# 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:** 2

<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 16, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/21 "2019-02-16T17:21:05Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> From UC Berkeley

I think you have misunderstood the issue.

Earlier:

> [@colewd](#):
>
> How do you think he has supported the claim that the mutations that are bring new functions are random with respect to fitness?

That’s what is being questioned.

Showing evidence that people claim mutations are random is not responsive. For the assertion was not about mutations. Rather, it was about **mutations that have brought new functions**.

I think most biologists would say that “mutations that have brought new functions” is a reference to mutations that have been filtered through natural selection. And those are not random with respect to fitness, because of that filtering.

---

<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, 5:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/22 "2019-02-16T17:24:41Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> I think most biologists would say that “mutations that have brought new functions” is a reference to mutations that have been filtered through natural selection. And those are not random with respect to fitness, because of that filtering.

How would they support this claim?

---

<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 16, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/23 "2019-02-16T17:27:02Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> How would they support this claim?

It would seem to be implied by the “brought new function”.

Mutations that are filtered out by negative selection don’t actually bring any new function – because they are filtered out.

---

<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, 5:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/24 "2019-02-16T17:34:02Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> It would seem to be implied by the “brought new function”.

Then the reasoning is circular.

What you need to show is the mechanism can deliver the functions we are observing to challenge Behe’s argument. Irreducibly complexity dilutes the filter you are describing.

A primates genome is about 3 billion base pairs. These mutations can happen in many different places.

---

<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, 5:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/25 "2019-02-16T17:37:43Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> What you need to show is the mechanism can deliver the functions we are observing to challenge Behe’s argument. Irreducibly complexity dilutes the filter you are describing.

Behe himself agrees that they can arise rarely by random mutation. So there you have it.

Also IC is not a valid argument, and cannot be invoked in his defense. Note, Behe avoided responding to Reference 2, to Boudry’s paper. This is likely because he knows it invalidates IC, and he has no answer for it.

---

<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, 5:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/26 "2019-02-16T17:39:54Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Behe himself agrees that they can arise rarely by random mutation. So there you have it.

So you believe that Behe believes that a bacterial flagellum can be built by random mutation?

---

<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, 5:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/27 "2019-02-16T17:41:47Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I am not sure what you mean by this.

My suspicion is that you’re confused because when you originally made your claim you didn’t understand the meaning of what you said and actually meant something else. @nwrickert has explained, below, what you said. But I’m not sure that’s what you meant to say. Then again, it’s usually hard to tell what you meant to say.

---

<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, 5:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/28 "2019-02-16T17:45:52Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Also IC is not a valid argument, and cannot be invoked in his defense.

I respectfully disagree with this assertion.

---

<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 16, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/29 "2019-02-16T17:45:57Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> What you need to show is the mechanism can deliver the functions we are observing to challenge Behe’s argument

Science has already done so over the last 70 years. The process is called evolution. Behe’s is the bog-standard ID-Creationist argument from ignorance. He tried to support his claim by cherry-picking his data while ignoring the large amount which refutes him. Not very scientific or intellectually honest I’m afraid.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Irreducibly complexity dilutes the filter you are describing.

Science knows how IC structures can be produce through indirect but still completely natural means. The IC argument for ID is just about extinct now because of it.

---

<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, 5:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/30 "2019-02-16T17:46:41Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> Science knows how IC structures can be produce through indirect but still completely natural means. The IC argument for ID is just about extinct now because of it.

How does science know this?

---

<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 16, 2019, 5:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/31 "2019-02-16T17:47:42Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> How does science know this?

Dr. Swamidass has only been posting a link to the explanation almost every day for the last three months.

---

<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 16, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/32 "2019-02-16T18:07:41Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> What you need to show is the mechanism can deliver the functions we are observing to challenge Behe’s argument. Irreducibly complexity dilutes the filter you are describing.

Irreducible complexity doesn’t actually have anything to do with it.

We are talking about the distinction between:

- Mutations

and

- Mutations which provide new function.

These are obviously not the same. That the first of those is usually described as random with respect to fitness has no implications as to whether the second can be so described.

Yes, I understand that you question whether evolution can actually work. But the discuss was about what people have claimed, not about what works. So your questioning is not relevant.

---

<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, 6:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/33 "2019-02-16T18:10:48Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> Yes, I understand that you question whether evolution can actually work. But the discuss was about what people have claimed, not about what works. So your questioning is not relevant.

Fair enough.

---

<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, 7:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/34 "2019-02-16T19:30:21Z")

</div>

Are we all dentists here? Because that was like pulling teeth.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2019, 1:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/35 "2019-02-17T01:09:31Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Are we all dentists here? Because that was like pulling teeth.

… Says the man who hides a giant pair of pliers behind his back…  
(@John_Harshman, just put it down and we can all be friends!)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2019, 4:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/36 "2019-02-17T16:17:06Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> How do you think he has supported the claim that the mutations that are bring new functions are random with respect to fitness?

He did it in his well-known E. coli study:

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/09/19/the-birth-of-the-new-the-rewiring-of-the-old/#.XGmI67h7lPY](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/09/19/the-birth-of-the-new-the-rewiring-of-the-old/#.XGmI67h7lPY)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2019, 4:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/37 "2019-02-17T16:25:26Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> So you believe that Behe believes that a bacterial flagellum can be built by random mutation?

I don’t believe he does. But he believes a malaria parasite can develop resistance to chloroquine thru random mutations. That is clearly a beneficial mutation, for the parasite. For us, not so much. But that is besides the point. The point is that you do not seem to understand Behe’s position on the matter. I don’t think that is entirely your fault, however.

---

<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 17, 2019, 4:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/38 "2019-02-17T16:42:13Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> He did it in his well-known E. coli study:

Do you think Dr Lenski demonstrated that the Darwinian mechanism was responsible for the major evolutionary transitions such as Tiktaalik?

He agreed with Behe’s that the adaptive mechanism can degrade genes. Why would a degrading mechanism be effective over long periods of time as an innovative tool?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 2019, 4:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/39 "2019-02-17T16:51:11Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> He agreed with Behe’s that the adaptive mechanism can degrade genes. Why would a degrading mechanism be effective over long periods of time as an innovative tool?

You know the answer to this, since you’ve obviously read Lenski’s blog post, so why feign ignorance?

---

<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 17, 2019, 4:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556/40 "2019-02-17T16:56:24Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Do you think Dr Lenski demonstrated that the Darwinian mechanism was responsible for the major evolutionary transitions such as Tiktaalik?

Lenski explained that we needed more than the Darwinian mechanism. So why would he argued this?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lenski-three-part-series-on-behes-rule/4556.md?page=3)