts just popped into existence out of nowhere and just so happening to magically arrange themselves in the right location, the right order, the right changes in function, the right interface-compatibility, etc.
And to answer your question; no, a belief in a supernatural omni-potent entity (which I don't personally have) is not automatically falsified by showing that some particular feature of the natural world can arise without any intelligent intervention. The reason for this is because no one can say for sure how such a god would operate, and if the ONLY thing they would do is create flagella on various cells.
"After all, the flagellum is argued to be 'designed' and since the design inference is 100% reliable lest it would be useless (Dembski), any scientific contributions which strengthen the already strong case of how the flagellum could have evolved, would undermine the concept of design, would it not?"
See the above point.
"Well, not really, after all the concept of design is not about the existence of a designer but about scientific processes being unable to explain a particular system. Surprised?"
Actually it's about what put certain features of the natural world in place.
"I bet many would be and in fact, many would accept the erroneous claim that disproving ID would disprove God."
Not unless they assumed that ID was the only basis for a belief in a god of sorts (which ID'ers are not telling people to assume).
"ID is unable to place any of its hypotheses at any danger since it is an argument based on a negative."
If ID were based on the negative argument that evolution can't produce something, therefore it was design, then ID'ers would insist the rings around Saturn were designed for the same reason since no form of Darwin's theory could produce them. Of course this is not what they would ever even remotely consider, so why assume it's just a matter of contrived dualism?
- F2XL
March 9, 2009 9:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Misleading
Behe claims that "That is not the sort of process one needs to build complex molecular systems." when discussing the experiment by Richard Lenski. What Behe forgets to mention are the actual findings of the research such as
"Over the generations, in fits and starts, the bacteria did indeed evolve into faster breeders. The bacteria in the flasks today breed 75% faster on average than their original ancestor."
and they also showed some interesting findings that show how beneficial/detrimental depends on the environment
"Lenski and his colleagues have also shown how natural selection has demanded trade-offs from the bacteria; while they grow faster on a meager diet of glucose, they've gotten worse at feeding on some other kinds of sugars."
and a remarkable mutation which caused the bacteria to feast on the citrate
"But in one remarkable case, however, they discovered that a flask had turned cloudy without any contamination. It was E. coli chowing down on the citrate. The researchers found that when they put the bacteria in pure citrate, the microbes could thrive on it as their sole source of carbon."
and countering behe's claims, the evidence actually suggested that this was a change in multiple sites, something Behe has argued cannot happen
"This rise and fall and rise suggests that the evolution of citrate-eating was not a one-mutation affair. The first mutation (or mutations) allowed the bacteria to eat citrate, but they were outcompeted by some glucose-eating mutants that still had the upper hand. Only after they mutated further did their citrate-eating become a recipe for success."
In an earlier article in the NY Times, it was reported that these bacteria were not the same ones
"In that time, the bacteria have changed significantly. For one thing, they are bigger — twice as big on average as their common ancestor. They are also far better at reproducing in these flasks, dividing 70 percent faster than their ancestor. These changes have emerged through spontaneous mutations and natural selection, and Dr. Lenski and his colleagues have been able to watch them unfold."
Of course, none of these bacteria evolved into mammals, something hardly expected given the limited timescales involved, however contrary to Behe's claims, these bacteria started to feed on citrate even though such a feat required multiple changes.
It seems clear that even these trivial examples of hard scientific work show not only that ID remains scientifically vacuous but also that ID has to reject and ignore contradicting evidence that shows it to be wrong. What's even worse about ID being scientifically vacuous? In my opinion, ID being wrong and knowing it.
Read more about the experiment first hand at: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/index.html
- PvM
September 9, 2008 7:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Misleading - On PvM's part
"Behe claims that "That is not the sort of process one needs to build complex molecular systems." when discussing the experiment by Richard Lenski. What Behe forgets to mention are the actual findings of the research such as
"Over the generations, in fits and starts, the bacteria did indeed evolve into faster breeders. The bacteria in the flasks today breed 75% faster on average than their original ancestor.""
At what cost? Did these new super-breeders need to eliminate some proteins or functions from their systems in order to achieve this ability? Do the faster breeders still have the same efficiency in the functions Lenski describes? What about population size? Despite the rapid breeding, did the population size remain the same, or did they just draw the claim of rapid breeding based on the time it took for new generations to arise?
"and they also showed some interesting findings that show how beneficial/detrimental depends on the environment"
Now that's a spectacular way to cover one's ass when they know they've run into a wall. Just say that the fitness only depends on the environment, and even if they show some losses in their current environment, they would do just fine and possibly even better if we just tried a new set of environmental settings. So I'm assuming that when the nylonase only had 2% the efficiency of typical enzymes, it was because we just didn't have the right environment for the bacteria, am I right?
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:MX7Px_DB75IJ: www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm +nylonase+ evolution +The+new+enzymes+are+very+inefficient+(having+only+2%25+of+the+efficiency+of+the+regular+enzymes)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
"and a remarkable mutation which caused the bacteria to feast on the citrate"
This is only a fraction of the whole equation, did the bacteria retain the same efficiency? Did it retain the same population levels? Did it have to shed other functions in the process? Without this information we have no way of knowing if anything was gained or lost in this whole process.
"and countering behe's claims, the evidence actually suggested that this was a change in multiple sites, something Behe has argued cannot happen"
I'm assuming your referring to chloroquine resistance and Edge of Evolution? I'm sure it's more than likely to happen, but not without some loss in the original functionality of the organism in question. Speaking of multiple mutations.....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref =cm_blog_blog
Can wait to read the posts that follow....
"In an earlier article in the NY Times, it was reported that these bacteria were not the same ones"
Tell us the article please, just so we can know for sure you're not making this up.
"Of course, none of these bacteria evolved into mammals, something hardly expected given the limited timescales involved, however contrary to Behe's claims, these bacteria started to feed on citrate even though such a feat required multiple changes."
See the previous points. The question at hand is whether or not Darwin's mechanism can produce the "apparent" design in nature. Now for your claim to even be relevant to this question, I would suggest that you give us the full picture and explain whether or not the citrate feeding bacteria retained the same efficiency, breeding rate, and functionality as their earlier counter-parts.
"It seems clear that even these trivial examples of hard scientific work show not only that ID remains scientifically vacuous but also that ID has to reject and ignore contradicting evidence that shows it to be wrong."
It seems clear that even in this discussion you've decided to give answers to questions which you know will fit your accepted conclusion. You give all this talk about a new function evolving while giving no indication as to whether or not the same level of functionality was retained from the original population. I can't say I wonder why the results of the Lenski experiment have been called into question in the first place.
"What's even worse about ID being scientifically vacuous? In my opinion, ID being wrong and knowing it."
Sounds like a theory I know, but it isn't ID.....
- F2XL
March 9, 2009 10:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is the "Designer" Malevolent or Incompetent?
I don't follow Dr. Behe's reasoning in the following:
“For example, humans have acquired a number of helpful genetic changes in our battle with the malarial parasite over the past ten thousand years. The most well-known of these is the sickle cell mutation, which unfortunately can also lead to the lethal side effect of sickle cell disease.”
Let’s look at this: to counter the malarial parasite (presumably, another creation of this benevolent Intelligent Designer), a Designer tinkers over the millennia with our genes to confer partial immunity, but with the side-effect of lethal sickle-cell disease. Way to go!
Where is Ralph Nader when you really need him?
Surely, the imperfect nature of the mechanism here is what we would expect as 'work in progress' from natural selection rather than design?
- Megalonyx September 10, 2008 3:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good question
It seems that so far ID has focused on malaria and on the bacterial flagellum which shares homology with the type three secretory system, used by bacteria responsible for the bubonic plague. Seems that the designer has quite an interest in punishing humans.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 8:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh no, not that crap again...
Every time I hear a single word mentioned about the TTSS and that it somehow gives flagellar evolution some credibility I lose a few months off my life span. Well, then again maybe not. I'd be dead by now.
"It seems that so far ID has focused on malaria and on the bacterial flagellum which shares homology with the type three secretory system, used by bacteria responsible for the bubonic plague. Seems that the designer has quite an interest in punishing humans."
So are we asking if a telic force exists or are we trying to psychoanalyze the intentions behind it?
- F2XL
March 9, 2009 10:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your life is getting shorter and shorter
"I am debating it mainly to create a FAQ sheet for it"
Hilarious.
"I lose a few months off my life span"
The truth will do that to you????
"So are we asking if a telic force exists or are we trying to psychoanalyze the intentions behind it?"
Nope. We are ridiculing the ridiculous. The "negative argument" that " evolution cannot explain that" is ridiculous.
- onein6billion
March 11, 2009 8:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Somewhat shorter
"Hilarious."
Yeah, I probably shouldn't emulate something that distorts the truth so much. And YES, I'm referring to the talk origins index to creationist claims. ;D
"The truth will do that to you????"
Seeing that people throw it away altogether does make me wonder if what I'm doing is worth the time. And yes, I'm referring to the "TTSS makes flagellum reducibily complex" argument.
"Nope. We are ridiculing the ridiculous."
Whatever that means....
"The "negative argument" that " evolution cannot explain that" is ridiculous."
But what about your opinion on ID?
- F2XL
March 11, 2009 11:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ridiculous
"But what about your opinion on ID?"
ID is ridiculously and obviously not science . (Hint: we've been here before.)
- onein6billion
April 10, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Question which must be answered
"ID is ridiculously and obviously not science . (Hint: we've been here before.)"
Indeed, you've spent a lot of time saying ID is not science. But talk is cheap, give me a definition of science, explain why science must follow that definition, then explain what characteristics ID has (and why) that exclude it from that criteria.
- F2XL
April 13, 2009 11:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why isn't that part of it?
"So are we asking if a telic force exists or are we trying to psychoanalyze the intentions behind it?"
Why are these two questions always independent? I would think that any theory of ID that made no attempt to identify and analyze the designer was an incomplete theory. Also, wouldn't a clear theory on the designer (intentions and methods) be very useful in determining what aspects of the biological world were designed, why they were designed that way, and which were evolved.
- MrBook
March 11, 2009 5:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Because that would be beyond the scope of science
"Why are these two questions always independent?"
Because science as we know it today can only answer one of them.
"I would think that any theory of ID that made no attempt to identify and analyze the designer was an incomplete theory."
I would think not, since ID only tries to identify the features of the natural world which are designed... and nothing more. Asking questions about the designer are separate from determining if something was planned or not.
"Also, wouldn't a clear theory on the designer (intentions and methods) be very useful in determining what aspects of the biological world were designed, why they were designed that way, and which were evolved."
Maybe, but those questions can be inferred without knowledge of intentions and methods.
- F2XL
April 19, 2009 2:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A dodge?
"Because science as we know it today can only answer one of them."
Why not? What qualities does the designers have that make them beyond study?
"I would think not, since ID only tries to identify the features of the natural world which are designed... and nothing more. Asking questions about the designer are separate from determining if something was planned or not."
I don't see it that way. A theory quantifying the designers, which could be used to make accurate predictions about their next action, would solidify ID as a working theory. Without that then the argument that random mutation can only go so far, but not further (even when given an arbitrarily long period of time), is still a better discription.
"Maybe, but those questions can be inferred without knowledge of intentions and methods."
I would think that it would be beyond maybe. Knowing the nature of the designers would give a huge amount of insight into why they were designing life on this planet. Knowing the methods would allow us to replicate them in the laboratory.
We could also go and meet them, I know I've several complaints on this body they designed for me that I'd like to have cleared up.
- MrBook
April 27, 2009 10:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not really
"Why not? What qualities does the designers have that make them beyond study?"
Not being able to directly observe it. Thus conclusions are only drawn based on natural features in question.
"I don't see it that way."
Like it or not, that's the way ID works. It studies what we can observe and draws inferences from there.
"A theory quantifying the designers, which could be used to make accurate predictions about their next action, would solidify ID as a working theory."
Define a "working theory." And your basic point is that unless we can see the telic force in action then we cannot determine if something was the product of one correct?
"Without that then the argument that random mutation can only go so far, but not further (even when given an arbitrarily long period of time), is still a better discription."
So would you say then that sticking with the notion that mutations+selections has its limits is a better theory than saying a guidance of some kind brought some features in question to existence?
"I would think that it would be beyond maybe. Knowing the nature of the designers would give a huge amount of insight into why they were designing life on this planet."
I think we both agree that such knowledge would in fact give us huge insight, but are you also saying it's NECESSARY to know the nature of the intellect in order to identify systems and features as designed?
"Knowing the methods would allow us to replicate them in the laboratory."
Would you then say that ID is not science or is insufficient because it cannot be replicated or repeated?
"We could also go and meet them, I know I've several complaints on this body they designed for me that I'd like to have cleared up."
Yeah same here, much like how I would like to complain to GM for giving their Hummers a MPG of only 10 miles a gallon.
- F2XL
April 30, 2009 1:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CORRECTION: Is EVOLUTION malovent or incompetent?
"Let’s look at this: to counter the malarial parasite (presumably, another creation of this benevolent Intelligent Designer), a Designer tinkers over the millennia with our genes to confer partial immunity, but with the side-effect of lethal sickle-cell disease. Way to go!"
Uhhhh.... dude, that's the product of evolutionary processes you're talking about there, and I think you agree they're nothing to brag about.
"Where is Ralph Nader when you really need him?"
Screw him. Where is Ron Paul when you REALLY need him?
"Surely, the imperfect nature of the mechanism here is what we would expect as 'work in progress' from natural selection rather than design?"
It's definitely what we would expect from evolutionary processes. This is not a feature we attribute to design.
- F2XL
March 9, 2009 10:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cit+ required a prior mutation
The only thing I take issue with in this argument is the comments about Lenski's work with e. coli. I am not a scientist, but I was able to read Lenski's paper and understand it.
The paper was SPECIFICALLY about how the mutation allowing e. coli to begin metabolizing citrase (the Cit+ mutation) was dependent on some other prior mutation(s) that opened the evolutionary pathway. Lenski published without having identified the exact prior mutation, simply because of how exciting this result is. Let me make this perfectly clear, in case you don't want to read Lenski's paper: The evolution of the Cit+ e. coli required one or more mutations that may not have affected the survivability of the e. coli population.
This means that e. coli which was unable to eat citrates, mutated at least twice, changing it's chemical nanotechnology once, in a manner that may not have affected the survivability of the population, then later, a mutation allowed the bacteria to make use of an alternate food source.
This experiment IS the 'smoking gun.' We have observed evolution in the lab. We can repeat it. We can make predictions based on it.
Darwinian evolutionary science does not explain design, because it was never meant to. It explains exactly what we see, in the fossil record, in our own DNA, and now, in the lab: Small inheritable random variations accumulate over vast numbers of generations to modify organisms, raising the possibility of their gene's survival to the maximum.
- PStryder September 15, 2008 2:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Behe Misunderstands N.S. Mode of Operation.
Mr. Behe makes two key claims in this short essay.
1) That mutations "tended to be degradative changes, ones which destroyed genes or made them less efficient."
which he uses as an argument to his conclusion, that
2) "Darwin’s mechanism of random mutation and natural selection does not mimic design"
However, there is a fundamental flaw in Mr. Behe's reasoning in regards to the first point, which leads to his erroneous conclusion.
All mutations can be regarded as 'degradative' in some sense, but they are constructive in a different sense, because mutations involve a fitness trade-off. We know a prori that E. coli is very well adapted to its natural habitat. After 3.5 billion years of evolution, it is unfathomably unlikely that in .00000001 % of that time we will see natural selection produce and adaptation that is a pareto improvement on the function of E. coli, that is: an improvement with no cost.
The only reason we see any beneficial mutations whatsoever is because we are placing E. coli in an evolutionarily novel habitat, where some of E. coli's genes are unnecessary, and where it lacks some functions which would be beneficial.
By way of analogy, if I took a coat hanger from my closet, bent it, and turned it into a well formed T.V. antenna, I would have greatly decreased the hangers ability to hold a coat. But if I don't need a coat hanger, and I do need an antenna, it is difficult to see how we can describe transforming a coat hanger into an antenna as "degradative", since the antenna has a highly specified from that looks just as designed as the coat hanger.
If I choose to regard all improvements which are not pareto improvement as 'degradative', then I would not expect to ever find evidence for evolution. Evolution works by making trade offs, destroying one thing to make a more immediately useful thing.
So, because Mr. Behe confuses the kinds of improvements that natural selection makes with universal improvements in function. Because of this he sees no evidence for natural selection's ability to improve organismal function.
The key test of Mr. Behe's characterization of the E. coli's cit+ mutations as 'degradative' will come when the mutations are fully characterized and we discover whether or not the novel proteins, which have unarguably be created by natural selection, function efficiently for cit+ metabolism.
Putatively, I believe, a gene duplication has occurred, such that the cit+ E. coli have not lost any ancestral function.
When these mutations are characterized and we have again documented natural selection creating novel cellular machinery, it may aid in preserving Mr. Behe credibility if he acknowledges that natural selection can create efficient cellular machinery.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 5:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All mutations are degenerative
is a common creationist position which misunderstand that most mutations are mostly neutral, few are strongly detrimental and some are beneficial. Now remember that the definition of the effect of mutations depends strongly on the environment, and that what is beneficial or detrimental or neutral in one environment can take on a different 'shape' in another environment.
In general, mutations or more commonly known as variations, are incredibly important for evolution, since without such variation, evolution would not be able to do much of anything. So, in fact, variation is an important component to evolutionary theory and mutations are one way of variation to increase, but other mechanisms such as recombination can also increase the variation in the species by mixing and matching parts of genomes.
This is one reason why Behe's claims about the edge of evolution are so poorly supported by fact and theory. Behe argues for instance that evolution is unable to explain two or more mutations because he insists that they have to happen at the same time. His argument is that intermediates do not exist and if they do, they do not have any beneficial advantage and thus are impervious to selection. So let's explore this with an example in which a mutation A and B are necessary for a particular beneficial event to happen (such as malaria resistance) and lets assume that A and B by themselves have near neutral fitness contributions in a particular environment. In Behe's world, this would mean that a population either has AB mutation or neither A nor B. However in reality, we know that populations exhibit a significant variability in which there will be some that will have a mutation A and others a mutation B but since these mutations are by themselves neutral, they can only spread to fixation via drift. This means small populations or a bottle neck or a selective sweep.
However since A or B are already part of a subset of the population, all they need is another mutation event B or A, to suddenly expose a strongly selective advantage. The probability of such an event can be increased when A or B has come to fixation piggy backing on another selective event.
Not only does this affect Behe's simplistic calculcations but in real life we actually have evidence of the existence of the many intermediates between no resistance to to full resistance. In other words, we can observe the individual steps through which this resistance could have evolved. In other words, the suggestion that intermediates are without any selective value is shown to be erroneous.
As to gene duplication and co-option, the reason why we see evolution re-using so many 'modules' is simple. Evolving a system of n components can reduce to a log(n) time when modules are re-used. So in case of 1000 components, this would reduce the time from O(n) to O(log n) or from 10^n to n. Not a bad reduction in time would you not agree? This was what Herbert Simon argued in his early 20th century papers on complexity and modularity. And one should not be surprised that we have found at many levels of life, that scale free networks and hierarchical networks govern.
- PvM
September 19, 2008 9:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Clarification.
I apologize for using misleading wording. You are right in that the majority of mutation appear to have little or no effect on survival in most organisms. My point was simply that any mutation which does produce a notable prototypic effect (which is simply any mensurable change for any non-biologist out there), can be viewed as a negative change in some particular environment. For organisms with very simple and efficient genomes well adapted to a particular environment that change will likely be a negative one in their ancestral environment.
Kudos on dragging out the statistical fallacies in Mr. Behe's most recent popular work.
I find your reference to Simon work particularly fascinating. Whether serial duplication would be useful or not depends on whether there is any similarity between various good designs, which there empirically are for almost any designed object I can think of. In conclusion, scale free networks are cool.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 3:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ACK!
Prototypic should read phenotypic. Darn spell checker.
- Matthew Ackerman September 19, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I was not referencing your statement
as much as Behe's somewhat misleading
--Yet, when Lenski tracked down the mutations, they tended to be degradative changes, ones which destroyed genes or made them less efficient. That is not the sort of process one needs to build complex molecular systems.--
Your comments showed that you also understand that fitness is not determined by a single cause/effect. For instance, while some mutations may cause a fitness decrease in one aspect of the organism and an increase in another, the overall effect may thus be very well positive. To call the change degenerative misses the point.
I hope to report more on Hubert Simon's work, quite interesting.
- PvM
September 19, 2008 7:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Human genetic variation and malaria susceptibility
"For example, humans have acquired a number of helpful genetic changes in our battle with the malarial parasite over the past ten thousand years. The most well-known of these is the sickle cell mutation, which unfortunately can also lead to the lethal side effect of sickle cell disease. Other mutations that are helpful in the fight with malaria also degrade or destroy genes, such as globin genes and the genes for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, pyruvate kinase, Duffy antigen, and Band 3 protein."
I wanted to clarify two points in this paragraph, first 'a number' is a little vague – there’s a lot. For example, over 160 G6PD deficiency variants have been categorised worldwide, these are just the common ones people have bothered publishing on. Dozens of other genes have been highlighted in candidate gene and linkage studies.
Second, Sickle is famous because of the nasty disease/geographical distribution but there are at other goblin variants that cause fewer symptoms. It is maintained in the population because it is so effective at preventing malaria. Much of the variation linked to malaria susceptibility has more modest effects.
Third, some variants modulate function without causing any health problems, for example Duffy negative variant - which prevents expression only on red blood cells, but not other cell types, and causes no health problems. That’s more than throwing a spanner into the machine, its targeting a promoter sequence with a rather subtle change.
Fourth, some variants altering malaria susceptibility - generate or boost function - variation at the MHC locus, ABO glycosyltransferase or hereditary hypersplenism. It is even possible that selection for surviving the metabolic challenge of severe malaria, has inadvertently selected for the athletic abilities of African populations – but that’s more speculative!.
- Pantrog September 19, 2008 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank you
for educating us about the immense scientific amount of information that seldomly gets disseminated when ID proponents claim that 'x' could not have evolved. It's this lack of sufficient familiarity with the prevailing knowledge which has rendered ID so meaningless. Whether it is the poor scholarship by Wells or the meaningless arguments by Behe, they all seem to come down to a similar commonality: a lack of full understanding of the scientific knowledge and evidence.
How does ID explain the malaria resistance or the bacterial flagellum? We already know how poorly ID has done with the flagellum, now that science keeps unraveling facts in support of predictions made several years earlier by Nick Matzke.
- PvM
September 19, 2008 7:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exciting new development undermine ID argument
Remember Nick Matzke? A few years ago, he outlined based on an extensive study of the scientific literature and homology studies a plausible scenario for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum.
The title was "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum"
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
In this article, Nick outlined various predictions and now we have received the exciting news that science has found supporting evidence for his predictions
Another touch down for science.
Mark Pallen, one of several experts, has written two articles in which he outlines not only how ID has remained scientifically without content in describing the bacterial flagellum, the hallmark evidence of design according to ID, but also how science has developed a level of knowledge which has removed yet another cloud of ignorance, and thus further dismantling the 'design inference'.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/mark-pallen-on.html
When will ID proponents admit that Behe was wrong and that 'design' has been disproven?
Dispatches from the cutting edge of flagellar biology, part 1
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of.html
Dispatches from the cutting edge of flagellar biology, part 2
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/dispatches-from-cutting-edge-of_17.html
--
In 2003, Nick Matzke (then at the NCSE and so a couple of years later science adviser to the plaintiffs in the Dover trial) wrote an essay summarising plausible evolutionary scenarios for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. He noted a couple of previous suggestions that the proto-flagellum might have originated from the F-type ATPase. Crucially, he predicted that additional homologies would be found between components of the F-type ATPase and the flagellar protein export apparatus, for example between the b subunit of the ATPase and FliH and between the delta subunit and FliJ.
In 2006, I confirmed one of Nick's hunches through homology searches, showing that part of FliH was homologous to the b subunit. However, things turned out slightly different from Nick's predictions in that FliH is actual of a fusion of domains homologous to the b subunit and the delta subunit.
Last year Namba's group published the structure of FliI and confirmed the striking homology with the F-type ATPase enzymatic subunits. At that stage in the game, it had become clear that the ATPase was a universal component not just of flagellar export systems but also of non-flagellar type III secretion systems. Also, if it was also clear that if one knocked out the gene for FliI, one abolished flagellar biosynthesis. Thus, just about everyone in the field accepted that FliI was an essential component of the flagellar apparatus and that it energised secretion of proteins through the protein export system. In other words, if there were anything to the idea, put forward by Behe and others in the ID movement, that the flagellum showed "irreducible complexity", even experts might have accepted that FliI was one of the "irreducible" components!!
BUT earlier this year, Minamino and Namba (and independently a team headed by Kelly Hughes in the US) overturned all our assumptions by showing that it was perfectly possible to make flagella without FliI--what you needed to do was knock out FliH at the same time. Somehow or other FliH, which usually interacts with FliI, gums up the export apparatus in the absence of FliI. So, bang goes another pillar of support for the ID argument! In fact, it appears that flagellar protein export is powered not primarily by the ATPase by the proton-motive force.
..
He provided a run through of all the work leading up to his recent Nature article on the dispensibility of FliI. I was then very proud to see him cite my paper on the FliH/F-type ATPase homology. But then he provided the final piece in the jigsaw (and Nick Matzke's ears should prick up at this point)!
Namba and colleagues have now solved the structure of FliJ, another protein that interacts with FliI and FliH. And what they found was clear evidence of homology with yet another protein from the F-type ATPase--the gamma subunit!
--
So in other words, science supported two predictions by Nick Matzke and showed how Flil was not an essential part of flagellar function, even though knocking it out would prevent the flagellum from forming, when in addition to Flil also FliH was knocked out, the flagellum formed.
What a day in history
- PvM
September 19, 2008 7:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
so in other words
Science was able to intelligently design flagellar function.
- jaker277
May 27, 2009 7:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
observed
Science did not design the functionality, scientists observed the functionality and developed theories on how it function / how that function came about.
- MrBook
May 28, 2009 7:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.