Behe on Darwin (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Saturday, February 23, 2013, 18:02 (4292 days ago)
Behe on Darwin
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Monday, February 25, 2013, 16:11 (4290 days ago) @ David Turell
Is Behe still saying the same old things, despite criticism? I don't think I've got the patience to listen to him for an hour! It's surprising a respectable university can still give him credit. Or is he coming up with something new? Unlikely I suspect.
--
GPJ
Behe on Darwin
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 02:09 (4290 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George: Is Behe still saying the same old things, despite criticism? > I don't think I've got the patience to listen to him for an hour! > It's surprising a respectable university can still give him credit. > Or is he coming up with something new? Unlikely I suspect.-He has tenure. it is his usual material.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Thursday, March 07, 2019, 01:37 (2090 days ago) @ David Turell
A review of the gene that protects polar bears from their high fat diet:
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/lessons-from-polar-bear-studies/
"This is the first in a series of posts responding to the extended critique of Darwin Devolves by Richard Lenski at his blog, Telliamed Revisited.
***
"For polar bears, having mutated APOB genes protects them from a high fat diet. If those polar bear mutations decreased the activity of APOB by half or more, then we might expect a similar protective effect as was seen in the mouse. Given that computer analysis also estimated the APOB mutations in the polar bear as likely to be damaging, it is most reasonable to think the activity of the protein has been blunted by the mutations.
"Thus there is no good reason to speculate about possible new activities of the coded protein in the polar bear. Rather, the simplest hypothesis is that the mutations in the polar bear lineage that were judged by computer analysis as likely to be damaging did indeed blunt the activity of the APOB protein in that species — that is, made it less effective. That molecular loss gave rise to a happy, higher-level phenotypic result — an increased tolerance of polar bears for their high fat diet.
***
" The caveats mentioned above by Professor Lenski — about how computer-assignment of a mutation as “damaging” is not a guarantee, and that the protein may have secretly gained some positive new function — are correct. He is also quite right to say that without detailed biochemical and other experiments we cannot know for sure how the change affected the protein and the larger system at the molecular level. Nonetheless, computer methods of analyzing mutations are widely used because they are generally accurate. And they do not suddenly lose their accuracy when I cite their results. So, in the absence of specific information otherwise, that’s the way for a disinterested scientist to bet. There is no positive reason — other than an attempt to fend off criticism of the Darwinian mechanism — to doubt the conclusion. (my bold)
***
"The APOB gene is exceptional in having such detailed research done on it. Most other genes haven’t been so closely investigated. Nonetheless, in the absence of positive evidence to doubt a prediction for a specific case, the results of the computer analysis should be tentatively accepted for other genes to which it has been applied as well. Skepticism on the matter seems to stem less from the data than it does from reflexive defensiveness.
***
"I’d like to highlight one final critical point. Let me set it up with a homey analogy. When I was 14 I worked weekends at McDonald’s, and sometimes I’d be assigned to operate the milkshake machine. The machine was broken down each night for cleaning. One of my tasks early in the morning before opening was to reassemble its parts. There were maybe a dozen parts to put together — sprockets, clamps, gaskets, and such. Shakes were very popular back then (mid 1960s) and made many customers happy for a while. Nonetheless, there were maybe a dozen parts to put together — sprockets, clamps, gaskets, and such. Shakes were very popular back then (mid 1960s) and made many customers happy for a while. Nonetheless, the function of the parts of a shake machine is not “to make people happy.” The function of a sprocket or a clamp isn’t even “to make a milkshake.” Rather, they have lower-level mechanical duties that are subservient to the overarching higher purposes of the systems.
"The same is true of APOB. Its function is not “to help polar bears survive,” nor even “to clear cholesterol.” Rather, it has one or more lower level functions that are subservient to those higher purposes. Thus the fact that cholesterol might be cleared more efficiently in polar bears does not at all mean that APOB hasn’t been degraded, any more than breaking the off-switch of a shake machine so that it works continuously throughout lunch hour means some new improved function was added.
"In both Darwin Devolves and my Quarterly Review of Biology paper on which it is based, I repeatedly stressed the need to look beneath higher-level, phenotypic changes to associated underlying molecular-level mutations. Did they help by constructing or by degrading what I termed Functional Coded elemenTs (FCTs)? Helpful higher level changes can often be misleading, because they might actually be based on degradative molecular changes. There is every reason to think that’s what occurred in the evolution of the examples I cite in Darwin Devolves, definitely including the magnificent Ursus maritimus. The more effective clearance of its cholesterol allows the polar bear to thrive on a diet of seal blubber, but it is the result of a mutation that breaks or blunts APOB.
Comment: I've had his book for 48 hours. Just as he tells the story above at age 14, he describes his Catholic background and that he fully swallowed Darwin evolution until he became a college biology/biochemistry professor and began to read the research over the past 30-40 years. Like myself he was totally converted by reason! The research offers no reasoned support for Darwin's theory. Note the obvious confirmation bias from Lenski.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
I’m afraid this is way over my head. When reading such articles, I can only absorb the conclusions. I note your confirmation bias in favour of Behe, but for me the next step would be to listen to Lenski’s reply.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Thursday, March 07, 2019, 19:57 (2089 days ago) @ dhw
DHW: I’m afraid this is way over my head. When reading such articles, I can only absorb the conclusions. I note your confirmation bias in favour of Behe, but for me the next step would be to listen to Lenski’s reply.
I certainly understand hour position. In his book I've now read about how bacteria move by automatically making many membrane molecular motors other than flagella, like tiny feet, like tank treads and using slime, depending on the bacteria species.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
dhw: I’m afraid this is way over my head. When reading such articles, I can only absorb the conclusions. I note your confirmation bias in favour of Behe, but for me the next step would be to listen to Lenski’s reply.
DAVID: I certainly understand your position. In his book I've now read about how bacteria move by automatically making many membrane molecular motors other than flagella, like tiny feet, like tank treads and using slime, depending on the bacteria species.
Thank you for understanding my position. As you love to dwell on the word “automatic”, perhaps I should just point out that all organisms including ourselves move through automatic processes. It will be interesting to see whether Behe believes that bacteria were preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago to solve all the problems life would throw at them for the rest of time.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Friday, March 08, 2019, 18:46 (2088 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I’m afraid this is way over my head. When reading such articles, I can only absorb the conclusions. I note your confirmation bias in favour of Behe, but for me the next step would be to listen to Lenski’s reply.
DAVID: I certainly understand your position. In his book I've now read about how bacteria move by automatically making many membrane molecular motors other than flagella, like tiny feet, like tank treads and using slime, depending on the bacteria species.
dhw: Thank you for understanding my position. As you love to dwell on the word “automatic”, perhaps I should just point out that all organisms including ourselves move through automatic processes. It will be interesting to see whether Behe believes that bacteria were preprogrammed by your God 3.8 billion years ago to solve all the problems life would throw at them for the rest of time.
I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to s witch.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Saturday, March 09, 2019, 15:29 (2087 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
The point was the proven automaticity of the switch. I have no idea about Behe's personal beliefs in God's role, in whom, I know, he believes but I have had the willingness to imagine how evolution might have been controlled, since Darwin is totally wrong about the mechanism and it is obvious it requires design and an designing mind. So make fun while it is obvious you have several theories that run off in all directions from your fence top.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
DAVID: The point was the proven automaticity of the switch.
Well, yes, if your favourite food runs out, you will automatically switch to your second available favourite. What is that meant to prove?
DAVID: I have no idea about Behe's personal beliefs in God's role, in whom, I know, he believes but I have had the willingness to imagine how evolution might have been controlled, since Darwin is totally wrong about the mechanism and it is obvious it requires design and an designing mind. So make fun while it is obvious you have several theories that run off in all directions from your fence top.
Once again, please explain how the experiment proves that bacteria are automatons. I am not making fun. I have had the willingness to imagine various ways in which evolution might have happened, whether your God wished to control it or not. We have always agreed on our scepticism concerning random mutations, but Darwin himself was an agnostic and went to great lengths not to exclude God from his theory, and in my own small way I follow suit. Your logical case for design is not the issue here. Nobody knows your God’s mind, and the issue is your insistence that you do, since you refuse to consider any interpretation of his purpose and method other than your own. It will therefore be interesting to see to what extent your fellow believer Behe supports your anthropocentrism and your other fixed beliefs.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Sunday, March 10, 2019, 14:23 (2086 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
DAVID: The point was the proven automaticity of the switch.
dhw: Well, yes, if your favourite food runs out, you will automatically switch to your second available favourite. What is that meant to prove?
Automaticity, which you just stated.
DAVID: I have no idea about Behe's personal beliefs in God's role, in whom, I know, he believes but I have had the willingness to imagine how evolution might have been controlled, since Darwin is totally wrong about the mechanism and it is obvious it requires design and an designing mind. So make fun while it is obvious you have several theories that run off in all directions from your fence top.dhw: Once again, please explain how the experiment proves that bacteria are automatons. I am not making fun. I have had the willingness to imagine various ways in which evolution might have happened, whether your God wished to control it or not. We have always agreed on our scepticism concerning random mutations, but Darwin himself was an agnostic and went to great lengths not to exclude God from his theory, and in my own small way I follow suit. Your logical case for design is not the issue here. Nobody knows your God’s mind, and the issue is your insistence that you do, since you refuse to consider any interpretation of his purpose and method other than your own. It will therefore be interesting to see to what extent your fellow believer Behe supports your anthropocentrism and your other fixed beliefs.
Currently in the early part of the book Behe is reviewing the contortions Neo-Darwinism was/is currently faced with as science investigates the fuller ramifications of DNA beyond just a coding system for proteins. I'm 90 pages in and I assume is is educating a lay reader for the arguments that will come. I suspect anthropocentrism will not be a subject for discussion.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
DAVID: The point was the proven automaticity of the switch.
dhw: Well, yes, if your favourite food runs out, you will automatically switch to your second available favourite. What is that meant to prove?
DAVID: Automaticity, which you just stated.
Wonderful! So let’s offer a million hungry humans a choice between their favourite food and their least favourite food, see which one they eat first, and if they all eat their favourite food first, we shall have proved that humans are automatons.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Monday, March 11, 2019, 14:18 (2085 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
DAVID: The point was the proven automaticity of the switch.
dhw: Well, yes, if your favourite food runs out, you will automatically switch to your second available favourite. What is that meant to prove?
DAVID: Automaticity, which you just stated.
dhw: Wonderful! So let’s offer a million hungry humans a choice between their favourite food and their least favourite food, see which one they eat first, and if they all eat their favourite food first, we shall have proved that humans are automatons.
Quite a leap. Are we comparing human actions to bacteria as a means of argument or a fun comment?
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
DAVID: The point was the proven automaticity of the switch.
dhw: Well, yes, if your favourite food runs out, you will automatically switch to your second available favourite. What is that meant to prove?
DAVID: Automaticity, which you just stated.
dhw: Wonderful! So let’s offer a million hungry humans a choice between their favourite food and their least favourite food, see which one they eat first, and if they all eat their favourite food first, we shall have proved that humans are automatons.
DAVID|: Quite a leap. Are we comparing human actions to bacteria as a means of argument or a fun comment?
As presented here, the experiment is daft. The bacteria were apparently offered two foods, and when they had finished the one they obviously liked best, they then started on the second. According to you, this proves they are automatons. According to me, this only proves they prefer glucose to lactose. I have offered you an analogy just to illustrate the point. But maybe the experiment was meant to prove something else – I can only comment on what you presented.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 12, 2019, 14:56 (2084 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.[/b]
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem? And has Behe informed you yet that the solution to all their problems was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or that your God dabbles every time there is a new threat to their existence?
DAVID: The point was the proven automaticity of the switch.
dhw: Well, yes, if your favourite food runs out, you will automatically switch to your second available favourite. What is that meant to prove?
DAVID: Automaticity, which you just stated.
dhw: Wonderful! So let’s offer a million hungry humans a choice between their favourite food and their least favourite food, see which one they eat first, and if they all eat their favourite food first, we shall have proved that humans are automatons.
DAVID|: Quite a leap. Are we comparing human actions to bacteria as a means of argument or a fun comment?
dhw: As presented here, the experiment is daft. The bacteria were apparently offered two foods, and when they had finished the one they obviously liked best, they then started on the second. According to you, this proves they are automatons. According to me, this only proves they prefer glucose to lactose. I have offered you an analogy just to illustrate the point. But maybe the experiment was meant to prove something else – I can only comment on what you presented.
The 'daft' study won the Nobel prize. I've left out the complicated details. The bacteria are naturally programmed to prefer glucose. When it is gone, a series of molecular reactions automatically and immediately activate the lactose use mechanism in the DNA. The switch in metabolism is automatic. The lack of glucose triggers the next steps. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer to you, but I think I was. You are of a mindset to not trust my original description of the study bolded above which to me says what I have said here. Buy the Behe book and read the long description of the automatic molecular steps for yourself. This is not at the same level that Shapiro describes where bacteria can reprogram DNA. Our debate is about automaticity at the reprogramming DNA level. All bacterial reactions to stimuli are automatic and are seen that way when fully studied as I've stated before.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem?
[…]
DAVID: The 'daft' study won the Nobel prize. I've left out the complicated details. The bacteria are naturally programmed to prefer glucose. When it is gone, a series of molecular reactions automatically and immediately activate the lactose use mechanism in the DNA. The switch in metabolism is automatic. The lack of glucose triggers the next steps. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer to you, but I think I was. You are of a mindset to not trust my original description of the study bolded above which to me says what I have said here. Buy the Behe book and read the long description of the automatic molecular steps for yourself. This is not at the same level that Shapiro describes where bacteria can reprogram DNA. Our debate is about automaticity at the reprogramming DNA level. All bacterial reactions to stimuli are automatic and are seen that way when fully studied as I've stated before.
As I said earlier, I can only comment on what you present. Our debate is about whether bacteria are intelligent enough to do their own reprogramming when confronted with new conditions. According to you, this experiment shows that they are not. According to Shapiro, other experiments show that they are. You admit that this experiment is not at the same level as Shapiro’s, so why should I believe your minority view and not that of Shapiro plus all the other scientists in the field who believe that bacteria create their own instructions “on the hoof”, “de novo”? Are you really claiming that only your minority have “fully studied” the subject, and the majority haven’t?
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Sunday, March 17, 2019, 17:59 (2079 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I have now read a Behe section on bacteria in glucose lactose culture. The bacteria always automatically eat all the glucose first and the automatically switch to lactose when the glucose is used up. All molecular steps are known. The bacteria have no independent thought to switch.
dhw: Maybe I've misunderstood the significance of this experiment, but why should they switch? Firstly, if they prefer glucose, it seems quite natural to me that they should gobble up their favourite first and only gobble lactose when there’s no glucose left. Secondly, how does this prove that there is no intelligence involved when they are confronted with new threats to their existence but, after millions of deaths, find a solution to the new problem?
[…]
DAVID: The 'daft' study won the Nobel prize. I've left out the complicated details. The bacteria are naturally programmed to prefer glucose. When it is gone, a series of molecular reactions automatically and immediately activate the lactose use mechanism in the DNA. The switch in metabolism is automatic. The lack of glucose triggers the next steps. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer to you, but I think I was. You are of a mindset to not trust my original description of the study bolded above which to me says what I have said here. Buy the Behe book and read the long description of the automatic molecular steps for yourself. This is not at the same level that Shapiro describes where bacteria can reprogram DNA. Our debate is about automaticity at the reprogramming DNA level. All bacterial reactions to stimuli are automatic and are seen that way when fully studied as I've stated before.dhw: As I said earlier, I can only comment on what you present. Our debate is about whether bacteria are intelligent enough to do their own reprogramming when confronted with new conditions. According to you, this experiment shows that they are not. According to Shapiro, other experiments show that they are. You admit that this experiment is not at the same level as Shapiro’s, so why should I believe your minority view and not that of Shapiro plus all the other scientists in the field who believe that bacteria create their own instructions “on the hoof”, “de novo”? Are you really claiming that only your minority have “fully studied” the subject, and the majority haven’t?
I am about to read Behe's comments about Shapiro. I'll try and transmit his opinion. Shapiro does not know if the reprogramming he finds is automatic or not. It is his opinion they appear intelligent. I agree. That is not saying he 'knows' they are intelligent, a fine difference, but valid.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
dhw: Our debate is about whether bacteria are intelligent enough to do their own reprogramming when confronted with new conditions. According to you, this experiment shows that they are not. According to Shapiro, other experiments show that they are. You admit that this experiment is not at the same level as Shapiro’s, so why should I believe your minority view and not that of Shapiro plus all the other scientists in the field who believe that bacteria create their own instructions “on the hoof”, “de novo”? Are you really claiming that only your minority have “fully studied” the subject, and the majority haven’t?
DAVID: I am about to read Behe's comments about Shapiro. I'll try and transmit his opinion. Shapiro does not know if the reprogramming he finds is automatic or not. It is his opinion they appear intelligent. I agree. That is not saying he 'knows' they are intelligent, a fine difference, but valid.
Of course nobody KNOWS! If we knew, there would be no discussion. That's why I am perfectly happy with your 50/50, and am only complaining about your earlier insistence that there is a "tiny list" of scientists whose opinion differs from yours. It now turns out that yours is the minority opinion. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just as your statistic of 90% atheism among scientists doesn't mean there is no God. The difference between opinion and knowledge is not "fine", it is massive, and we dealt with it long ago in our discussions on epistemology.
Behe on Darwin: polar bear discussion
by David Turell , Monday, March 18, 2019, 15:57 (2078 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Our debate is about whether bacteria are intelligent enough to do their own reprogramming when confronted with new conditions. According to you, this experiment shows that they are not. According to Shapiro, other experiments show that they are. You admit that this experiment is not at the same level as Shapiro’s, so why should I believe your minority view and not that of Shapiro plus all the other scientists in the field who believe that bacteria create their own instructions “on the hoof”, “de novo”? Are you really claiming that only your minority have “fully studied” the subject, and the majority haven’t?
DAVID: I am about to read Behe's comments about Shapiro. I'll try and transmit his opinion. Shapiro does not know if the reprogramming he finds is automatic or not. It is his opinion they appear intelligent. I agree. That is not saying he 'knows' they are intelligent, a fine difference, but valid.
Of course nobody KNOWS! If we knew, there would be no discussion. That's why I am perfectly happy with your 50/50, and am only complaining about your earlier insistence that there is a "tiny list" of scientists whose opinion differs from yours. It now turns out that yours is the minority opinion. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just as your statistic of 90% atheism among scientists doesn't mean there is no God. The difference between opinion and knowledge is not "fine", it is massive, and we dealt with it long ago in our discussions on epistemology.
I'll have Behe quotes about Shapiro soon. I've read them but need time to transmit by copying.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 19, 2019, 21:53 (2077 days ago) @ David Turell
Behe obviously is an ID advocate but he quotes Shapiro in a most direct way that unearths Shapiro's own doubts:
Behe’s chapter five is named, “Overextended”, and covers all the weird theories invented by Darwin- supporting scientists trying to cover over all of the inconsistencies that have appeared as science has studied evolution. He and I agree Shapiro has done excellent work, while disagreeing about interpretations. These are some of his comments about Shapiro:
Scientists to do their research by manipulating living genetic material. “Shapiro asks: if we can use those tools to engineer DNA, then why then can’t the cell use them both to meet current challenges and to evolve over time?”
Behe lists all the mechanisms the cells can use to function. “Genetic programs and information can be reused and repurposed…..All those abilities are used during the lives of cells, and all are controlled by them. [This] leads Shapiro to view it as sentient. It acts purposefully toward its environment, so perhaps the cell can also direct its capacities purposely to direct its own evolution. To many Neo-Darwinists such talk carries a whiff of heresy. [Shapiro’s answer is] that their role is open to experimental testing.”
Behe‘s objection to Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering “is that it doesn’t even try to explain the origin of purposeful systems—it takes them for granted…..So, where did the original intricate, complex systems come from? Natural genetic engineering seems to have a big chicken and egg problem---it needs complex systems to make complex systems.
There is little evidence that the systems Shapiro cites are in any way creative beyond the boundaries of their current capacities. Laboratory and field evolution studies give no hint that, in the face of selective pressure, natural genetic systems engineer anything new. Shapiro correctly notes that, “As many biologists have argued since the nineteenth century, random changes would overwhelmingly tend to degrade intricately organized system rather than adapt them to new functions.” (Evolution, page 134) Yet the marvelous cellular systems he cites give every indication that they do the same thing when they move beyond their well-regulated limits.
Comment: No support for cell committees. Even Shapiro expresses doubt in the bold above.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
DAVID: Behe obviously is an ID advocate but he quotes Shapiro in a most direct way that unearths Shapiro's own doubts.
Thank you for this. I will edit your post in order to insert my own comments:
QUOTE: Scientists to do their research by manipulating living genetic material. “Shapiro asks: if we can use those tools to engineer DNA, then why then can’t the cell use them both to meet current challenges and to evolve over time?”
In other words, why shouldn’t we believe that cells are capable of engineering their own evolution? Not proven, of course, but a very reasonable question.
QUOTE: Behe lists all the mechanisms the cells can use to function. “Genetic programs and information can be reused and repurposed…..All those abilities are used during the lives of cells, and all are controlled by them. [This] leads Shapiro to view it as sentient. It acts purposefully toward its environment, so perhaps the cell can also direct its capacities purposely to direct its own evolution. To many Neo-Darwinists such talk carries a whiff of heresy. [Shapiro’s answer is] that their role is open to experimental testing.”(dhw’s bold – see later)
Exactly the hypothesis I have also been suggesting. What is the point of mentioning Neo-Darwinists? Probably the irrelevant passage you have bolded later.
QUOTE: Behe‘s objection to Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering “is that it doesn’t even try to explain the origin of purposeful systems—it takes them for granted…..So, where did the original intricate, complex systems come from? Natural genetic engineering seems to have a big chicken and egg problem---it needs complex systems to make complex systems.
That is not an objection to the theory itself. Shapiro is focusing only on what directs evolution, i.e. the intelligent cell/cell community (my expression) as a purposeful engineer.
It is not his business to discuss the origin of the intelligent cell, as that would be a distraction from the theory (as well as automatically alienating atheist scientists), but I need have no such inhibitions and am quite happy to say that there may be a God who designed the intelligent cell. For all we know, Shapiro believes that himself, since I think you said he was a practising Jew.
QUOTE: There is little evidence that the systems Shapiro cites are in any way creative beyond the boundaries of their current capacities. Laboratory and field evolution studies give no hint that, in the face of selective pressure, natural genetic systems engineer anything new.
You and I have agreed on this, and that is why it is an unproven hypothesis, just like your own, and indeed just like the hypothesis that chance did it, or there is a God who did it. Nothing is proven, and maybe nothing can be proven.
QUOTE: Shapiro correctly notes that, “As many biologists have argued since the nineteenth century, random changes would overwhelmingly tend to degrade intricately organized system rather than adapt them to new functions.” (Evolution, page 134) Yet the marvelous cellular systems he cites give every indication that they do the same thing when they move beyond their well-regulated limits.[/i](David's bold)
Excellent. You and I agree with Shapiro. We both dismiss chance or “random changes”.
DAVID: No support for cell committees. Even Shapiro expresses doubt in the bold above.
The bold above dismisses random changes – nothing to do with cellular intelligence. That theory is to be found in the other quotes, but of course it is a “perhaps” (see my earlier bold). If it wasn’t a “perhaps”, it would be stated as a fact, which obviously it is not. All the above quotes amount to a mirror image of the discussion between you and me. Once again, many thanks for keeping us informed. I’ll look forward to hearing whether Behe believes in bacteria carrying and passing on 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for all the undabbled life forms that ate and didn’t eat one another until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design (i.e. Behe, you and me).
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 20, 2019, 17:20 (2076 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: Scientists to do their research by manipulating living genetic material. “Shapiro asks: if we can use those tools to engineer DNA, then why then can’t the cell use them both to meet current challenges and to evolve over time?”
dhw: In other words, why shouldn’t we believe that cells are capable of engineering their own evolution? Not proven, of course, but a very reasonable question.
QUOTE: Behe lists all the mechanisms the cells can use to function. “Genetic programs and information can be reused and repurposed…..All those abilities are used during the lives of cells, and all are controlled by them. [This] leads Shapiro to view it as sentient. It acts purposefully toward its environment, so perhaps the cell can also direct its capacities purposely to direct its own evolution. To many Neo-Darwinists such talk carries a whiff of heresy. [Shapiro’s answer is] that their role is open to experimental testing.”(dhw’s bold – see later)
dhw: Exactly the hypothesis I have also been suggesting. What is the point of mentioning Neo-Darwinists? Probably the irrelevant passage you have bolded later.
QUOTE: Behe‘s objection to Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering “is that it doesn’t even try to explain the origin of purposeful systems—it takes them for granted…..So, where did the original intricate, complex systems come from? Natural genetic engineering seems to have a big chicken and egg problem---it needs complex systems to make complex systems.
dhw: That is not an objection to the theory itself. Shapiro is focusing only on what directs evolution, i.e. the intelligent cell/cell community (my expression) as a purposeful engineer.
It is not his business to discuss the origin of the intelligent cell, as that would be a distraction from the theory (as well as automatically alienating atheist scientists), but I need have no such inhibitions and am quite happy to say that there may be a God who designed the intelligent cell. For all we know, Shapiro believes that himself, since I think you said he was a practising Jew.
QUOTE: There is little evidence that the systems Shapiro cites are in any way creative beyond the boundaries of their current capacities. Laboratory and field evolution studies give no hint that, in the face of selective pressure, natural genetic systems engineer anything new.
dhw: You and I have agreed on this, and that is why it is an unproven hypothesis, just like your own, and indeed just like the hypothesis that chance did it, or there is a God who did it. Nothing is proven, and maybe nothing can be proven.
QUOTE: Shapiro correctly notes that, “As many biologists have argued since the nineteenth century, random changes would overwhelmingly tend to degrade intricately organized system rather than adapt them to new functions.” (Evolution, page 134) Yet the marvelous cellular systems he cites give every indication that they do the same thing when they move beyond their well-regulated limits.[/i](David's bold)
dhw: Excellent. You and I agree with Shapiro. We both dismiss chance or “random changes”.
DAVID: No support for cell committees. Even Shapiro expresses doubt in the bold above.
dhw: The bold above dismisses random changes – nothing to do with cellular intelligence. That theory is to be found in the other quotes, but of course it is a “perhaps” (see my earlier bold). If it wasn’t a “perhaps”, it would be stated as a fact, which obviously it is not. All the above quotes amount to a mirror image of the discussion between you and me. Once again, many thanks for keeping us informed. I’ll look forward to hearing whether Behe believes in bacteria carrying and passing on 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for all the undabbled life forms that ate and didn’t eat one another until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design (i.e. Behe, you and me).
Your last comment reflects your view that the cell with innate intelligence can make meaningful adjustments in its genome. Your guess is as good as mine and still 50/50. In a section on Darwin Finches, Behe notes the finding that two mutations over a million years old allow finches to change beak size and shape when the environmental changes cause edible seed changes. Finches had to fly to the Galapagos. Did they come prepared for the changes? Or develop them after arrival? Not clear.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
QUOTE: Shapiro correctly notes that, “As many biologists have argued since the nineteenth century, random changes would overwhelmingly tend to degrade intricately organized system rather than adapt them to new functions.” (Evolution, page 134) Yet the marvelous cellular systems he cites give every indication that they do the same thing when they move beyond their well-regulated limits. (David's bold)
dhw: Excellent. You and I agree with Shapiro. We both dismiss chance or “random changes”.
DAVID: No support for cell committees. Even Shapiro expresses doubt in the bold above.
dhw: The bold above dismisses random changes – nothing to do with cellular intelligence. That theory is to be found in the other quotes, but of course it is a “perhaps” (see my earlier bold). If it wasn’t a “perhaps”, it would be stated as a fact, which obviously it is not. All the above quotes amount to a mirror image of the discussion between you and me. Once again, many thanks for keeping us informed. I’ll look forward to hearing whether Behe believes in bacteria carrying and passing on 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for all the undabbled life forms that ate and didn’t eat one another until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design (i.e. Behe, you and me).
DAVID: Your last comment reflects your view that the cell with innate intelligence can make meaningful adjustments in its genome.
All adjustments are meaningful. The theory that they might be meaningful enough to create innovations is the “perhaps” that I have emphasized and now bolded, and I’m only pointing out that your own bold has nothing to do with that theory but simply opposes chance.
DAVID: In a section on Darwin Finches, Behe notes the finding that two mutations over a million years old allow finches to change beak size and shape when the environmental changes cause edible seed changes. Finches had to fly to the Galapagos. Did they come prepared for the changes? Or develop them after arrival? Not clear.
I wonder why your God would want to dabble beforehand with finches’ beaks so they could eat the changed Galapagos seeds, when his one and only purpose was apparently to design the brain of H. sapiens. May I humbly suggest that when the environment changes, organisms must adapt or die.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
by David Turell , Thursday, March 21, 2019, 17:59 (2075 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: Shapiro correctly notes that, “As many biologists have argued since the nineteenth century, random changes would overwhelmingly tend to degrade intricately organized system rather than adapt them to new functions.” (Evolution, page 134) Yet the marvelous cellular systems he cites give every indication that they do the same thing when they move beyond their well-regulated limits. (David's bold)
dhw: Excellent. You and I agree with Shapiro. We both dismiss chance or “random changes”.
DAVID: No support for cell committees. Even Shapiro expresses doubt in the bold above.
dhw: The bold above dismisses random changes – nothing to do with cellular intelligence. That theory is to be found in the other quotes, but of course it is a “perhaps” (see my earlier bold). If it wasn’t a “perhaps”, it would be stated as a fact, which obviously it is not. All the above quotes amount to a mirror image of the discussion between you and me. Once again, many thanks for keeping us informed. I’ll look forward to hearing whether Behe believes in bacteria carrying and passing on 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for all the undabbled life forms that ate and didn’t eat one another until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design (i.e. Behe, you and me).
DAVID: Your last comment reflects your view that the cell with innate intelligence can make meaningful adjustments in its genome.
dhw: All adjustments are meaningful. The theory that they might be meaningful enough to create innovations is the “perhaps” that I have emphasized and now bolded, and I’m only pointing out that your own bold has nothing to do with that theory but simply opposes chance.
My point was the present or not of 'innate intelligence'. Of course we both know that epigenetics can cause meaningful adaptations. You have totally misinterpreted my comment.
DAVID: In a section on Darwin Finches, Behe notes the finding that two mutations over a million years old allow finches to change beak size and shape when the environmental changes cause edible seed changes. Finches had to fly to the Galapagos. Did they come prepared for the changes? Or develop them after arrival? Not clear.dhw: I wonder why your God would want to dabble beforehand with finches’ beaks so they could eat the changed Galapagos seeds, when his one and only purpose was apparently to design the brain of H. sapiens. May I humbly suggest that when the environment changes, organisms must adapt or die.
Of course they can adapt. My point was the probable pre-planning to help the finches with climate changes. The hum an brain is the result of God's evolutionary method.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
DAVID: No support for cell committees. Even Shapiro expresses doubt in the bold above.
dhw: The bold above dismisses random changes – nothing to do with cellular intelligence. That theory is to be found in the other quotes, but of course it is a “perhaps” (see my earlier bold). If it wasn’t a “perhaps”, it would be stated as a fact, which obviously it is not. All the above quotes amount to a mirror image of the discussion between you and me. Once again, many thanks for keeping us informed. I’ll look forward to hearing whether Behe believes in bacteria carrying and passing on 3.8-billion-year-old programmes for all the undabbled life forms that ate and didn’t eat one another until your God could specially design the only thing he wanted to design (i.e. Behe, you and me).
DAVID: Your last comment reflects your view that the cell with innate intelligence can make meaningful adjustments in its genome.
dhw: All adjustments are meaningful. The theory that they might be meaningful enough to create innovations is the “perhaps” that I have emphasized and now bolded, and I’m only pointing out that your own bold has nothing to do with that theory but simply opposes chance.
DAVID: My point was the present or not of 'innate intelligence'. Of course we both know that epigenetics can cause meaningful adaptations. You have totally misinterpreted my comment.
The original point was that the paragraph you quoted had nothing whatsoever to do with what you derisively call “cell committees”. It merely dismissed random change and was therefore irrelevant to Shapiro’s theory. My reply to you was meant to indicate that whatever mechanism creates adaptations might perhaps also create innovations. I have known for some time that you do not believe in the presence of cellular intelligence.
DAVID: In a section on Darwin Finches, Behe notes the finding that two mutations over a million years old allow finches to change beak size and shape when the environmental changes cause edible seed changes. Finches had to fly to the Galapagos. Did they come prepared for the changes? Or develop them after arrival? Not clear.
dhw: I wonder why your God would want to dabble beforehand with finches’ beaks so they could eat the changed Galapagos seeds, when his one and only purpose was apparently to design the brain of H. sapiens. May I humbly suggest that when the environment changes, organisms must adapt or die.
DAVID: Of course they can adapt. My point was the probable pre-planning to help the finches with climate changes. The human brain is the result of God's evolutionary method.
You seem to think that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the beak changes in anticipation of the environmental changes. My proposal is that adaptation takes place in response to environmental changes. I find the latter considerably more “probable” than the former. Your last sentence does not explain why your God found it necessary to fiddle with finches’ beaks if his only purpose was to design the human brain.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
by David Turell , Friday, March 22, 2019, 21:13 (2074 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: In a section on Darwin Finches, Behe notes the finding that two mutations over a million years old allow finches to change beak size and shape when the environmental changes cause edible seed changes. Finches had to fly to the Galapagos. Did they come prepared for the changes? Or develop them after arrival? Not clear.
dhw: I wonder why your God would want to dabble beforehand with finches’ beaks so they could eat the changed Galapagos seeds, when his one and only purpose was apparently to design the brain of H. sapiens. May I humbly suggest that when the environment changes, organisms must adapt or die.
DAVID: Of course they can adapt. My point was the probable pre-planning to help the finches with climate changes. The human brain is the result of God's evolutionary method.
dhw: You seem to think that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the beak changes in anticipation of the environmental changes. My proposal is that adaptation takes place in response to environmental changes. I find the latter considerably more “probable” than the former. Your last sentence does not explain why your God found it necessary to fiddle with finches’ beaks if his only purpose was to design the human brain.
Same old 'round and 'round. Econiches supply food for evolution until human brains appear, and you know my point and keep beating your tired drum, in which you try go deny a distant connection in the process.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
DAVID: Of course they can adapt. My point was the probable pre-planning to help the finches with climate changes. The human brain is the result of God's evolutionary method.
dhw: You seem to think that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the beak changes in anticipation of the environmental changes. My proposal is that adaptation takes place in response to environmental changes. I find the latter considerably more “probable” than the former. Your last sentence does not explain why your God found it necessary to fiddle with finches’ beaks if his only purpose was to design the human brain.
DAVID: Same old 'round and 'round. Econiches supply food for evolution until human brains appear, and you know my point and keep beating your tired drum, in which you try go deny a distant connection in the process.
In your hypothesis human brains don’t “appear”. Your God specially designs them. And here you have your God specially designing changes to finches’ beaks in anticipation of environmental change. You’re right - I can see no connection, but perhaps you can explain to me why your God was unable to specially design the human brain without first specially adapting the beaks of one species of finch.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
by David Turell , Saturday, March 23, 2019, 13:54 (2073 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Of course they can adapt. My point was the probable pre-planning to help the finches with climate changes. The human brain is the result of God's evolutionary method.
dhw: You seem to think that your God preprogrammed or dabbled the beak changes in anticipation of the environmental changes. My proposal is that adaptation takes place in response to environmental changes. I find the latter considerably more “probable” than the former. Your last sentence does not explain why your God found it necessary to fiddle with finches’ beaks if his only purpose was to design the human brain.
DAVID: Same old 'round and 'round. Econiches supply food for evolution until human brains appear, and you know my point and keep beating your tired drum, in which you try go deny a distant connection in the process.
dhw: In your hypothesis human brains don’t “appear”. Your God specially designs them. And here you have your God specially designing changes to finches’ beaks in anticipation of environmental change. You’re right - I can see no connection, but perhaps you can explain to me why your God was unable to specially design the human brain without first specially adapting the beaks of one species of finch.
This is a gross distortion of the probabilities of my views. We do not know, in any measure of fact, that God could not design the human brain until He worked with finches. I state that God choice this method of evolving through evolution. First evolution of all organisms occurs in parallel contemporaneous paths, so the path to humans was somewhere along the way when finches first came on the scene. Secondly, the need for econiches/ecosystems is well-established for food supply. Your comment points out that you seem to see single linear path to the human brain. What happened to the bush of life?
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
DAVID: Econiches supply food for evolution until human brains appear, and you know my point and keep beating your tired drum, in which you try go deny a distant connection in the process.
dhw: In your hypothesis human brains don’t “appear”. Your God specially designs them. And here you have your God specially designing changes to finches’ beaks in anticipation of environmental change. You’re right - I can see no connection, but perhaps you can explain to me why your God was unable to specially design the human brain without first specially adapting the beaks of one species of finch.
DAVID: This is a gross distortion of the probabilities of my views. We do not know, in any measure of fact, that God could not design the human brain until He worked with finches. I state that God choice this method of evolving through evolution. First evolution of all organisms occurs in parallel contemporaneous paths, so the path to humans was somewhere along the way when finches first came on the scene. Secondly, the need for econiches/ecosystems is well-established for food supply. Your comment points out that you seem to see single linear path to the human brain. What happened to the bush of life?
Sorry, but that is precisely the question I keep asking you! Econiches providing food does not explain why your God designed millions of them and adapted finches’ beaks (apparently in advance of the new environment) and designed the whole array of species mentioned under “vast new Cambrian explosion” if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain! And why “parallel contemporaneous paths”? Evolution has occurred along divergent paths at different times, so how does that support the hypothesis of humans as your God’s only goal? The bush of life is what makes your proposal so illogical. (See also “Big brain evolution”)
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
by David Turell , Sunday, March 24, 2019, 18:08 (2072 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Econiches supply food for evolution until human brains appear, and you know my point and keep beating your tired drum, in which you try go deny a distant connection in the process.
dhw: In your hypothesis human brains don’t “appear”. Your God specially designs them. And here you have your God specially designing changes to finches’ beaks in anticipation of environmental change. You’re right - I can see no connection, but perhaps you can explain to me why your God was unable to specially design the human brain without first specially adapting the beaks of one species of finch.
DAVID: This is a gross distortion of the probabilities of my views. We do not know, in any measure of fact, that God could not design the human brain until He worked with finches. I state that God choice this method of evolving through evolution. First evolution of all organisms occurs in parallel contemporaneous paths, so the path to humans was somewhere along the way when finches first came on the scene. Secondly, the need for econiches/ecosystems is well-established for food supply. Your comment points out that you seem to see single linear path to the human brain. What happened to the bush of life?
d hw: Sorry, but that is precisely the question I keep asking you! Econiches providing food does not explain why your God designed millions of them and adapted finches’ beaks (apparently in advance of the new environment) and designed the whole array of species mentioned under “vast new Cambrian explosion” if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain! And why “parallel contemporaneous paths”? Evolution has occurred along divergent paths at different times, so how does that support the hypothesis of humans as your God’s only goal? The bush of life is what makes your proposal so illogical. (See also “Big brain evolution”)
You are totally confused in your current argument. God chose to delay the appearance of humans because He chose to evolve them over time, which fits the history. They appeared last. Therefore the complexity of food supply had to exist for evolution to continue. By the way, divergent pathways and contemporaneous pathways obviously can be the same. As for goal, read Adler's argument.
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
DAVID: I state that God choice this method of evolving through evolution. First evolution of all organisms occurs in parallel contemporaneous paths, so the path to humans was somewhere along the way when finches first came on the scene. Secondly, the need for econiches/ecosystems is well-established for food supply. Your comment points out that you seem to see single linear path to the human brain. What happened to the bush of life?
dhw: Sorry, but that is precisely the question I keep asking you! Econiches providing food does not explain why your God designed millions of them and adapted finches’ beaks (apparently in advance of the new environment) and designed the whole array of species mentioned under “vast new Cambrian explosion” if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain! And why “parallel contemporaneous paths”? Evolution has occurred along divergent paths at different times, so how does that support the hypothesis of humans as your God’s only goal? The bush of life is what makes your proposal so illogical. (See also “Big brain evolution”)
DAVID: You are totally confused in your current argument. God chose to delay the appearance of humans because He chose to evolve them over time, which fits the history. They appeared last. Therefore the complexity of food supply had to exist for evolution to continue. By the way, divergent pathways and contemporaneous pathways obviously can be the same. As for goal, read Adler's argument.
Your first statement is not a reason but is pure tautology: he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted because he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted. And you keep admitting you have no idea why he did so. Of course divergent paths can be contemporaneous, but parallel paths are not divergent, and it is the divergence of pathways or the “bush of life” that renders your single goal plus “full control” illogical. (See “Big brain evolution”)
Behe on Shapiro: do these systems have a source?
by David Turell , Monday, March 25, 2019, 14:25 (2071 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I state that God choice this method of evolving through evolution. First evolution of all organisms occurs in parallel contemporaneous paths, so the path to humans was somewhere along the way when finches first came on the scene. Secondly, the need for econiches/ecosystems is well-established for food supply. Your comment points out that you seem to see single linear path to the human brain. What happened to the bush of life?
dhw: Sorry, but that is precisely the question I keep asking you! Econiches providing food does not explain why your God designed millions of them and adapted finches’ beaks (apparently in advance of the new environment) and designed the whole array of species mentioned under “vast new Cambrian explosion” if his one and only purpose was to design the human brain! And why “parallel contemporaneous paths”? Evolution has occurred along divergent paths at different times, so how does that support the hypothesis of humans as your God’s only goal? The bush of life is what makes your proposal so illogical. (See also “Big brain evolution”)
DAVID: You are totally confused in your current argument. God chose to delay the appearance of humans because He chose to evolve them over time, which fits the history. They appeared last. Therefore the complexity of food supply had to exist for evolution to continue. By the way, divergent pathways and contemporaneous pathways obviously can be the same. As for goal, read Adler's argument.
dhw: Your first statement is not a reason but is pure tautology: he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted because he chose not to directly create the one thing he wanted. And you keep admitting you have no idea why he did so. Of course divergent paths can be contemporaneous, but parallel paths are not divergent, and it is the divergence of pathways or the “bush of life” that renders your single goal plus “full control” illogical. (See “Big brain evolution”)
Of course I cannot know why God chose evolution. Which does not make me illogical. It is your definition of full control that is incorrect. If God created the universe, evolved it , then the very special Earth and evolved its conditions, than started life and evolved it, God is fully in charge. IF in the evolution of living forms He found He had some limiting circumstances, He is still in full control in the sense that He is the sole driving force.
Behe on Darwin: E coli Lenski study: loss of genes
by David Turell , Wednesday, June 24, 2020, 23:58 (1614 days ago) @ David Turell
The citrate eating e.Coli devolves its genome after a mutation allowws citrate as food source:
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/citrate-death-spiral/
"Richard Lenski and collaborators have just published a terrific new paper in the journal eLife.1 Anyone who wants to see a crystal-clear example of the inherent, unavoidable, fatal difficulties that the Darwinian mechanism itself poses for unguided evolution should read it closely.
"The paper concerns the further evolution of a widely discussed mutant strain of the bacterium E. coli discovered during the course of Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE). The LTEE is his more-than-three-decades-long project in which E. coli was allowed to grow continuously in laboratory flasks simply to observe how it would evolve. As I’ve written before, almost all of the beneficial mutations that were discovered to have spread through the populations of bacteria in the LTEE were ones that either blunted pre-existing genes (decreasing their previous biochemical activity) or outright broke them.
***
"The duplication mutation placed the control region of a different gene next to that of the citrate transporter.
"Here’s why that helped. The citrate-transporter gene’s natural regulator causes the gene to be turned off whenever oxygen is around, as it was under the normal laboratory growth conditions at MSU. The second regulator, however, allows the gene it controls to be turned on in the presence of oxygen. The mutation that placed a copy of the regulator of the second gene next to the citrate gene then allowed the citrate gene to be turned on in the presence of oxygen, too. Since for technical purposes there was a lot of dissolved citrate in the nutrient broth, the mutant E. coli could import and metabolize (“eat”) the citrate, which was unavailable to nonmutants. With all that extra food, the mutant grew like crazy, quickly surpassing nonmutants.
***
"...the citrate mutant had accumulated many of the same beneficial-but-degradative mutations that had previously spread through the population — the new mutation did not, could not, restore them. And later work showed that several more broken genes had been selected in the mutant, apparently to help it metabolize citrate more efficiently.
***
"As always with the Lenski lab, the research is well and thoroughly done. But the resulting E. coli is one sick puppy. Inside the paper they report that “The spectrum of mutations identified in evolved clones was dominated by structural variation, including insertions, deletions, and mobile element transpositions.” All of those are exceedingly likely to break or degrade genes. Dozens more genes were lost. The citrate mutant tossed genetic information with mindless abandon for short term advantage.
***
"In other words, those initial random “beneficial” citrate mutations that had been seized on by natural selection tens of thousands of generations earlier had led to a death spiral. The death rate of the ancestor of the LTEE was ~10 percent; after 33,000 generations it was ~30 percent; after 50,000, ~40 percent. For the newer set of experiments, the death rate varied for different strains of cells in different media, but exceeded 50 percent for some cell lines in a citrate-only environment. Indeed, the authors identified a number of mutations — again, almost certainly degradative ones — in genes for fatty acid metabolism that, they write with admirable detachment, “suggest adaptation to scavenging on dead and dying cells.”
The degraded E. coli was eating its dead.
***
"So, thanks to the Lenski group, we know that devolution is relentless — it never rests. In good times and bad, if a change in a species could help it adapt more closely to its environment, degradative mutations will arrive most quickly by far to offer their assistance. And, of course, under selective pressure a species has no choice but to accept helpful ones, even if that eventually leads to the species languishing. Thanks in very large part to the fine work done over decades at Michigan State we can now be certain that, like the citrate-eating E. coli, as an explanation for the great features of life Darwin’s theory itself is in a death spiral."
Comment: very clear evidence that in evolution a bad mutation that transiently gives a survival advantage is really bad news and 'Darwin Devolving' is the correct view of evolution. This implies all the information in the DNA code may likely been here in the beginning.
Behe on Darwin: on combined mutations
by David Turell , Thursday, July 30, 2020, 00:10 (1579 days ago) @ David Turell
A five minute video about his new book so you can meet him, as I have in person:
It covers how malaria resists Chloroquin with two mutations, and takes a large amount of time.
Behe on Darwin: on combined mutations
I'm afraid I can't view this site without agreeing to certain conditions. This is becoming an extremely annoying trend, which I continue to resist! Perhaps you can summarize any relevant information?
Behe on Darwin: on combined mutations
by David Turell , Thursday, July 30, 2020, 15:36 (1578 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I'm afraid I can't view this site without agreeing to certain conditions. This is becoming an extremely annoying trend, which I continue to resist! Perhaps you can summarize any relevant information?
His objection to Darwin and the requirement for advances through mutations, is if a change requires two simultaneous mutations, it is almost impossible to achieve. He cites malarial resistance to a drug, Chloroquine,