# Lenski: Three Part Series on Behe's Rule

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science\
**Created:** [February 15, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556 "2019-02-15T16:22:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/1 "2019-02-15T16:22:57Z")

</div>

> **[Does Behe’s “First Rule” Really Show that Evolutionary Biology Has a Big...](https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/15/does-behes-first-rule-really-show-that-evolutionary-biology-has-a-big-problem/)**
>
> Michael Behe has a new book coming out this month called Darwin Devolves. Nathan Lents, Joshua Swamidass, and I wrote a review of that book for the journal Science. (You can also find an open-acces…

> I won’t attempt to summarize Behe’s entire book nor our short review, as people can read those for themselves if they want. Instead, I hope to accomplish three things in this post and two more that will follow.
> 
> 1. In this first post, I explain why Behe’s so-called “first rule of adaptive evolution” does not imply what he says it does about evolution writ large.
> 
> 2. In the second post, I’ll discuss whether my long-term evolution experiment (the LTEE for short) does or doesn’t provide _strong_ support for Behe’s position in that regard.
> 
> 3. In my third post, I’ll explain why I think that Behe’s positions, taken as a whole, are scientifically untenable.

(numbers added)

> Summing up, Behe is right that mutations that break or blunt a gene can be adaptive. And he’s right that, when such mutations are adaptive, they are easy to come by. But Behe is wrong when he implies these facts present a problem for evolutionary biology, because his thesis confuses frequencies over the short run with lasting impacts over the long haul of evolution.

> Behe’s next sentence then asserts the power of the “de-evolutionary” process of gene degradation. This is an unjustifiable extrapolation, yet it is central to Behe’s latest book. (It’s not the sort of error I would expect from anyone who is deeply engaged in an earnest effort to understand evolutionary science and present it to the public.) Yes, natural selection sometimes increases the frequency of broken and degraded genes in populations. **But when it comes to the _power_ of natural selection, what is _most frequent_ versus _most important_ can be very different things.** What is most important in evolution, and in many other contexts, depends on timescales and the cumulative _magnitude of effects_ . As a familiar example, some rhinoviruses are the most frequent source of viral infections in our lives (hence the expression “common cold”), but infections by HIV or Ebola, while less common, are far more consequential.

Lenski publishes part one of a three part series explaining in more detail his take on Behe’s rule.

Coyne comments on this here:

> **[Rich Lenski answers ID creationist Michael Behe, dismantles “Behe’s First...](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/02/17/lenski-answers-behe-dismantles-behes-first-rule/)**
>
> Rich Lenski, a well known biologist at Michigan State University and head of the team which has conducted an equally well known long-term evolution experiment in E. coli (they have a generation every

Behe comments and Lenski responds here: [Lenki's Reply to Behe's Gentle Comment](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenkis-reply-to-behes-gentle-comment/4635)

Side track on Polar Bears. Everyone wants to talk about polar bears!

> [@Lenski: Are Polar Bears Damaged?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-are-polar-bears-damaged/4743):
>
> See the next article in Lenski’s series on Darwin Devolves here.

> **[Is the LTEE breaking bad?](https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/is-the-ltee-breaking-bad/)**
>
> Michael Behe has written a third book, Darwin Devolves, that continues his quixotic effort to overturn evolutionary biology. Nathan Lents, Joshua Swamidass, and I wrote a book review for Science. (…

> **[Evolution goes viral! (And how real science works)](https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/evolution-goes-viral-and-how-real-science-works/)**
>
> This is the fourth in a series of posts about a new book by Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves. Behe is a leading proponent of intelligent-design creationism (IDC), which asserts that known processes ca…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/2 "2019-02-15T16:55:46Z")

</div>

Sweet!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/3 "2019-02-15T16:58:43Z")

</div>

Now if Behe or the DI comes back with rudeness and snark in reply to this then they should be ignored. That was Calm, cool, and collected by Lenski

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T.j\_Runyon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t.j_runyon/32/9662_2.png) [@T.j\_Runyon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T.j_Runyon)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/4 "2019-02-15T17:04:45Z")

</div>

I would also like to make a prediction. Even though Tiltaalik has really nothing to do with this, when they review this they will mention Tracks from Poland and how it rules out Tiktaalik as a transitional (though they have been corrected on this a hundred times)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 5:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/5 "2019-02-15T17:31:22Z")

</div>

I feel sorry for Dr. Lenski. There’s no real reward for the work he’s doing there and time spent from his main work.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 5:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/6 "2019-02-15T17:32:23Z")

</div>

I think he is enjoying engaging with the public.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/7 "2019-02-15T17:35:32Z")

</div>

‘The public in general’, probably. As for the Discovery Institute, probably not.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/8 "2019-02-15T18:26:32Z")

</div>

> In the same vein, even if many more mutations destroy functions than produce new functions, the latter category has been far more consequential in the history of life.

How do you think he has supported the claim that the mutations that are bring new functions are random with respect to fitness?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/9 "2019-02-15T18:27:53Z")

</div>

Where did he make that claim?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 6:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/10 "2019-02-15T18:45:59Z")

</div>

I’m curious too. The nearest I can find is the following, and it’s not what @colewd suggests.

From the blog:

> […] (iii) even those degradative mutations that are _not_ helpful on their own sometimes persist and occasionally serve as “stepping stones” on the path toward new functionality. This last scenario is unlikely in any particular instance, but given the prevalence of degrading mutations it may nonetheless be important in evolution. (This scenario does not fit neatly within the old-fashioned caricature of Darwinian evolution as only proceeding by strictly adaptive mutations, but it is certainly part of modern evolutionary theory.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/11 "2019-02-15T18:58:43Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Where did he make that claim?

You guys are right. It is just a claim others have made in the past. What is the cause of change that is producing new function?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/12 "2019-02-15T19:00:55Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> What is the cause of change that is producing new function?

Evolution driven by environmental selection pressures.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/13 "2019-02-15T19:23:27Z")

</div>

> In the same vein, even if many more mutations destroy functions than produce new functions, the latter category has been far more consequential in the history of life.

How do you think he has supported this claim?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/14 "2019-02-15T19:23:41Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You guys are right. It is just a claim others have made in the past. What is the cause of change that is producing new function?

The following thread awaits your comments:

> [@Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/mutations-are-consistent-with-biochemistry/3510):
>
> In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale. So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/15 "2019-02-15T20:07:53Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> It is just a claim others have made in the past.

Who has made that claim?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/16 "2019-02-15T20:33:31Z")

</div>

> [@T.j\_Runyon](#):
>
> Now if Behe or the DI comes back with rudeness and snark in reply to this then they should be ignored. That was Calm, cool, and collected by Lenski

They painted themselves into a corner here. We told them upfront that there was more coming and the science review was just a starting point. We encouraged them to engage with us to clarify.

Then came the self parody we just saw.

We had explained we would expand on all this from the beginning, but I wonder if they will try and ingore this. It isn’t fitting the narrative they are pushing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2019, 5:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/17 "2019-02-16T05:56:10Z")

</div>

Pinned globally on February 16, 2019, 5:56am UTC



---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/18 "2019-02-16T14:13:08Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> Who has made that claim?

From UC Berkeley

> #### Mutations are random - Understanding Evolution
> 
> [Mutations are random - Understanding Evolution](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07)
> 
> _Mutations_ are _random_ . _Mutations_ can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but _mutations_ do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” … In this _respect_ , _mutations_ are _random_ — whether a particular _mutation_ happens or not is unrelated to how useful that _mutation_ would be.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2019, 4:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/19 "2019-02-16T16:37:57Z")

</div>

Bill, it would help to review your original claim:

> [@colewd](#):
>
> the claim that the mutations that are bring new functions are random with respect to fitness

To be fair, that might not be what you intended to say, because you aren’t very good at expressing yourself. But that claim above isn’t talking about all mutations, just mutations that bring new functions. Mutations that bring new functions are a chosen subset of all mutations, chosen because they bring new functions. And new functions, almost by definition of the term “function”, are likely to be beneficial. In short, one would expect mutations that bring new functions to be highly biased toward those that increase fitness.

This, however, has nothing to do with what biologists and the Berkeley web site actually say: that mutations, not just the carefully selected subset that bring new function, are random with respect to fitness. That is, mutations don’t happen because they would be helpful (or otherwise); they just happen. This is the import of the Luria-Delbruck replica plating experiments and of much subsequent investigation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2019, 4:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/20 "2019-02-16T16:52:41Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> In short, one would expect mutations that bring new functions to be highly biased toward those that increase fitness.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556.md?page=2)