A second highly selected gene, LYST, is associated with pigmentation, and changes in it are probably responsible for the blanching of the ancestors’ brown fur. Computer analysis for the multiple mutations of the gene showed that they too were almost certainly damaging to its function.
In fact, of all the mutations in the seventeen genes that were most highly selected, about half were predicted to damage the function of the respective coded proteins. Furthermore, since most altered genes bore several mutations, only three to six (depending on the method of estimation) out of seventeen genes were free of degrading changes [fn 2]. Put differently, 65 to 83 percent of helpful, positively selected genes are estimated to have suffered at least one damaging mutation.
- Darwin Devolves p. 21
fn 2 is Table S7 of Liu et al.
Can we work through this one item at a time to see what people agree with or disagree with?
I don’t understand Swamidass’ aversion either. If you think Darwinian selection is a plausible process, why not embrace the label?
I don’t get it either. Some people seem to understand the label to imply that only, exclusively, and entirely only natural selection is a factor in the evolution of life. But that’s an absurdity, and to borrow a statement from Michael Behe:
“It has been my experience that one very common way for opponents to try to discredit an argument is to exaggerate it, to ignore distinctions an author makes, and/or to change carefully qualified claims into bizarre absolutes.”
I’d say two reasons. 1. As J-Mac exemplifies, being called a Darwinist implies, from the POV of a creationist, that the “Darwinist” has embraced some ideology. More importantly, it has become a religious projection whereby that embracement implies taking something as a dogma. 2. Because that would imply that one only knows about natural selection and little to nothing else about evolution.
I’m not a Darwinist because, although I accept the reality of natural selection and of evolution, I know there’s more to evolution than what Darwin proposed, and because I’m far from accepting any of it, from Darwin and/or from newer work on evolutionary theory, as some dogma. It was the evidence that convinced me of the reality of evolution. It is not true because I pronounce it to be true. It’s true as far as the evidence goes. Creationist use the label to try and level the field. To try and imply that rejection of their religious dogma means that we have exchanged one dogma for another. To try and imply that acceptance of evolution is as faulty as acceptance of religious fantasies.
On what basis do you use the word fantasy?
More embarrassment to come as promised by ….the less known guy:
“He does manage some speculation of the science, so I’d say that’s progress on returning to a serious discussion. He gets in a couple pot shots, too, but we can take them. He has really backed himself into a very narrow position that, even if it turns out right, which I doubt, will hardly be strong enough to counter all the examples of mutations that drive innovation, like those I discuss in my skeptic article.
By the way, two more reviews coming out this week including a devastating one in Evolution. Gonna be a tough week for Behe.”
If they had something of value they wouldn’t make threats… That means they got nothing…just like with LYST…
I hope the get the bear’s color right this time…😉
BTW: You don’t think at least LYST was an embarrassment???
You would have specify what you mean by hypercholesterolemia first…
High blood cholesterol levels is not good enough in this case….
That means I’m a Darwinist too… Who knew?
He didn’t want to use the word “faith”…
Not phoodoo. It’s a tautology, haven’t you caught on yet?
According to your definition of Darwinism every sane creationists at TSZ is a Darwinist…😎
Phoodoo? I don’t know… 🤔
He’s just happy Darwinismk as he understands it, is dead…😁
Alan, don’t you know, being called a Darwinist is a pejorative. Ask Ralph Barnes.
That’s why the term is used. Ha. No one even calls themselves a Darwinist according to Barnes. Its like being called a pedophile.
And one can certainly understand why someone would try to run from the label of being a Darwinist, what with its hilarious idea of random mutations and natural selection creating exquisite complexity and all.
Heh. Chuck a chip in the air and watch the seagulls swoop!
Oh, I don’t know. You have let that pass for Michael Behe apparently.
I was talking about familial hypercholesterolemia, caused by ligand-defective apolipoprotein B. That disease is associated with LDL particles that have abnormal receptor affinities, ultimately resulting in increased risk of coronary artery disease. Since we were discussing the consequences of adaptive point mutations in a functional domain of APOB, that seems highly relevant to the discussion.
Behe OTOH cited an example where the entire gene was knocked out obliterating ALL molecular functions of APOB. Since the protein is a structural component of lipoprotein particles, the knock-out mice are probably defective in the formation of lipoprotein particles, which is a highly deleterious effect (the knock-out is homozygous lethal). Personally I fail to see the relevance to the discussion, because it is evident that polar bears are not carrying null-alleles of this gene (since they aren’t all dead).
So if I were you, I would wait with the celebration to see how this plays out. Behe’s counterargument is pretty bad, if I am any judge.
Who is “one” that you refer to? Don’t know why this comes to mind. I’m a Darwinist and proud to be!
I will from now on refer to the design argument as “the milkshake machine maker argument” though.
Good point! 🙂
If only phoodoo would let us all in on the secret of the origin of exquisite complexity!
Then we could all stop putting effort into something that’s obviously failed and replace it with the truth of the matter.
What is the truth of the matter phoodoo?
Then your god/designer is moot. What does your god/designer actually do?
So, you don’t actually understand what you quoted?
I’m not surprised…
Can you pleaese cut and paste instead???
Make sure you understand the difference between atherosclerosis and developmental issues… i hope you do understand that cholesterol is essential to the development of life, right? 🤔
It is actually a point worth making. Behe ignores the fact that the gene is clearly under purifying selection, even in the protected laboratory environment. But assuming the Designer is not actively involved in maintenance, that is the very process that is preserving all those precious molecular functions; no degradation or devolution. But when a population needs to adapt, that changes all of a sudden?
Just don’t forget the main part! The counterarguments!
Swamidass and the gang do the same thing….Behe is misrepresenting this, Behe is misrepresenting that but that’s where it ends…
Boy! Designer’s fault? 🤣
Unless you spell out what you are getting at, I will assume that you are just blustering.
What? You don’t read the pieces written by your own big hero? Listen to your master’s voice, J-Mac:
The function of APOB is not “to prevent atherosclerosis” nor “to support development”. Lents et al. suggested that the mutations fixed in polar bears affected the rate at which cholesterol was cleared from the blood, which means that the receptor binding affinity of APOB is what we need to focus on. Behe seems to be unable to stick to the rules of the game that he himself made up, and has decided that throwing the milkshake machine down the stairs is a good way of finding out about the function of the individual parts.
I still want to know what Behe says about Farese 1995 in his new book.
Could one of you guys who bought the book please check for me?
Interesting. Farese 1995 is the citation offered up by the wikipedia page on ApoB.
Is this the extent of Behe’s scholarship? I sincerely hope not.
Surely he goes into the literature in more detail in his book?
I’m too busy running away at the moment.
Positioning. It allows
yousomeone to be dismissive of a large number of the arguments made by the IDM by a simple wave of the hand.
I honestly don’t follow that. Could you enlarge a little on that point?
Are you sure about this? That’s not the way I read it. IIRC there was more than one copy of the gene and they knocked out only one. Please correct me if I misunderstood.
Joshua is anti-ID. He has a tendency to take extreme positions in order to set himself apart from ID. It’s a positioning strategy for rhetorical purposes. Science and truth take a back seat.
The truth of the matter is that current evolutionary theory fails to provide a believable mechanism. But you go right on believin’ OMagain!
Well, I don’t get that impression, though admittedly I’m no longer an avid participant at Peaceful Science (mainly because the software is so irritating). I think Joshua Swamidass takes a similar position to science as the Dalai Lama (and opposed to the stance of say Jeff Tomkins and Answers in Genesis) in that where science and religion conflict and the facts bear out some scientific claim as correct, religious dogma needs to adjust to the new facts.
That’s a value judgement. What folks are capable of believing seems to vary from person to person.
You don’t believe in the solutions offered, it’s unbelievable to you. You are not convinced. Shrug. So what?
They have a Department of human evolutionary biology at Harvard.
It sure seems believable to them. But then I guess you know better then every single professor there.
All you need to do is propose an alternative mechanism, once that is “believable” all you’ll get that taught and studied instead.
Presumably you have in mind the true origin of biology? Some sort of deity or designer? A thing did a thing at some time perhaps? And you find that more believable then what is taught at Harvard?
I refer you to my second sentence. You don’t believe in the solutions offered, it’s unbelievable to you. You are not convinced. Shrug. So what? It’s not like you are handing out grant money. So some random internet stranger is not convinced! Go flat Earther, go!
The truth of the matter? LMFAO.
So creationists will never find evolutionary mechanisms believable, who the fuck cares? And could you be any more of a hypocrite considering that ID offers no mechanism at all, believable or not?
Mice (like bears and humans) are diploid. So the so-called knock-out can be studied both in the heterozygous and the homozygous state. What does Behe say about all this in the book?
Does he cite Farese?
Sorry. The “you” wasn’t intended to refer to you personally. Edited.
Unlike you I will happily change my “belief” when something that makes more sense and is better supported comes along. It’s remarkable that you don’t yet understand that.
Do you have such an alternative? Is it Jesus?
I get that it’s hard to see that we could have got from a “warm pond” to here via such a mechanism. We are not good at understanding vast stretches of time and probability. But I say again, propose something more believable and I’ll follow right along.
But denigration is all that you seem to want to do, to both sides it seems. What do you believe about the origin of species Mung? If you find the proffered explanation lacking but cannot offer your own but refuse the only one on offer one out of principle as it offends your religious sensibilities…..
I’m still running away man. May not be able to get back to the book until this weekend.
Yeah, I do wonder why Mung, phoodoo et al seem so proud when they proclaim that they are not convinced! It’s not about that. It’s about laughing at the lack of an alternative and their inability to notice the irony there.
I suspect that they would rather accept that shaming then actually state what they believe as it’ll be less humiliating for them in the long run. I can’t really think of another reason why they can’t see that laughing at something they themselves cannot being to provide reflects worse on them then what they are pointing at!
Blah. Blah. Blah. You know I accept the greate age of the earth, right? You know I accept common descent, right? Including the common ancestry of apes and humans.
But you just go right on believin’ what you want to believe in spite of the evidence.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Hahahahaha, says the guy who can’t figure out why he believes in common descent and constantly challenges the evidence for it. Unfuckinbeliavable
Can I recommend borrowing a dog, folks. A bit of fresh air? The days of being able to get a bit of fresh air may be numbered. Il faut en profiter!
You have just proven my point. I suspect either you, or Lents, or both don’t understand the issue or you are simply coping something without understanding it…
“The function of APOB is not “to prevent atherosclerosis” nor “to support development”. Lents et al. suggested that the mutations fixed in polar bears affected the rate at which cholesterol was cleared from the blood, which means that the receptor binding affinity of APOB is what we need to focus on. Behe seems to be unable to stick to the rules of the game that he himself made up, and has decided that throwing the milkshake machine down the stairs is a good way of finding out about the function of the individual parts.
What’s at issue here is atherosclerosis, or the accumulation of plaque in the arteries:
“According to the low‐density‐lipoprotein (LDL) receptor hypothesis (must be true 😉 ), development of atherosclerosis is caused by a high concentration of LDL‐ cholesterol in the blood, and lowering LDL‐cholesterol reverses, or at least retards, atherosclerosis, thus preventing cardiovascular disease.
which according to the original article in CELL is ASSUMED to be prevented in polar bears who eat extremely high fat diet full of “killer cholesterol” by the improved clearance of LDL killer protein from the blood…
Since you have experimental, lab experience, can you tell us how these very facts can be applied to data, experiments and interpretations of them, especially when it comes to the issue of Darwin Devolves and the multiple data used in interpretations of scientific results?
For example: how can experimental data from mice experiments be applied to polar bear interpretation of data or humans?
With great care. That’s really my point…
Could you help me out — Mung is otherwise engaged — what does Behe say in the new book about Farese?
You imply there are two kinds?
DNA_Jock is right: Behe was talking about allelic copies. The article he links to is more clear about this.