Logic and evolution: Darwin theory debate; new Behe support (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 27, 2020, 22:43 (1422 days ago) @ David Turell

Currently new Darwinist support for Behe's theory of loss of DNA causes advances:

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/05/harvard-molecular-geneticist-vindicates-michael-behes...

"Did Behe dig himself into a hole by claiming that constructive mutations are less common than those that break or diminish functions? If a new article Current Biology means anything, the critics are not just rude but plain wrong:

"In laboratory-based experimental evolution of novel phenotypes and the human domestication of crops, the majority of the mutations that lead to adaptation are loss-of-function mutations that impair or eliminate the function of genes rather than gain-of-function mutations that increase or qualitatively alter the function of proteins. Here, I speculate that easier access to loss-of-function mutations has led them to play a major role in the adaptive radiations that occur when populations have access to many unoccupied ecological niches.

"The author, Andrew Murray, is a professor of molecular genetics at Harvard. He gives every indication that he is a typical evolutionary biologist who believes that unguided material mechanisms can produce all the diversity of life. But like Behe, he recognizes that loss-of-function is very important to the evolutionary process:

"My guiding hypothesis is that a significant fraction of evolutionary novelty has been produced by mutations that reduce or eliminate gene function.

***

"He further observes that genetic analysis of domesticated corn crops often differ greatly from their wild ancestors, but these differences are largely the result of loss-of-function mutations.

***

"it’s not just artificially selected organisms like corn that have experienced degenerative mutations. Murray finds that loss-of-function mutations have been “drivers” of evolution in humans:

"The evolution of humans also offers support for loss-of-function mutations as drivers of evolution. In 1999, a pioneering review argued that in many organisms, loss-of-function mutations were likely to have been drivers of evolution as populations shifted from one environment to another. For example, a human loss-of-function mutation in the promoter of a red blood cell chemoreceptor, DARC, protects against malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax. A second example, also putatively driven by selection imposed by malaria, is the loss of function in CMAH, a gene whose product produces a sialic acid derivative. A comprehensive analysis identified 80 human genes that have inactivating mutations in humans but are intact in chimpanzees and proposed that at least one of these mutations, in the gene CASPASE12, was selected for because it conferred survival after sepsis. (my bold)

***

"Murray offers this conclusion: “I have argued that loss-of-function mutations may have played a major role in the evolution of novelty.” He doesn’t cite Michael Behe, and there’s no evidence that he got any ideas from reading Darwin Devolves. He would likely disagree with Behe about the efficacy of mechanisms such as gene duplication for generating new genes, as well as with Behe’s support for intelligent design. What’s most interesting here are the points of agreement — namely the hypothesis that degradative mutations are very common in the evolutionary process and may even predominate among adaptive features.

"So this is good news: Mainstream evolutionary biologists are independently arriving at very similar conclusions to Behe’s central thesis in Darwin Devolves, the one that drew the most wrath from critics. In light of Murray’s article in Current Biology, Mike Behe appears to be vindicated."

Comment: Note my bold. Human DNA is much changed from Chimps. It shows how easily God could dabble DNA change for the human advance. That Behe is a true clear-thinking scientist is obvious from this new article. The ID folks are real.