Behe vindicated, again!

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

You’re logic is flawed because once a beneficial but degrading mutation has occurred that destroys a gene, nothing will prevent the accumulations of additional mutations within the gene, rendering the reversion to the initial state virtually impossible.

IOW, you don’t have the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution.

Once again, the hypothesis that acceptance of Behe’s claims correlates with basic ignorance is confirmed. You’re presence here as scientific data is much appreciated.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@BenKissling

How come this wasn’t mentioned by @swamidass and @NLENTS in their Science review?

“There are indeed many examples of loss-of-function mutations that are advantageous, but Behe is selective in his examples.”

There you go…

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@swamidass

The Dissent looks like 1+1=3 to me. It’s a garden path.

I’ve always found the “Dissent” funny. It’s ambiguous, for one thing. If one asks biologists whether they disagree with the idea that RM and NS account for ALL diversity of life (and if one asks this in a context where it is clear that one will not take this to mean acceptance of ID Creationism), everyone will say yes. If one asks them whether they disagree with the idea that RM and NS account for ANY of the diversity of life, they’ll all say no.

But the “Dissent” isn’t about that. The entire meaning – the only meaning intended by anyone – is the subtext: “I support ID Creationism.” And that subtext seems not to have been clear to some, like Tour, so occasionally you get someone signing it who probably shouldn’t.

[Rich_Hampton]

The “First Rule” appeared in a 2010 review in the Quarterly Review of Biology (Behe 2010), largely as a critique of the field of experimental evolution, which has grown dramatically in the last 20 years (see reviews by Fisher and Lang 2016; Lenski 2017; Van den Bergh et al. 2018). Collectively, experimental evolution has yielded new insights into the tempo of genotypic and phenotypic adaptation (Barrick et al. 2009), the role of historical contingency in the evolution of new traits (Blount et al. 2008), second‐order selection on mutator alleles (Sniegowski et al. 1997), the power of sex to combine favorable (and purge deleterious) mutations (McDonald et al. 2016), the dynamics of adaptation (Lang et al. 2013; Good et al. 2017), and the seemingly unlimited potential of adaptive evolution (Wiser et al. 2013)…

After reading Darwin Devolves , one would be forgiven for expecting that loss‐of‐function mutations swamp out all other forms of genetic variation no matter the context. After all, Behe states that “random mutation and natural selection are in fact fiercely devolutionary (p10),” and degrading mutations are “relentless as the tide and as futile to try to resist (p186).” However, the truth is that loss‐of‐function mutations account for only a small fraction of natural genetic variation. In humans only ∼3.5% of exonic and splice site variants (57,137 out of 1,639,223) are putatively loss‐of‐function (Saleheen et al. 2017), and a survey of 42 yeast strains found that only 242 of the nearly 6000 genes contain putative loss‐of‐function variants (Bergström et al. 2014). Compared to the vast majority of natural genetic variants, loss‐of‐function variants have a much lower allele‐frequency distribution (MacArthur et al. 2012). Still, Behe fixates on beneficial loss‐of‐function mutations, drawing heavily from situations where one expects such mutations to be favored—such as experimental evolution—and generalizes to all situations this one mechanism writ large.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.13710

[Argon]

@Timothy_Horton

They’re called reverse mutations or back mutations.

To say nothing of suppressor mutations…

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

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.

That’s not the first or indeed any rule of adaptive evolution. It’s a creationist canard that has never been established because there is no consistent well-defined method for measuring functional information.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@BenKissling

@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.

His use of the active vs passive voice.

@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.

It has been demonstrated many times. The mutations that led to AFP III (antifreeze protein in fish) are one example. The nylonase mutations are another. Both series of mutations produced novel, beneficial functionality.

[Faizal_Ali]

“Those aren’t constructive!”

And just how do you define “constructive”, Mr. Creationist?

“I don’t need no stinking definitions! It’s not constructive until I say it’s constructive!”

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

More likely:

This is a beneficial gain-of-function mutation.
It’s not constructive!
This other mutation is also constructive.
It didn’t increase information!
Here is an example where information increased.
It wasn’t observed!
Here’s a mutation that is unquestionably an observed increase in information.
It didn’t build add a new cell type!
…ad infinitum.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

The next (and usually final) step is “You can’t show that that mutation wasn’t guided by divine intervention.” Somehow, it’s up to us to prove that God didn’t do something?

I’m not just being dramatic here. In one of Behe’s responses to our critiques, and I think he was actually seeking to Jerry Coyne, he said something to the tune of “You are mistaking that something happened with how it happened.”

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

@Giltil

once a beneficial but degrading mutation has occurred that destroys a gene, nothing will prevent the accumulations of additional mutations within the gene, rendering the reversion to the initial state virtually impossible.

For anyone reading, this statement is 100% false. In fact, when someone performs a genetic technique called a “complementation screen,” s/he will typically have to sort through lots of spontaneous revertants as false positives in their screen. I’ve had this (dis)pleasure myself.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

@BenKissling

As a matter of fact, how come Behe’s thesis wasn’t mentioned at all?

We did mention that, of course sometimes loss-of-function mutations can be beneficial to the organism, but we chose to spend precious word space pointing out his many omissions rather than praising him for realizing something that’s been known and obvious for decades.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

@Giltil

Darwin’s mechanism works by a process of devolution, not evolution!

FYI - This sentence is nonsensical. If you’d like to know why:

Darwin Devolves: “Devolution” is Not a Thing

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Giltil

@Giltil

once a beneficial but degrading mutation has occurred that destroys a gene, nothing will prevent the accumulations of additional mutations within the gene, rendering the reversion to the initial state virtually impossible.

For anyone reading, this statement is 100% false. In fact, when someone performs a genetic technique called a “complementation screen,” s/he will typically have to sort through lots of spontaneous revertants as false positives in their screen. I’ve had this (dis)pleasure myself.

My statement is true. To see this, you have to consider that I am talking about a loss of function but beneficial mutation that has been fixed in a population. Do you think that the white color of the polar bear could revert to the brown color by RV+NS?

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

Do I think they would revert to more pigmented hair color were they to migrate away from the poles? Absolutely. If they survived.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Do you think that the white color of the polar bear could revert to the brown color by RV+NS?

That it could? Yes. It could. Even by the reverting all the same mutations, that could theoretically happen.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

My statement is true. To see this, you have to consider that I am talking about a loss of function but beneficial mutation that has been fixed in a population.

Do you think human evolution is the product of loss of function? Did the human brain get bigger over time because of a loss of function?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@NLENTS

In fact, when someone performs a genetic technique called a “complementation screen,” s/he will typically have to sort through lots of spontaneous revertants as false positives in their screen. I’ve had this (dis)pleasure myself.

How do you know that wasn’t ID?

Beyond the snark, this gets to a real epistemological challenge. There is no good way to do a “control” experiment with and without ID, so any experimental data against a particular claim can be spun as evidence for ID, rather than evidence against the claim.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

My statement is true. To see this, you have to consider that I am talking about a loss of function but beneficial mutation that has been fixed in a population. Do you think that the white color of the polar bear could revert to the brown color by RV+NS?

Your statement is 100% false. A simple well know example is the evolutionary history of the peppered moth Biston betularia. Before 1800 the species existed in only one variety, a light colored one which it gave it camouflage when it rested on light colored surfaces such as walls and tree trunks. When the industrial revolution began in England and soot darkened most of the moths’ landing surfaces a mutation to produce a dark version arose. This dark form was such effective camouflage it rapidly spread through the population until by 1895 the dark form accounted for 98% of the moth population. Beginning in the 1960’s there was a huge pollution clean-up campaign begun in England which returned the moths’ landing surface to light colored. Moth populations have now evolved back to being almost all the light colored variety.

The bottom line is - evolution just doesn’t care about your unscientific Creationist beliefs.

[Timothy_Horton]

@swamidass

How do you know that wasn’t ID?

Beyond the snark, this gets to a real epistemological challenge. There is no good way to do a “control” experiment with and without ID, so any experimental data against a particular claim can be spun as evidence for ID, rather than evidence against the claim

As many people have pointed out there is no way to falsify the claim an invisible omnipotent Designer working behind the scenes created any given observed phenomenon. However since there has never been any positive evidence for such invisible interference science just doesn’t consider it.