Hi John
All the MYH 7 data is consistent with Behe’s model. In any population with a 30% neutral AA substitution rate we would expect the MYH 7 data we are seeing.
You are looking at variation in a population with the MYH 7 data. The same would be expected in the population of bacteria in Behe’s model. The issue is the time it takes to fix a functional variant in the population.
@colewd ,
Do you agree that Behe’s position is that God used evolution as part of his work to create humanity? His discussions regarding “cause and effect” and billiard balls don’t appear to have anything to do with Young Earth Creation.
Brooks
Hi George
Happy new year.
He is agnostic on the point of how God did it. ie Pool shot to separate creation. His point with the model is the current mechanism of Gene duplication and divergence is at best a partial explanation for life’s diversity. He does not discount that newly discovered mechanisms could bring the pool shot into play.
That’s absurd. You don’t even know how many alleles there are, much less all of the data. Just stop.
Leaving aside the fact that you aren’t looking, show your math.
30% neutral substitutions or about 6 potential substitutions per position and 1935 AA for MYH 7
6 X 1935 is about 11,610 potential variants.
As I wrote, you aren’t looking at any data. The hundreds of alleles have been identified ONLY because they ARE NOT NEUTRAL. They cause cardiomyopathy in some, but not all, of those who carry them.
Did you forget this already, or were you ignoring it?
I gave a potential maximum number. You appear to be claiming less so it appears we agree.
No, it does not.
ROFL. Bill I must congratulate you on making me reply to you after a long hiatus, but I apologize in advance since it’s only to dunk on your non-existant math and reasoning skills. Again.
The potential maximum number of variants if each position in a 1935 amino acid long protein can tolerate 6 different amino acids, is 61935, or ~5.28 × 101505 different proteins. Of course so many variants couldn’t possibly exist in the entire observable universe, much less any realistic population.
The “substitutability” of the residues in a protein tells you basically nothing about what you might expect from standing variation in a population, as this is determined almost entirely from prior population history and structure.
Not only is your math wrong. It’s also irrelevant even if you did it correctly. The information you were prompted to seek can only be determined by sampling the population and recording the numbers, which you must then search for in some database.
He’s only out by 1500 orders of magnitude this time. It’s an improvement.
In Bill’s defense, at least he is correct that 6 × 1935 = 11610. We can add this to the short list after 13 - 8 = 5 and 10 - 8 = 2 of elementary school maths questions he actually got right.
It’s possible that Bill intended to compute only the number of single-substitution variants, in which case his number would be correct. Of course he didn’t say and he may not know the difference. But it’s possible.
My math assumes one positional variant per person. There is no evidence that multiple variants will remain neutral. Thanks for the reply its been a while.
Your “math” isn’t "all the MYH7 data, though. Just another rejection of evidence, while mendaciously pretending to be addressing it.
The evidence and the model are different. The MYH 7 evidence supports the model as we would expect many variants in the population assuming 30% of AA substitutions are neutral.
You haven’t examined the evidence, but claim to know what it is or isn’t consistent with. You are bearing false witness.
The evidence isn’t merely “many variants.” The evidence can be summarized as “many PATHOGENIC alleles with low penetrance,” meaning that nothing you’ve posted about it is correct.
I will just draw your attention to this confounding, yet revealing, exchange with @colewd from a recent discussion, with which I believe you are familiar:
It suggests that, when confronted with material he cannot comprehend and/ or which is too challenging to his beliefs he will fabricate or hallucinate an entirely new meaning of the text, completely unrelated to its actual meaning, and then proceed as if the meaning he has created is genuine.
Very weird.
No evidence? I don’t believe it.
But isn’t that IDcreationism and other forms of pseudoscience in a nutshell? It appears to me to merely be a difference in scale:
@colewd fabricates evidence.
@Giltil claims to follow evidence, then when that doesn’t work, portrays hearsay (videos) as evidence.
@Don_Mc pretends that science is nothing more than retrospective hearsay, simply ignoring multiple reminders that it involves hypothesis testing and mountains of evidence.
One could argue that Don’s approach is more elegant and simple. 