Reviewing Behe's "Darwin Devolves"

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Rumraket

@Mercer: Usually, none. It’s what they do, though, so binding is not nearly as difficult as the ID touts make it out to be. If you understood the most basic biochemistry you’d understand why.

This is one of the basic things I’ve been trying to get across to Bill for years. Basic organic chemistry would dispel many of Bill’s misconceptions about protein sequence space. High school level organic chemistry would go a substantial way towards giving Bill a different picture of protein biochemistry.

It’s just amazing that to support an unsupportable conclusion like ID, people like @colewd have to rewrite the most basic facts, in this case that proteins are sticky, and therefore they precipitate out of solution very easily.

@colewd, can you explain why you are unable to learn and/or acknowledge such a basic, obvious fact?

@colewd

How do you think it dispels my misconceptions?

Because you deny that proteins are sticky. They stick to each other, they stick to themselves. Last night, you were completely unaware of the existence of homodimers.

@colewd

I know you have pitched that Axe was several orders of magnitude off in his experiments yet you never repeated his experiments.

Not several. Far more. There’s no reason for any of us to repeat his experiments, as there’s no reason to estimate the prevalence of function in sequence space by going backwards, mutating a single temperature-sensitive mutant of a protein and not bothering to assay enzymatic activity, which is a continuous variable.

We don’t need to because we know that we can find beta-lactamase in multiple clones from a library of only 10^8 immunoglobulins.

Now YOU have to explain why Ann Gauger didn’t even know of the existence of the 32-year-old field of catalytic antibodies, and why Axe did not address them in his paper.

@colewd

Do you still believe that Axe was off his estimates by 60 orders of magnitude?

No, it’s closer to 70 orders of magnitude.

@colewd

Can you describe his experiment precisely?

Yes, it’s a joke. Our own experiments, done for completely different reasons, tell us more than his do.

Why hasn’t Axe repeated his experiment with more enzymes, Bill?

@colewd

Do you think all proteins have the same requirements for sequence precision?

No. How do you defend Axe’s and Gauger’s claims that this single, lousy experiment can be generalized to all proteins?

How many different catalytic antibodies have been found in the mammalian Ig repertoire of only 10^8 in the past 32 years, Bill?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

They may be simply dodging the political spin that Tim and John and show good command of.

Then quote me using political spin.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

It has to do with teaching critical thinking vs indoctrination.

In which are you engaging when you deny that proteins are sticky?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@colewd

This was the answer I gave.

colewd:

If any of these other subjects have controversial claims the unresolved issue should be discussed.

So you still won’t give an example of “let the kids decide for themselves” guiding public school pedagogy in the major courses I listed. Got it.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

Then quote me using political spin.

John Harshman

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

Then quote him.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

So you still won’t give an example of “let the kids decide for themselves” guiding public school pedagogy in the major courses I listed. Got it.

Can a kid decide himself the Lincoln was a clever politician? Can they decide them selves what happened in the Kennedy assassination? Can they decide themselves if Kant had credible ideas. Sure they can.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

It’s just amazing that to support an unsupportable conclusion like ID, people like @colewd have to rewrite the most basic facts, in this case that proteins are sticky, and therefore they precipitate out of solution very easily.

@colewd, can you explain why you are unable to learn and/or acknowledge such a basic, obvious fact?

Can you make the case why this is relevant?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

No. How do you defend Axe’s and Gauger’s claims that this single, lousy experiment can be generalized to all proteins?

I don’t. I think it is a conservative case relative to eukaryotic proteins with more functions and longer sequences.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

Can you make the case why this is relevant?

Mikkel already did. Protein binding sites are an inherent feature of proteins, even random ones. Your conclusion leads you into revising the most obvious facts, Bill.

Science is about predicting facts that you do not currently know, and it doesn’t matter if everyone else knows them. Your hypothesis predicted that proteins are not sticky. That false prediction alone tells you that it is false.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

Science is about predicting facts that you do not currently know, and it doesn’t matter if everyone else knows them. Your hypothesis predicted that proteins are not sticky. That false prediction alone tells you that it is false.

I have never made a claim about sticky proteins. Are you making the claim that proteins are sticky so sequences don’t matter?

[Argon]

I sense a big confusion between quantity and quality in this thread…

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@colewd

Can a kid decide himself the Lincoln was a clever politician? Can they decide them selves what happened in the Kennedy assassination? Can they decide themselves if Kant had credible ideas. Sure they can.

You are still dodging. Nobody doubts that kids will form personal opinions about some topics—but we were talking about pedagogy. Do you know of any public school curriculum or course guide which encourages “You kids decide for yourselves what really happened. You can pick and choose.” after telling them that Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas? No you don’t. Perhaps the “smart” students will decide that Kennedy wasn’t shot at all.

The public schools teach (or should teach if any are failing to do so) the major conclusions of the academy concerning math, science, history, and other fields. There’s rarely a surplus of class time for encouraging the discussion of conspiracy theories, pet ideologies, and tangential topics.

The kids who come from families which support intelligent design positions are already getting that ID promotion at home. It would serve no purpose for the public good to add it to the classroom as well.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

You are still dodging. Nobody doubts that kids will form personal opinions about some topics—but we were talking about pedagogy. Do you know of any public school curriculum or course guide which encourages “You kids decide for yourselves what really happened. You can pick and choose.” after telling them that Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas? No you don’t. Perhaps the “smart” students will decide that Kennedy wasn’t shot at all.

Are we teaching the academic consensus is one assassin and one bullet. What if a kid raises other theories? Does the teacher then drive to discredit the theory?

What ever happen to critical thinking?

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

What ever happen to critical thinking?

Wait, you’re an assassination conspiracy theorist too? Are you also a 9/11 truther, a birther, and an anti-vaxxer?

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@John_Harshman

Are you also a 9/11 truther, a birther, and an anti-vaxxer?

I know so many public school teachers who feel overwhelmed by how much material they are expected to cover in insufficient class time with far too many students who are not even educationally prepared for that level of material. Imagine if those over-worked teachers had to also be prepared to teach “critical thinking skills” applied to 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxer doctrines, Roosevelt-planned-Pearl-Harbor-attack, and so many other “controversial topics” so that the “smart” kids can make up their own minds. Wow.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

It would serve no purpose for the public good to add it to the classroom as well.

Unless we taught it as an example of pseudoscience…

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

I have never made a claim about sticky proteins.

Yes, you did:

@colewd

It’s simple Tim. Proteins don’t work in a vacuum they are interdependent meaning they must bind with each other. If a sequence evolves is transcribed, translated, folds and does not bind with anything currently in the cell it is non functional.

No protein fails to bind. It’s just a matter of affinity.

@colewd

Are you making the claim that proteins are sticky so sequences don’t matter?

No, I’m pointing out the fact that proteins are extremely sticky. How can you deny this simple fact?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Mercer

Unless we taught it as an example of pseudoscience

pseudoscience, denier you guys have all the instant discredit spin words down.

[AllenWitmerMiller (Retired Professor & Minister.)]

@Mercer

Unless we taught it as an example of pseudoscience…

A high school course in “Foundations of Science” has great potential for producing a more science-literate citizenry and electorate. Freshman high school students immediately dive into Biology 101 or Earth Science 101 but learn very little about the history of science and how it became such an effective means of understanding the world. Perhaps more emphasis on why science matters could then segue into examining why so many pseudoscience ideas are popular and why we know that they are rubbish. Far too many Americans think that scientists are just “overeducated academics” and that science is just a set of subjective personal opinions.

Using pseudoscience case-studies could be riveting as well as educational.