We already have: Constructive Neutral Evolution.
2 Likes
Thanks for jogging my memory. I don’t think he would have a problem with this concept.
Let’s look at the basic concepts for a second. There are two pathways I can see for neutral evolution increasing complexity: epistasis and divergence of duplicates.
Epistasis describes the interaction between genes and sequences. For example, one gene may not be beneficial on its own, but it may be beneficial if it interacts with another gene. There is also the case where a change in an amino acid may not be beneficial, but it may become beneficial when it interacts with another mutation. Neutral mutations increases genetic diversity, and therefore increases the chances that new mutations will be beneficial. Increasing the number of functions is an increase in complexity, and neutral mutations are a part of that.
Divergence of duplicated genes is another area rich in potential. When a gene is duplicated it may very well be neutral when it first happens. Those with two copies of the gene will have the same fitness as those with one copy. However, the gene duplication allows for one of those copies to accumulate mutations that change its function without losing the primary function since that function is still present in the other copy. Once again, we have an increase in the number of functions which is an increase in complexity.
3 Likes
Well, he does have a problem with it, because in his book he ignores the ability of neutral evolution to produce irreducibly complex structures. Instead, he assumes that only selection is allowed to do this, for some odd reason. That is the point. He ignores the ways that complexity is built up, which undermines his argument that his strawman version of evolution cannot produce complexity.
3 Likes
Yep. Constructive neutral evolution is thought to be one of the primary reasons for the baroque complexity of the spliceosomal complex. To pick just one example.
2 Likes
Where has this been demonstrated beyond speculation? Is this solved by showing a simple structure hypothesis. If so you are invoking a straw man.
The argument is irreducible complexity creates a formable challenge to Darwinian evolution. It also creates a formable challenge to neutral theory being the explanation of these structures as he explains in his book.
For the theory to work as a complete explanation you have to not only explain how a few pieces came together but you need to explain the origin of the pieces. You also have to show it building the most complex structures not the simplest.
You are changing the topic @colewd. He said that neutral theory is irrelevant because by definition it does not produce complex structures. This is false. He uses this dismissal to ignore the evidence that neutral theory does produce complex structures. Yes, there is evidence for this. No, we aren’t getting into it here, as it is irrelevant to this point.
2 Likes
Technically Behe has acknowledged the reality of all the components of constructive neutral evolution. Most mutations are deleterious, degenerative mutations are often adaptive, gene duplications are frequent. That’s all we need.
No theory in science is complete. Using your requirements, we would have to throw out every theory in science.
According to Bill we have to throw out everything we know about chemistry since chemistry doesn’t explain the origin of atoms.
Then show the ID spook doing it. Or you have a double standard.
1 Like
Among other things by comparative genetics. You know, that same thing Behe is using to infer that “degenerative” mutations of genes is most frequent in selected genes. So if comparative genetics is speculation, so is Behe’s inference. It would also be hypocritical for Behe to accept neutral theory but reject constructive neutral evolution, as both are part theoretical calculations, part comparative genetics. He’s stuck between a rock and a hard place here.
2 Likes
I don’t believe he does and you’ve given me no reason to change my mind. If you are going to give him a fair hearing that would include saying in what way he misrepresents theory rather than merely declaring that he does.
After that you have the explain the previous pieces. Then the previous pieces. Allllll the way back to the origin of the universe. When we can’t explain the origin you go ah hah! Design! Do you see why your type of argument is unappealing. Keep moving the goalposts
Well, if you selectively quote me, then you won’t see that this isn’t merely that was done. Of course we justified it with quotes and evidence. Stop with the nonsense.
Here is an example:
Behe says that mutations which don’t help do not spread in the population. This is false. Neutral mutations can and do reach fixation, and they can also be found at lower frequencies within the population (e.g. 20%).
1 Like
You gave a one sentence response and I quoted it in its entirely.
Exactly. Totally out of context.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not a tu quoque fallacy. Pointing out hypocrisy and then saying “therefore his argument is wrong” would be. Note that people are simultaneously pointing out how and why he is wrong and pointing out a double standard. Nothing fallacious about that.
2 Likes
In these discussions in general and in the particular case of Rumraket’s comment it is. You are proposing that he’s merely launching an insult that the other party is a hypocrite and that this insult is unrelated to the argument the other party is making. So it’s just a gratuitous insult.
Quoting wikipedia:
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy,