ENV: Behe and Swamidass Debate Evolution and Intelligent Design at Texas A&M

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Rumraket

Because no evidence has been presented of it.

This an argument from ignorance.

@Rumraket

I’m sure Axe would have been more than happy to quote them if they’d said that.

He cites Marshall. Moreover, many of these critics may have been oral criticism.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Giltil

Axe has tested whether enzyme A can evolve to work like enzyme B and he found the answer to be negative.

At best, Axe found the result of his experiment to be negative, and negative results are as easy to obtain as slipping off a wet log. In no way does this work, conceived to fail, generalize to demonstrate that an enzyme of one function cannot be adapted to serve another useful purpose. By such negative generalizations, the average first year lab student would probably disprove all of science by semester end.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

He cites Marshall.

Give the reference please.

@Giltil

Moreover, many of these critics may have been oral criticism.

May have been? So you don’t actually know, but believe it anyway because Axe says it?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

This an argument from ignorance.

No, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you have reason to expect the evidence to be presented. Since none have been presented and you are highly motivated to do so, it is rational to conclude you don’t have this evidence.

[Chris_Falter]

@pnelson

evolutionary processes are non-uniform over time

Sure. There are eras where planet-wide catastrophes open up numerous niches that were formerly filled. The life that remains wins the lottery, so to speak, and can diversify rapidly to fill those niches.

IIRC, there have been 5 such catastrophes in the past 600MY.

Please note that your statement and Axe’s statement are very much orthogonal. This does not surprise me, as I have always found you to be careful to avoid straw-man arguments here in the forum. Thus I have always enjoyed reading your contributions, whether I agree with you or not.

Best,
Chris

EDIT: I need to be careful, as well. I am only stating that the particular Axe statement being discussed is a straw-man argument. I am making no representations about any other Axe statements.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

This an argument from ignorance.

No, it’s pointing out all you have are unsubstantiated claims.

@Giltil

He cites Marshall. Moreover, many of these critics may have been oral criticism.

LOL! So you can’t provide a single quite from a scientist saying what Axe claimed, and you try to weasel out with “someone somewhere may have said it orally”

Do you really not understand why ID-Creationism has zero credibility?

[John_Harshman]

I would just say that one side of this argument can be commended for his chutzpah, and perhaps his loyalty, if not for his judgment.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

Axe has tested whether enzyme A can evolve to work like enzyme B and he found the answer to be negative.

We all agree that enzyme A can’t evolve into enzyme B. The problem for Axe is that if the enzymes did evolve they did so by each evolving from enzyme C, the common ancestor of those two proteins that had a sequence very different from enzyme A or B. Epistasis and contingency are real things, and Axe’s model ignores it.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@T_aquaticus

We all agree that enzyme A can’t evolve into enzyme B. The problem for Axe is that if the enzymes did evolve they did so by each evolving from enzyme C, the common ancestor of those two proteins that had a sequence very different from enzyme A or B. Epistasis and contingency are real things, and Axe’s model ignores it.

But the question is precisely why enzyme A can’t evolve into enzyme B whereas enzyme C can?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

But the question is precisely why enzyme A can’t evolve into enzyme B whereas enzyme C can?

Theoretically it can. But since Axe is demanding a very specific target which would require hundreds of very specific mutations occur the event is virtually impossible.

Enzyme C didn’t have specific targets A and B; A and B are just what evolution ended up with. Re-run the tape and you could end up with enzymes D and E.

Do you really not understand that simple point?

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

But the question is precisely why enzyme A can’t evolve into enzyme B whereas enzyme C can?

Because different starting points matter. Again, EPISTASIS:

Epistasis is a phenomenon in genetics in which the effect of a gene mutation is dependent on the presence or absence of mutations in one or more other genes, respectively termed modifier genes. In other words, the effect of the mutation is dependent on the genetic background in which it appears.[2] Epistatic mutations therefore have different effects on their own than when they occur together. Originally, the term epistasis specifically meant that the effect of a gene variant is masked by that of a different gene.[3]

Epistasis was originally a concept from genetics but is now used in biochemistry, computational biology, and evolutionary biology. It arises due to interactions, either between genes (such as mutations also being needed in regulators of gene expression) or within them (multiple mutations being needed before the gene loses function), leading to non-linear effects. Epistasis has a great influence on the shape of evolutionary landscapes, which leads to profound consequences for evolution and for the evolvability of phenotypic traits.
Epistasis - Wikipedia

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@Rumraket

As I said, plot the biological innovations that occurred throughout life history with time and see by yourself what the pattern looks like.

I have no idea what you mean by a biological innovation, and as such I have no idea how you would measure that across the tree of life

Table 1 and 2 of the paper below will give you examples of biological innovations.
https://www.pnas.org/content/103/6/1804

Here’s a plot of table 1:

Creative evolution does not appear to be “amortized, decadent or nearing to an end”. On the contrary, there have been more innovations in the last half-billion years than in any previous period. If anything, the amount of innovation is increasing over time.

As usual, refuting a creationist claim only requires reading the cited sources and noting the misrepresentations.

[John_Harshman]

@Roy

Creative evolution does not appear to be “amortized, decadent or nearing to an end” . On the contrary, there have been more innovations in the last half-billion years than in any previous period. If anything, the amount of innovation is increasing over time.

I believe that @Giltil and his friends are implicitly assuming that we’re talking about animals and nothing else. Since your plot includes all life, it’s not relevant. Creationists do tend to forget that most of the biota is not metazoans. Remember, the ark carried giraffes, lions, elephants, and maybe the odd raven or dove.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@John_Harshman

I believe that @Giltil and his friends are implicitly assuming that we’re talking about animals and nothing else.

Yes, they probably are - but if so, they should make that clear, and not cite lists of innovations that include developments that predate multicellular animals.

If Gilbert had possessed the courage, conviction and skill to produce a plot himself, there would be no ambiguity regarding what he meant.

Since your plot includes all life, it’s not relevant. Creationists do tend to forget that most of the biota is not metazoans. Remember, the ark carried giraffes, lions, elephants, and maybe the odd raven or dove.

And some (other) dinosaurs. Don’t forget the 2/7/14 each of ceratopsids, sauropods, maniraptorans, etc. Also, termites, death watch beetles, powderposts, wood-wasps, teredos and carpenter bees.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Roy

Also, termites, death watch beetles, powderposts, wood-wasps, teredos and carpenter bees.

Most scholars would say that these are not NEPHESH animals, so the Genesis text does not include them on the ark.

The Bible never links invertebrates with NEPHESH. I haven’t checked but I can’t recall any rabbinical literature which calls insects and other invertebrates NEPHESH.

[John_Harshman]

What about plethodontid salamanders? Are they NEPHESH?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

The Bible never links invertebrates with NEPHESH. I haven’t checked but I can’t recall any rabbinical literature which calls insects and other invertebrates NEPHESH.

Doesn’t that depend on what is meant by “creeping things” in Genesis 1?

Anyway, either* they** were on the ark or they all died out and no longer exist

*assuming temporarily that he Ark narrative is reasonable
**apart from the teredos, which could have survived without the ark but would have been on it anyway.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Semi-Expired Professor & Minister.)]

@Roy

Doesn’t that depend on what is meant by “creeping things” in Genesis 1?

Probably. But I should also emphasize that languages don’t always apply labels according to strict Venn diagrams.

@Roy

Anyway, either* they** were on the ark or they all died out and no longer exist

No. Not necessarily. The entire ERETZ (“land”) was flooded but the text never addresses conditions elsewhere—nor does it appear to care about “elsewhere.”

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@T_aquaticus

Because different starting points matter. Again, EPISTASIS:

Also, there’s no good evidence that A can’t evolve into B, it just might take more than 3 mutations. A and B are different from each other by over 220 amino acids, why would anyone expect them to interconvert using only 3?