"Darwin Devolves" Ch 1: The Pretense of Knowledge

[Mung]

@Mercer

Isn’t that central to Behe’s thesis?

I have not read the book yet. I think it would be more appropriate if you were to address that question to Nathan or Joshua.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

It doesn’t matter whether they are deleterious.

Isn’t that central to Behe’s thesis?

On February 8th our review is coming out in Science. On February 28th, Behe’s book is coming out. No need to rush this.

[Patrick]

@Mung

I have not read the book yet. I think it would be more appropriate if you were to address that question to Nathan or Joshua.

@Mung Read the first chapter and use your knowledge to access it

[davecarlson]

On February 8th our review is coming out in Science.

Wow, congrats on that!

[Sarah_Rodriguez]

i predict that behe still doesnt know that slightly deleterious mutations can be selected

[John_Harshman]

@Sarah_Rodriguez

behe still doesnt know that slightly deleterious mutations can be selected

“Selected” is perhaps the wrong word. By definition, deleterious alleles can’t be selected; neutral alleles can’t be selected. But they can be fixed by drift. Behe may not understand this, but that’s a problem with his last book, not necessarily this one.

[Mung]

@Sarah_Rodriguez

i predict that behe still doesnt know that slightly deleterious mutations can be selected

It doesn’t matter, because even deleterious mutations can be fixed due to genetic drift.

[Mung]

@John_Harshman

“Selected” is perhaps the wrong word. By definition, deleterious alleles can’t be selected; neutral alleles can’t be selected.

Yet more misinformation.

Negative selection (natural selection)

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Don’t be silly, there was no misinformation.

Selected for, selected against. Deleterious mutations are selected against. They’re not selected, the beneficial ones are. That’s the sense in which mutations are selected.

[Sarah_Rodriguez]

Thanks John Harshman for the correction. I remember when Behe critiqued CNE, he only sees in black and white:

The last step of the model is the “co-adaptation” of the two proteins, where other, complementary mutations occur in both proteins. Yet this implies that the protein complex must suffer deleterious mutations at least every other step, provoking the “co-adaptive” mutation to fix in the population. Wouldn’t these deleterious mutations be very unlikely to spread in the population?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Mung

You just said that deleterious alleles are selected.

No, I said selected against. That word in my sentence was there for a reason. This is your typical brainless semantics trolling. Get your shit together.

[Mung]

@Rumraket

No, I said selected against .

How is it selected against if it is not selected? And what is purifying selection, selection for purification or selection against purification?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

I’m seeing what appears to be a misunderstanding of the basic terminology.

[T_aquaticus]

@Mung

How is it selected against if it is not selected? And what is purifying selection , selection for purification or selection against purification?

Think of alcohol distillation. You purify the alcohol by leaving the water behind. The same applies to alleles where you select for the fitter alleles and leave the less fit alleles behind.

[John_Harshman]

Is it that you didn’t understand what I said, don’t understand what Wikipedia says, or just don’t care if it means you can score a point? Winning again!