# The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [May 3, 2022, 2:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042 "2022-05-03T14:52:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2022, 11:19am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/62 "2022-05-27T11:19:25Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But you can compute the probability of drawing a full house, and that is not a fallacy.

Can you explain what exactly the probability of drawing a full house has to do with evolution? One is a card game, the other is biology. What do they have in common? Is an organism a hand of cards? A biochemical structure, is that a hand of cards? Are biochemical molecules shuffled like a pack of cards before being dealt by a dealer? I don’t think there is any relation at all between evolution and card games.

And while you’re on it, what is the probability of special creation by God? Because for your argument to make sense this has to be bigger than the probability of evolution however you claim to compute that.

The entire ‘probability argument’ is bogus.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2022, 10:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/63 "2022-05-27T22:20:31Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> I can draw 5 cards and then calculate the odds of drawing those 5 specific cards which would be 1 in 2.6 million. You would then claim that drawing the hand that did occur is too improbable.

Before the fact, yes–after the fact, no. You have to pick one point of view: before the fact or after the fact, and stick to it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2022, 10:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/64 "2022-05-27T22:40:17Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > If evolution is limited to 8 mutations…
> 
> You need to explain what you mean by this, and on what you are basing it.

That was based on Larry Moran’s proposal, that 4 mutations are required for chloroquine resistance. So then Behe’s CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster) would be 4 mutations, instead of 2, and a double-CCC (where Behe places the edge) might be 8 mutations, instead of 4.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I haven’t noticed any such claim.
> 
> Thanks for confirming my suspicion. Do you understand this statement, quoted earlier, as saying that there are CCC’s in humans that could only have arisen thru design?

I would construe it that way, yes.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Behe later claimed the study below vindicated his claim. Is this true? Can you show where this paper shows that the evolution of chloroquine resistance required two simultaneous (or nearly so) mutations?
> 
> [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1322965111](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1322965111)

Yes, “A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity…”

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Even it is true that that the evolution of chloroquine resistance required 10^20 generations, and for the reasons Behe claimed, on what basis does Behe assert that any other trait requiring the same number of mutations would require the same number of generations?

I don’t think he does, the number of generations would depend on the mutation rate, for instance.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > He then argues that a new protein-protein binding site would also require two (probably singly deleterious) mutations. He then places the edge at the production of two new protein-protein binding sites.
> 
> OK, so you might have misspoken with the earlier remark, because this is closer to the correct answer.
> 
> How does he justify his claim that every protein-protein interaction would require two mutations in each protein (total of four), _each of which would be deleterious if it occurred singly?_

“So let’s suppose that of the five or six changes that have to happen to a protein to make a new binding site, a third of them are neutral. They could occur before the other key mutations, as a separate step, without harm. Although finding the right neutral changes would itself be an improbable step, we’ll again err on the conservative side and discount the average number of neutral mutations from the average number of total necessary changes. That leaves three or four amino acid changes that might cause trouble if they occur singly. For the Darwinian step in question, they must occur together.” (The Edge of Evolution, p. 134)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 2022, 10:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/65 "2022-05-27T22:43:23Z")

</div>

> [@faded\_Glory](#):
>
> I don’t think there is any relation at all between evolution and card games.

I only mention card games to show that you can compute the probability of an event before the fact, in either evolution or in other areas, without committing the Sharpshooter fallacy.

> [@faded\_Glory](#):
>
> And while you’re on it, what is the probability of special creation by God?

It’s 1 - “the probability of creation by nature”, if “nature” and God cover all possible causes.

---

<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:** [May 28, 2022, 1:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/66 "2022-05-28T01:56:43Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> That was based on Larry Moran’s proposal, that 4 mutations are required for chloroquine resistance. So then Behe’s CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster) would be 4 mutations, instead of 2, and a double-CCC (where Behe places the edge) might be 8 mutations, instead of 4.

Hmm. Probably not an important point, so let’s set that aside

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I would construe it that way, yes.

That confirms my suspicion that people sympathetic to creationism are likely to misconstrue it that way. But can you now see that this is _not_ what he is saying?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Yes, “A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity…”

Not _simultaneous_ mutations, though. Correct? So that would mean this paper did _not_ support what Behe had written in his book.

Another question arises. I actually don’t understand why Behe has to talk about malaria at all. The odds of any specific point mutation occurring during a reproduction is 10-10 (Behe actually uses figure that is more likely but is inaccurate according to Moran). Which means the odds of any two specific mutations happening simultaneousy is 10-20. This doesn’t take into account the time to fixation, however, so if anything Behe underestimates the time to fixation of such a mutation. But the question is what does malaria have to do with any of this? What does chloroquine resistance tell us about the odds of simultaneous mutations occurring and being fixed? Can you figure that out for me?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I don’t think he does, the number of generations would depend on the mutation rate, for instance.

How is that included in his calculation of the odds of a CCC occurring?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> So let’s suppose that of the five or six changes that have to happen to a protein to make a new binding site, a third of them are neutral. They could occur before the other key mutations, as a separate step, without harm. Although finding the right neutral changes would itself be an improbable step, we’ll again err on the conservative side and discount the average number of neutral mutations from the average number of total necessary changes. That leaves three or four amino acid changes that might cause trouble if they occur singly. For the Darwinian step in question, they must occur together.” (The Edge of Evolution, p. 134)

That does not answer the question. _Why_ must they occur together?

---

<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:** [May 28, 2022, 2:16am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/67 "2022-05-28T02:16:13Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > Did [Lee] understand Behe’s book to not be claiming that there are any CCC’s in human beings?
> 
> I haven’t noticed any such claim

Then you have much to learn about. Perhaps this would be a good starting point.

Honestly, in this case, I think we should take Behe’s actual position more seriously than your impression of it. Wouldn’t you agree?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![faded\_Glory](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faded_glory/32/7167_2.png) [@faded\_Glory](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/faded_Glory)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2022, 11:12am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/68 "2022-05-28T11:12:48Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I only mention card games to show that you can compute the probability of an event before the fact, in either evolution or in other areas, without committing the Sharpshooter fallacy.

This comes back to how you describe the ‘event’. If you describe the outcome of a dealt hand as ‘a Full House’ the probability will be different and lower than if you describe it as ‘any hand that will beat a Flush and all lower ranking hands’. In evolutionary terms, you have to describe the event as ‘any structure that provides a competitive edge for survival’. If you do that you’re going to find that the probabilities of this being achieved in some way or another are vastly higher than the one of just the specific structure you are looking at.  
You are just estimating a single specific probability that is irrelevant to evolution.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> It’s 1 - “the probability of creation by nature”, if “nature” and God cover all possible causes.

So why don’t you give us the actual number then? Could it be that you can’t actually calculate it because this entire probability schtick is bogus?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2022, 8:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/69 "2022-05-28T20:37:13Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Not _simultaneous_ mutations, though. Correct? So that would mean this paper did _not_ support what Behe had written in his book.

In all, none of the papers he cites support his conclusions.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> This doesn’t take into account the time to fixation, however, so if anything Behe underestimates the time to fixation of such a mutation.

And for chloroquine resistance, that is incredibly complex, because only a subset of the human hosts are enforcing any selection for resistance. None of the mosquitoes and rats are being treated with chloroquine. Behe conveniently omits these complicating factors, and @lee_merrill doesn’t notice.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2022, 11:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/70 "2022-05-28T23:37:48Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Honestly, in this case, I think we should take Behe’s actual position more seriously than your impression of it. Wouldn’t you agree?

Well, I do understand Behe’s position on common descent, and I disagree with him, because surely multiple new groups of protein-protein interactions would be required to get from chimps to humans.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2022, 11:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/71 "2022-05-28T23:37:50Z")

</div>

> [@faded\_Glory](#):
>
> You are just estimating a single specific probability that is irrelevant to evolution.

But I think the probability of a structure evolving is part and parcel of evolution. This is also important to the intelligent design argument, thus it gets emphasis.

> [@faded\_Glory](#):
>
> So why don’t you give us the actual number then?

1 in 10^40 being Behe’s edge, then we would have 1 - 1 / (10^40).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 28, 2022, 11:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/72 "2022-05-28T23:37:58Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I would construe it that way, yes.
> 
> That confirms my suspicion that people sympathetic to creationism are likely to misconstrue it that way. But can you now see that this is _not_ what he is saying?

But surely two new protein-protein interactions are required repeatedly, if we go from chimps to humans.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Yes, “A minimum of two mutations sufficed for (low) CQ transport activity…”
> 
> Not _simultaneous_ mutations, though.

Yes, simultaneous, or nearly so, since the mutations disappear in the wild in the absence of chloroquine–implying they are somewhat deleterious.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> What does chloroquine resistance tell us about the odds of simultaneous mutations occurring and being fixed?

Because Behe looks at what evolution actually did, so chloroquine resistance appearing and becoming widespread includes all these factors.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > I don’t think he does, the number of generations would depend on the mutation rate, for instance.
> 
> How is that included in his calculation of the odds of a CCC occurring?

Because the probability is deduced from the rate at which evolution actually brought it about, with the mutation rate being the actual rate of malaria.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> _Why_ must they occur together?

Because they are likely deleterious.

---

<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:** [May 29, 2022, 2:25am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/73 "2022-05-29T02:25:44Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Well, I do understand Behe’s position on common descent, and I disagree with him, because surely multiple new groups of protein-protein interactions would be required to get from chimps to humans.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But surely two new protein-protein interactions are required repeatedly, if we go from chimps to humans.

Could you give some examples of these protein-protein interactions that are present in humans but not chimps (or vice versa)?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Yes, simultaneous, or nearly so, since the mutations disappear in the wild in the absence of chloroquine–implying they are somewhat deleterious.

No, that is not a valid inference at all. They likely disappear, if they do, as a result of genetic drift.

BTW, how long does it take them to disappear? Is the time so short that simultaneous mutations are needed?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Because Behe looks at what evolution actually did, so chloroquine resistance appearing and becoming widespread includes all these factors.

Another non-sequitur of a response. At the time Behe wrote his book, what reason did he have for assuming that the evolution of chloroquine resistance required multiple mutations?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Because the probability is deduced from the rate at which evolution actually brought it about, with the mutation rate being the actual rate of malaria.

That only applies to this one trait in this one organism. How does Behe generalize this to all traits in all organisms?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> Because they are likely deleterious.

They are deleterious in that example because it is a made up example and Behe imposed the condition that four of the mutations are highly deleterious on their own.

If there was a trait that required eight mutations, all of which were neutral on their own (and in every combination) until all eight are present (at which point it is positively selected), Behe’s calculations will not apply at all. Do you understand that?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2022, 3:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/74 "2022-05-30T03:03:16Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But surely two new protein-protein interactions are required repeatedly, if we go from chimps to humans.
> 
> Could you give some examples of these protein-protein interactions that are present in humans but not chimps (or vice versa)?

How about [here](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14693915/)? “Exon-1-encoded Sia-recognizing domains of human and ape Siglec-9 share only approximately 93-95% amino acid identity.”

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Yes, simultaneous, or nearly so, since the mutations disappear in the wild in the absence of chloroquine–implying they are somewhat deleterious.
> 
> No, that is not a valid inference at all. They likely disappear, if they do, as a result of genetic drift.
> 
> BTW, how long does it take them to disappear? Is the time so short that simultaneous mutations are needed?

“As discussed in Chapter 3, none of the changes seem to be improvements in an absolute sense. They disappear once drug therapy is discontinued.” (The Edge of Evolution, p. 136)

I gather from this that they disappear relatively quickly, i.e. not through drift, and such that simultaneous mutations are needed again.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> At the time Behe wrote his book, what reason did he have for assuming that the evolution of chloroquine resistance required multiple mutations?

Because the rate of chloroquine resistance (1 in 10^20) is about the square of atovaquone resistance (1 in 10^12), which requires one mutation.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> That only applies to this one trait in this one organism. How does Behe generalize this to all traits in all organisms?

He then turns to protein-protein interactions, and discusses how a new protein-protein binding site would be expected in about 1 in 10^20 organisms. He then places the edge of evolution at two new protein-protein binding sites.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> If there was a trait that required eight mutations, all of which were neutral on their own (and in every combination) until all eight are present (at which point it is positively selected), Behe’s calculations will not apply at all. Do you understand that?

But the mutations are independent events, and must occur together, so the probability of the 8 mutations is just the probability of each mutation, multiplied together. So I think Behe’s estimate does apply, in that sense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2022, 1:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/75 "2022-05-30T13:44:12Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> How about [here](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14693915/)? “Exon-1-encoded Sia-recognizing domains of human and ape Siglec-9 share only approximately 93-95% amino acid identity.”

No, you specified protein-protein interactions. Is Sia a protein? This is also about modifying specificity, well within even Behe’s fictional edge.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> I gather from this that they disappear relatively quickly, i.e. not through drift, and such that simultaneous mutations are needed again.

Why?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But the mutations are independent events, and must occur together,

Neither you nor Behe has any evidence to support that.

---

<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:** [May 30, 2022, 1:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/76 "2022-05-30T13:44:26Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> How about [here](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14693915/)? “Exon-1-encoded Sia-recognizing domains of human and ape Siglec-9 share only approximately 93-95% amino acid identity.”

OK, let’s take that as an example. Can you now demonstrate that this required four simultaneous mutations?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> “As discussed in Chapter 3, none of the changes seem to be improvements in an absolute sense. They disappear once drug therapy is discontinued.” (The Edge of Evolution, p. 136)
> 
> I gather from this that they disappear relatively quickly, i.e. not through drift, and such that simultaneous mutations are needed again.

Is this just a guess on your part? Has it actually been demonstrated that every single mutation on its own is subject to negative selection? The Summers et al paper shows this is not the case.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > At the time Behe wrote his book, what reason did he have for assuming that the evolution of chloroquine resistance required multiple mutations?
> 
> Because the rate of chloroquine resistance (1 in 10^20) is about the square of atovaquone resistance (1 in 10^12), which requires one mutation

Sorry, I misspoke there. I meant to say "multiple _simultaneous_ mutations. In any event, we now know this is not the case because of the Summers paper.

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> He then turns to protein-protein interactions, and discusses how a new protein-protein binding site would be expected in about 1 in 10^20 organisms.

I know he _says_ that. How does he support that claim?

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But the mutations are independent events, and must occur together,

No, they don’t. They can occur separately, one at a time. Why not? You still have not answered this question, and I have asked it several time. I know Behe wants you to believe this. That is not good enough reason. He needs to provide a sound argument based on sound evidence. You still have not presented that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2022, 1:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/77 "2022-05-30T13:44:27Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
> >
> > If there was a trait that required eight mutations, all of which were neutral on their own (and in every combination) until all eight are present (at which point it is positively selected), Behe’s calculations will not apply at all. Do you understand that?
> 
> But the mutations are independent events, and must occur together,

Why must the mutations occur together, as opposed to occurring in sequence?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2022, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/78 "2022-05-30T16:16:55Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> But you can compute the probability of drawing a full house, …

I doubt, based on seeing many examples of your mathematical inability, that _you_ can compute the probability of drawing a full house.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Don’t forget that the poker-player can redraw some or all of their cards.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 30, 2022, 4:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/79 "2022-05-30T16:19:16Z")

</div>

> [@lee\_merrill](#):
>
> > [@faded\_Glory](#):
> >
> > I don’t think there is any relation at all between evolution and card games.
> 
> I only mention card games to show that you can compute the probability of an event before the fact, in either evolution or in other areas, without committing the Sharpshooter fallacy.

You can. But before the fact, you don’t know which event to compute the probability for. Computing the probability of drawing a full house is futile if you then draw a flush instead.

All this talk of before-the-fact vs after-the-fact with poker is a smokescreen to hide that whenever you talk about biological systems instead of card games, you’re computing the probability of something that has already happened - because if it hadn’t happened you wouldn’t know what probability to compute - hence it’s after-the-fact.

Feel free to counter this by computing the before-the-fact probability of evolving something that did not actually evolve. Until then, you’re just bait-and-switching.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 31, 2022, 12:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/80 "2022-05-31T00:40:57Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> No, you specified protein-protein interactions. Is Sia a protein? This is also about modifying specificity, well within even Behe’s fictional edge.

Well, how about [here](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002942), then? “Hominoid-Specific _De Novo_ Protein-Coding Genes Originating from Long Non-Coding RNAs”

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Can you now demonstrate that this required four simultaneous mutations?

Well, the _de novo_ proteins were on average about 150 amino-acids long. It would be surprising if there was an all-selectable pathway to proteins of this length.

“We analyzed the characteristics of these _de novo_ protein-coding genes. Consistent with previous reports [[4]](https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002942#pgen.1002942-Siepel1), we found that the gene products were smaller, with a median length of 150.5 amino-acids, compared with 416 amino-acids in the human genome, suggesting the difficulty in _de novo_ origination of long ORFs…”

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > “As discussed in Chapter 3, none of the changes seem to be improvements in an absolute sense. They disappear once drug therapy is discontinued.” (The Edge of Evolution, p. 136)
> > 
> > I gather from this that they disappear relatively quickly, i.e. not through drift, and such that simultaneous mutations are needed again.
> 
> Why?

“When chloroquine is no longer used to treat malaria patients in a region, the mutant strain of P. falciparum declines and the original strain makes a comeback, indicating that the mutant is weaker than the original strain in the absence of the toxic chloroquine. [9]” (The Edge of Evolution, pp. 50-51)

“9.Kublin, J. G., Cortese, J. F., Njunju, E. M., Mukadam, R. A., Wirima, J. J., Kazembe, P. N., Djimde, A. A., Kouriba, B., Taylor, T. E., and Plowe, C. V.2003. Reemergence of chloroquine-sensitive Plasmodium falciparum malaria after cessation of chloroquine use in Malawi. J. Infect. Dis. 187:1870–75; Cooper, R. A., Hartwig, C. L., Ferdig, M. T. 2005. Pfcrt is more than the Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance gene: a functional and evolutionary perspective. Acta. Trop. 94:170–80. Drug resistance mutation in pfmdr, the other protein involved in chloroquine resistance, also incurs a fitness cost (Hayward, R., Saliba, K. J.,Kirk, K. 2005. pfmdr1 mutations associated with chloroquine resistance incur a fitness cost in Plasmodium falciparum. Mol. Microbiol. 55:1285–95).”

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Is this just a guess on your part? Has it actually been demonstrated that every single mutation on its own is subject to negative selection? The Summers et al paper shows this is not the case.

“In 1993, Malawi became the first African country to replace chloroquine with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine nationwide in response to high rates of chloroquine-resistant falciparum malaria. To determine whether withdrawal of chloroquine can lead to the reemergence of chloroquine sensitivity, the prevalence of the pfcrt 76T molecular marker for chloroquine-resistant Plasmodium falciparum malaria was retrospectively measured in Blantyre, Malawi. The prevalence of the chloroquine-resistant pfcrt genotype decreased from 85% in 1992 to 13% in 2000. In 2001, chloroquine cleared 100% of 63 asymptomatic P. falciparum infections, no isolates were resistant to chloroquine in vitro, and no infections with the chloroquine-resistant pfcrt genotype were detected.” (from [here](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12792863/))

I think this implies both mutations are subject to negative selection.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But the mutations are independent events, and must occur together,
> 
> Neither you nor Behe has any evidence to support that.

The rate of chloroquine resistance is about the square of the rate of atovaquone resistance, which requires one mutation. This is what we would expect, if chloroquine resistance requires two independent, singly-non-selectable mutations.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > Because the rate of chloroquine resistance (1 in 10^20) is about the square of atovaquone resistance (1 in 10^12), which requires one mutation
> 
> Sorry, I misspoke there. I meant to say "multiple _simultaneous_ mutations. In any event, we now know this is not the case because of the Summers paper.

How so? As far as I have read, they say there are two known paths, with two mutations required in each path, for basic resistance.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > He then turns to protein-protein interactions, and discusses how a new protein-protein binding site would be expected in about 1 in 10^20 organisms.
> 
> I know he _says_ that. How does he support that claim?

I’ve posted his argument in these threads, it has to do with considerations of protein shape space. I refer you to Behe’s book, if you want the full argument.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@lee\_merrill](#):
> >
> > But the mutations are independent events, and must occur together,
> 
> No, they don’t. They can occur separately, one at a time.

But they won’t last long, if they are singly somewhat deleterious.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [May 31, 2022, 12:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042/81 "2022-05-31T00:40:58Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> All this talk of before-the-fact vs after-the-fact with poker is a smokescreen to hide that whenever you talk about biological systems instead of card games, you’re computing the probability of something that has already happened - because if it hadn’t happened you wouldn’t know what probability to compute - hence it’s after-the-fact.

My point is that viewed before the fact, the probability of an event can be less than 1, whereas after the fact, it is 1 or 0. So we have to pick one perspective, and stick with it. I choose “before the fact”, because that’s really the probability of interest, in card games, and in biological systems.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-failures-of-mathematical-anti-evolutionism/15042.md?page=5)