Behe vindicated, again!

[T.j_Runyon]

@T_aquaticus

We have a clear progression of increased hominid cranium size in the fossil record,

Naledi being the outlier

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@T.j_Runyon

This is a YEC talking point. Evolution is defined as a net increase in information so they don’t have to call their “post-flood hyper speciation model” evolution.

But their information decreasing post-flood hyper-evolution doesn’t survive even a cursory examination.

There are cats with spots and cats with stripes. Did the cats on the ark have spots and stripes?
Did the sheep on the ark have horns that were backwards curved, forwards-curved, sideways-curved, twisted, flattened, helical and spiralled?
Did the mustelids on the ark have fingers that were heavily-clawed and webbed?
Etc etc etc.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@Faizal_Ali

Shades of “Genetic Entropy”

For those who are unfamiliar with that title, Shades of Genetic Entropy was the last of the E.L. James novel series, the only one which wasn’t made into a major motion picture. (Even Dakota Johnson said, “That one is way too kinky for me.”)

[That’s another fun fact to know and tell for @Dan_Eastwood and @Michael_Callen.]

[Rich_Hampton]

The people of Tibet and the Andes have genetic mutations that allow them to thrive at high altitudes. However, the mutations are very different between the two, indicating that Behe is twice wrong in this one example:

Genome Wide Association Studies, which search the entire genome for areas linked to traits, had found tantalizing clues that one particular gene might be a site of natural selection in both Andeans and Tibetans. It encodes an oxygen sensor that helps cells regulate their response to hypoxia…

This analysis found five variants of the gene that were significantly associated with the Quechua’s adaptive high aerobic capacity in hypoxic conditions … All of the adaptive variants were in the regulatory region of the gene—DNA that controls when and where the gene is active. None were in the part of the gene that encodes a protein. So, the location and timing of the protein’s activity seems to be more important than the protein itself in the Quechua.

Tibetans have alterations to the protein encoded by this gene, which is intriguing. Even more intriguing is that the Tibetan variants are not associated with high aerobic capacity in hypoxia, but with low hemoglobin. Counterintuitively, this seems to help Tibetans at altitude by increasing their blood flow to an extent that compensates for the fact that the blood carries less oxygen.

[Rich_Hampton]

I wonder if the traits could be combined for a additional efficiency— the basis for editing an embryo to be a super athlete

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@T.j_Runyon

This is a YEC talking point. Evolution is defined as a net increase in information so they don’t have to call their “post-flood hyper speciation model” evolution.

Ahh yes that reminds me of when Gilbert was arguing against “the primary axiom”, which is apparently some extremely weird version of evolution creationists have conconcted, which says evolution is supposed to always and only ever produce a net increase in complexity, information, innovation, and fitness. So when this doesn’t constantly occur(here they point to the LTEE for example), evolution is false.

One shouldn’t have to spell it out, but “the primary axiom” is not a real thing in evolutionary biology. You can go read Darwin’s origin of species and read about loss of adaptations evolved in one environment no longer needed in another, ativisms, vestigial features, and so on.

[Faizal_Ali]

BTW, why does the title of this thread include the word “again”? Behe has never been vindicated on a major aspect of any of his ideas. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@Rich_Hampton

I wonder if the traits could be combined for a additional efficiency— the basis for editing an embryo to be a super athlete

That brings to mind the kinds of genetic factors which (from what I remember reading decades ago) helped explain why Kenyans made such great Olympic distance runners. I first read that claim in Science Digest magazine in the 1960’s, so I have no idea if that is valid science—or if it is guilty of some sort of inappropriate assignment of “ethnic characteristics” to a people group. Some readers of this thread can probably speak to whether or not this is a valid observation.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@cwhenderson

I don’t understand his reasoning in accepting the constant breakdown of coding sequences alongside the acceptance of universal common ancestry.

It’s quite simple. The first rule of adaptive evolution, which, thanks to the recent development of science, is now well established, assures us that the RV+NS mechanism will never produce net gain of functional information, for it overwhelmingly destroys information. IOW(1), RV+NS is a process that inexorably leads to reductive evolution or Devolution. IOW(2) RV+NS is the antithesis of constructive evolution. Now, since the history of life is mainly about constructive evolution, something else than RV+NS has been at work throughout the history of life. Conclusion: the primary axiom is dead wrong. And this is a very important, liberating, conclusion.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Faizal_Ali

BTW, why does the title of this thread include the word “again”? Behe has never been vindicated on a major aspect of any of his ideas. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Wishful thinking at his best!

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

It’s quite simple. The first rule of adaptive evolution, which, thanks to the recent development of science, is now well established

That statement is false. You are extrapolating wildly from a handful of simplistic laboratory experiments where organisms were removed from their complex natural environments, put in much simpler synthetic environments, where the main mode of selection is unavoidably for replication speed.
The nutrients in the synthetic flask environment is limited, and runs out every day hours before a subset of the population is passed on to a flask with fresh nutrients. Hence the organism’s descendants that can grow and divide the fastest, when it comes time to transfer to a new flask, will have come to constitute a larger fraction of the population than it’s competitors. So the experiment is unavoidably indirectly selecting for reduced genome length.

That means the organism is wasting time expressing and replicating many genes with functions it doesn’t need, hence mutations that inactivate and eventually delete these genes have become beneficial in the synthetic environment(where they were beneficial in the natural one it was taken from).

Every time you repeat your claim there you are stating a falsehood.

@Giltil

assures us that the RV+NS mechanism will never produce net gain of functional information, for it overwhelmingly destroys information.

Even to the extent that so-called “degenerative” mutations are more likely than constructive mutations, the conclusion doesn’t actually follow. It doesn’t follow that because mutations are more likely to degrade a function/information, than to create or improve it, that evolution can never amount to a net increase in functions/information. You are focused narrowly on a small subset of inherent mutational biases(point mutations and deletions, as opposed to things like duplications) and neglecting to consider the impact that environment has on the process.

First of all there is going to be some floor below which no more degenerative mutations are tolerated. “Degenerative” mutations that occur in needed functional genes will be selected against, hence the process of loss will reach a floor below which no more genetic material can be dispensed with, as all there is left is genes with important functions required to sustain the organism. An organism that loses a gene critical for carrying out the function of replication, won’t be replicating faster than it’s competitors(it won’t be replicating at all), and so will not have come to dominate the population when a small fraction is transferred to a flask containing fresh medium the next day.

In this state, for organisms in the wild where it is not the case that the primary selection pressure is replication speed, since constructive mutations can still occur, though they may be much more rare than degenerative ones, if the function they perform in the environment outweighs the reduction in replication speed conferred from expressing and replicating them, they can become fixed and thus contribute to an increase in genetic information. That is how, for example, you can get novel genes that confer antibiotic resistance. Or already existing genes can be duplicated and low-level promiscuous side-reactions can suddenly become selected for.

While a novel gene might make the organism use more resources on expressing this novel gene, and spend more time replicating this additional gene(supposing it’s a duplication), if this novel gene allows the organism a large growth advantage when facing a novel challenge (such as an antibiotic), it can be selected for and the increase in genetic information can become fixed.

As should be obvious now to a thinking person, the conclusion you are seeking to extrapolate from a handful of simplistic laboratory experiments, doesn’t actually follow. Both reason and evidence shows that genetic information can actually increase under many circumstances even in the face of an intrinsic mutational bias towards “degeneration”. Interestingly, that is how you get constructive neutral evolution, which you can read about here:
1: Stoltzfus A. On the possibility of constructive neutral evolution. J Mol Evol.
1999 Aug;49(2):169-81. PubMed PMID: 10441669. DOI: 10.1007/pl00006540

Stoltzfus A. Constructive neutral evolution: exploring evolutionary theory’s curious disconnect. Biol Direct. 2012 Oct 13;7:35. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6150-7-35

For a concrete example of where scientists have been able to piece together how constructive neutral evolution contributed to increased complexity of a molecular machine(it’s your favorite one, ATP synthase), you can read this:
Finnigan GC, Hanson-Smith V, Stevens TH, Thornton JW. Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine. Nature. 2012 Jan 9;481(7381):360-4. DOI: 10.1038/nature10724

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Now, since the history of life is mainly about constructive evolution

That claim is also false.

@Giltil

Conclusion: the primary axiom is dead wrong.

That’s because “the primary axiom” isn’t a real thing in evolutionary biology. It’s a creationist invention. A straw-man designed to be knocked over.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@Giltil

It’s quite simple.

No, Gilbert, you have not understood my question. I understand the assertion. What I don’t understand is the simultaneous belief in two completely contradictory concepts. If everything is genetically breaking down, how can universal common ancestry, as Behe accepts, also be true?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Wishful thinking at his best!

Here’s the last time he claimed “vindication.” It was quite amusing:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/behe-2014/Behe-1.html

[BenKissling (YEC/ID)]

@Rumraket

Behe has been vindicated in stating the obvious that mutations adaptive in one environment, might not be adaptive in another, and so might get lost in that novel environment?

@Timothy_Horton

Behe’s “first rule” is something science has known ever since we’ve been studying genetics, that evolution in each generation works by modifying the genomes of the previous generation.

So everybody agrees with the Dissent from Darwinism statement and everyone agrees with Behe’s thesis in Darwin Devolves? How come this wasn’t mentioned by @swamidass and @NLENTS in their Science review? As a matter of fact, how come Behe’s thesis wasn’t mentioned at all?

[John_Harshman]

@cwhenderson

If everything is genetically breaking down, how can universal common ancestry, as Behe accepts, also be true?

I believe he has explained this, but you haven’t noticed because he doesn’t emphasized it: God periodically inserts new information to maintain viability. In other words, he made a creation that requires constant repairs in order to keep functioning. He’s the British Leyland of deities.

[BenKissling (YEC/ID)]

@Roy

Behe’s rule includes the assumption that there is some-one or something actively breaking, as opposed to breakages happening haphazardly and sometimes being beneficial.

No, it doesn’t. I would like to know where you are getting this.

@Roy

That beneficial loss-of-function mutations are more likely to occur than beneficial gain-of-function mutations is simply because it is simpler to break something that already exists than to develop something that doesn’t. But it’s also less likely that breaking something that exists will be beneficial, so broken genes don’t ultimately dominate.

This conclusion depends on the likelihood of constructive, beneficial mutations actually existing, which has not been demonstrated.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@cwhenderson

No, Gilbert, you have not understood my question. I understand the assertion. What I don’t understand is the simultaneous belief in two completely contradictory concepts. If everything is genetically breaking down, how can universal common ancestry, as Behe accepts, also be true?

Because the assertion is not that everything is genetically breaking down but that given RV+NS alone, everything would genetically break down.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

given RV+NS alone, everything would genetically break down.

Go on. What is the extra factor preventing genetic breakdown, and can you observe it operating in the real world?

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@Giltil

Because the assertion is not that everything is genetically breaking down but that given RV+NS alone, everything would genetically break down.

Thus, my question at the beginning of the thread:

@cwhenderson

What does Behe pose as an explanation for the presence of life still on the planet after 3 billion years, if adaptation only results from broken genes?