Behe declares victory on all fronts

Apparent evidence for ID

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#21  Postby BooBoo » Dec 20, 2014 1:56 am

Shrunk wrote:
so Behe is right to suppose that a simultaneous mutation is likely necessary,

Heh. That's funny. The Casey Luskin article I quote above says that is exactly what Behe is not saying. Luskin is demanding an apology from the people who said that's what Behe was claiming. So are you going to apologize to Behe, like Luskin is demanding?


A simultaneous mutation would *definitely* work. That is the point being made and which nobody can deny. What Behe has long argued is that a single mutation, on its own, is going to be harmful and so will be actively selected against.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#22  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 20, 2014 5:09 am

Well, why not simply declare victory?

It's consistent behavior of making shit up.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20655
Age: 56
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#23  Postby Onyx8 » Dec 20, 2014 5:27 am

Behe has found God: There he was all this time making sure that resistance to anti-malarial drugs was created anew. People can start dying in pain again at the rate that God intended w/o this irritating input from naughty mankind that helps offset this.

Oh, the glory.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 63
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#24  Postby Blackadder » Dec 20, 2014 7:58 am

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all. It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport." The paper also admits that there would be "significant transient reductions in CQ transport activity before the full complement of Dd2 mutations is attained. The authors, however, speculate that a compensatory change could allow deleterious changes to be masked/buffered: "one or more compensatory changes (e.g., perhaps R371I and/or M74I) could arise at an early stage to maintain the normal physiological function of the protein while it develops the ability to transport CQ."


And therefore God?

Show the rest of the workings if you would.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3679
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#25  Postby Shrunk » Dec 20, 2014 12:21 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
so Behe is right to suppose that a simultaneous mutation is likely necessary,

Heh. That's funny. The Casey Luskin article I quote above says that is exactly what Behe is not saying. Luskin is demanding an apology from the people who said that's what Behe was claiming. So are you going to apologize to Behe, like Luskin is demanding?


A simultaneous mutation would *definitely* work. That is the point being made and which nobody can deny. What Behe has long argued is that a single mutation, on its own, is going to be harmful and so will be actively selected against.


And he's wrong. From the Larry Moran article I linked:

This is where the data in the Summers et al. (2014) paper becomes relevant. They have a nice figure showing how the chloroquine resistant stains arose from a series of strains that acquired different mutations. The seven resistant strains are underlined (e.g. GB4). If you look at the group of strains on the left, you will see that there are two possible mutational routes to strain D32, which is not significantly resistant to chloroquine in the field even though it carries two essential mutations in the PfCRT gene.

Image

In one pathway, the mutation N75E occurs first giving rise to strain D39 and then the K76T mutation occurs in that strain creating D32. The order of the mutations is reversed in the other pathway. In either case, the first mutation has no effect on the chloroquine uptake while the addition of the second mutation produces a significant effect.

It is important for Behe's argument that the "first" mutation is deleterious and he claims that the K76T mutations is, in fact, deleterious on its own. He says ....

Close your eyes and envision a pathway to a malaria parasite that has four mutations. The first mutation is deleterious, the second rescues the first and makes the parasite marginally chloroquine resistant. Subsequent steps are all beneficial by dint of either improving chloroquine resistance or of stabilizing the structure of the mutated PfCRT, which is required for malaria survival. Once a parasite can survive at least marginally in the presence of chloroquine, further mutations can be added one at a time (no longer two at a time) in each cycle of infection because the population size (1012) greatly exceeds the inverse of the mutation rate.

In the argot of chemical kinetics, getting beyond the deleterious mutation is the "rate-limiting step." After that hurdle is passed further mutations can be added singly -- the way Darwinists like -- and comparatively rapidly. Since they would be added rapidly, they would be difficult to detect in the wild. Hence the pattern described by Summers et al. fits the scenario I described perfectly.


Assuming that Behe is correct about the K76T strain (this is not certain), then the pathway N75E → K76T → strain D32 does not have an intermediate that is "rate-limiting" because the K76T mutation is never present on its own. It seems to me that ALL the pathways have to have a deleterious intermediate in order for Behe's scenario to make sense. In other words, both N75E and K76T have to be deleterious.

This neutral pathway to resistance has been observed. There's a strain in the wild called 106/1 that contains several different allelic variants in the PfCRT gene but it's sensitive to chloroquine. That strain becomes full-blown resistant to chloroquine in a single step when it acquires the K76T mutation (Cooper et al. 2007). Contrast this with Behe's explanation that requires two mutations to occur together in a single infected individual before you can get a resistant parasite.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#26  Postby Shrunk » Dec 20, 2014 12:25 pm

DougC wrote:
Wiki say
'In the United States and Canada, tenure is a teacher or college professor's contractual right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause. It is awarded after a probationary period.'


My bold. How about being a moron?


Doesn't count. It would make it too easy to call someone with unpopular views a "moron" and fire him.

Behe is the price we have to pay for the existence of tenure, which is overall a good thing.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#27  Postby Shrunk » Dec 20, 2014 12:25 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all. It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport." The paper also admits that there would be "significant transient reductions in CQ transport activity before the full complement of Dd2 mutations is attained. The authors, however, speculate that a compensatory change could allow deleterious changes to be masked/buffered: "one or more compensatory changes (e.g., perhaps R371I and/or M74I) could arise at an early stage to maintain the normal physiological function of the protein while it develops the ability to transport CQ."


So...?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#28  Postby BooBoo » Dec 20, 2014 1:32 pm

Shrunk wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all. It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport." The paper also admits that there would be "significant transient reductions in CQ transport activity before the full complement of Dd2 mutations is attained. The authors, however, speculate that a compensatory change could allow deleterious changes to be masked/buffered: "one or more compensatory changes (e.g., perhaps R371I and/or M74I) could arise at an early stage to maintain the normal physiological function of the protein while it develops the ability to transport CQ."


So...?


So we have confirmation that chloroquine resistance requires a lot of things to happen in the right way for it to happen at all. PZ Myers even admits this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... on-part-i/

If you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#29  Postby BooBoo » Dec 20, 2014 1:34 pm

Blackadder wrote:

And therefore God?

Show the rest of the workings if you would.


Behe merely claims that the improbably pathway to chloroquine resistance represents the "edge" or limit of Darwinian evolution.
User avatar
BooBoo
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Rowena
Posts: 361

Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#30  Postby kennyc » Dec 20, 2014 1:38 pm

A spontaneous poem for the day:

Behe
Boo-Boo
Boo-Hoo.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#31  Postby Blackadder » Dec 20, 2014 1:53 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all. It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport." The paper also admits that there would be "significant transient reductions in CQ transport activity before the full complement of Dd2 mutations is attained. The authors, however, speculate that a compensatory change could allow deleterious changes to be masked/buffered: "one or more compensatory changes (e.g., perhaps R371I and/or M74I) could arise at an early stage to maintain the normal physiological function of the protein while it develops the ability to transport CQ."


So...?


So we have confirmation that chloroquine resistance requires a lot of things to happen in the right way for it to happen at all. PZ Myers even admits this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... on-part-i/

If you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.


Quote mining much?
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3679
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#32  Postby Shrunk » Dec 20, 2014 1:54 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all. It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport." The paper also admits that there would be "significant transient reductions in CQ transport activity before the full complement of Dd2 mutations is attained. The authors, however, speculate that a compensatory change could allow deleterious changes to be masked/buffered: "one or more compensatory changes (e.g., perhaps R371I and/or M74I) could arise at an early stage to maintain the normal physiological function of the protein while it develops the ability to transport CQ."


So...?


So we have confirmation that chloroquine resistance requires a lot of things to happen in the right way for it to happen at all. PZ Myers even admits this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... on-part-i/

If you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.


So...?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#33  Postby Blackadder » Dec 20, 2014 1:55 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Blackadder wrote:

And therefore God?

Show the rest of the workings if you would.


Behe merely claims that the improbably pathway to chloroquine resistance represents the "edge" or limit of Darwinian evolution.


Does he fuck. He hands the rest of creation beyond his arse-extracted "edge" to an Intelligent Designer (the artist formerly known as God). Without explaining how. Like I said, show the fucking workings.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3679
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#34  Postby Shrunk » Dec 20, 2014 1:55 pm

Nice quote mine, too:

Fair enough; if you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.

But now Behe pulls a classic creationist switcheroo. He has one number, a very tiny probability of one in 1020 for one specific result, and he’s going to use this magic CCC value to claim that no significant evolution can have occurred in humans in ten million years of evolution. Not ‘it’s highly unlikely that humans would have acquired this predetermined pair of amino acid changes in a particular protein,’ but ‘no useful pair of amino acid changes anywhere in any of their gene products.’ No, you’re thinking: he couldn’t possibly have said something that stupid. But yes, he really did.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#35  Postby Shrunk » Dec 20, 2014 2:50 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Blackadder wrote:

And therefore God?

Show the rest of the workings if you would.


Behe merely claims that the improbably pathway to chloroquine resistance represents the "edge" or limit of Darwinian evolution.


I know that's what he claims. He also claims malaria was designed by Jesus specially to kill us.

What he claims is irrelevant. Whether those claims are supported by the slightest bit of evidence is what's relevant. And they are not.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#36  Postby Rumraket » Dec 20, 2014 3:01 pm

BooBoo wrote:In a talk in South Korea, Michael Behe has admitted doing a "victory dance" in his office based on new evidence that he claims supports his ID contentions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlvYn0WrHaY

Well, it is certainly a testament to the delusionality of IDiots that they "victory dance" after having been beaten.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.dk/2014/12/on-irrelevance-of-michael-behe.html

BooBoo wrote:1. Chloroquine resistance does indeed require exceptionally rare, simultaneous, mutations (the edge of evolution): http://www.pnas.org/content/111/17/E1759.abstract

No it doesn't, and that paper doesn't say that.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2014/08/michael-behes-final-thoughts-on-edge-of.html
Larry Moran wrote:We've been having an interesting discussion about chloroquine resistance and the Edge of Evolution. It began last month when Michael Behe started bragging that his "prediction" had been confirmed by a recent paper [A Key Inference of The Edge of Evolution Has Now Been Experimentally Confirmed]. It didn't take long for Casey Luskin to jump on the bandwagon [So, Michael Behe Was Right After All; What Will the Critics Say Now?]. Luskin demanded an apology from Behe;s critics.

It turns out that Behe and Luskin are wrong and the recent results published by Summers et al. (2014) actually refute most of Micheal Behe's calculations. PZ Myers pointed out that Behe's critics were mostly1 right when they criticized the original calculations in The Edge of Evolution [Quote-mined by Casey Luskin!].

...


BooBoo wrote:2. Mechanical gears are found in grasshoppers: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1254

What does this have to do with anything Michael Behe claims about mutations and the edge of evolution? Nothing, nothing at all. There's absolutely no valid reason to think these structures aren't evolved entities.

BooBoo wrote:3. Fiber optics are found in the eye: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/14070 ... s5319.html

What does this have to do with anything Michael Behe claims about mutations and the edge of evolution? Nothing, nothing at all.
Same as above.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13174
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#37  Postby Rumraket » Dec 20, 2014 3:07 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all. It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport." The paper also admits that there would be "significant transient reductions in CQ transport activity before the full complement of Dd2 mutations is attained. The authors, however, speculate that a compensatory change could allow deleterious changes to be masked/buffered: "one or more compensatory changes (e.g., perhaps R371I and/or M74I) could arise at an early stage to maintain the normal physiological function of the protein while it develops the ability to transport CQ."


So...?


So we have confirmation that chloroquine resistance requires a lot of things to happen in the right way for it to happen at all. PZ Myers even admits this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... on-part-i/

If you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.

You are not understanding the criticsm. Nobody is claiming that chloroquine resistance evolves easily. And nobody is claiming that there isn't an actual limitation to evolution, of course there is, evolution is not omnipotent and nobody claims it is.

Of course there are going to be cases where things that evolve require improbable events. So those events will as a matter of consequence only happen very rarely. That's why CCC evolves slowly, even in large populations of parasites.

The problem arises when Behe tries to extend this single case as applying to everything that happens in evolution, including the history of life. Nothing supports this extrapolation.

Also, Behe claimed the original mutations are required to be simultaneous, they are not, so his original claim was actually wrong. Regardles, several of the mutations are deleterious, and only balanced by other compensatory mutations, so that's why CC resistance evolves slowly.

Does that mean everything else also evolves slowly? No. So his case is useless, he cannot extend this single case to the entire diversity and history of life, nothing merits this. Case: dismissed.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13174
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#38  Postby Rumraket » Dec 20, 2014 3:10 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Blackadder wrote:

And therefore God?

Show the rest of the workings if you would.


Behe merely claims that the improbably pathway to chloroquine resistance represents the "edge" or limit of Darwinian evolution.

Yeah, that is what evolution can do, under those specific constraints. It is in all probability the only solution available to malaria to beat chloroquine.

Does that mean the same is true for the entirety of the rest of life, that because some changes are rare, everything else is too? No.

So we're done, his argument is irrelevant to the rest of evolutionary history and biodiversity.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13174
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#39  Postby Rumraket » Dec 20, 2014 3:17 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
so Behe is right to suppose that a simultaneous mutation is likely necessary,

Heh. That's funny. The Casey Luskin article I quote above says that is exactly what Behe is not saying. Luskin is demanding an apology from the people who said that's what Behe was claiming. So are you going to apologize to Behe, like Luskin is demanding?


A simultaneous mutation would *definitely* work. That is the point being made and which nobody can deny.

Nobody is denying that simultaneity would work, of course it would. But what they are denying is that simultaneity is REQUIRED. It is not, and the paper shows it.

What Behe has long argued is that a single mutation, on its own, is going to be harmful and so will be actively selected against.

Nobody has ever denied this either. But that is not merely Behe's claim, his original claim was that two simultaneous mutations were required, REQUIRED. That it was all or nothing, either-or, on-off. He was wrong.

Unless the deleterious mutation is outright lethal, selection is not going to be 100% effective. When selection is not 100% effective, that's called drift. Selection is never 100% effective when we aren't talking lethal mutations(and we aren't), so you will always get a bit of drift. It has a negative selection coefficient, that doesn't mean the mutations have to be simultaneous. Behe's original claim that simultaneity was an absolute requirement is demonstrably wrong.

Selected against does not mean outright lethal. It is not lethal, it is just deleterious. So we're done, Behe was wrong. Simultaneity is not required. A deleterious mutation can happen, which can linger around in an individual that subsequently reproduces a numbe of time which then suffers an additional mutation which, in combination with the deleterious one, is what produces CC resistance. This is what the paper actually argues probably happened.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13174
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Behe declares victory on all fronts

#40  Postby Rumraket » Dec 20, 2014 3:21 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
And Summers' paper confirms that. So they were right.


No, the paper does not state that at all. It confirms that two mutations are necessary and, crucially, that "the mutations be added in a specific order to avoid decreases in chloroquine transport." The paper also admits that there would be "significant transient reductions in CQ transport activity before the full complement of Dd2 mutations is attained. The authors, however, speculate that a compensatory change could allow deleterious changes to be masked/buffered: "one or more compensatory changes (e.g., perhaps R371I and/or M74I) could arise at an early stage to maintain the normal physiological function of the protein while it develops the ability to transport CQ."


So...?


So we have confirmation that chloroquine resistance requires a lot of things to happen in the right way for it to happen at all. PZ Myers even admits this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... on-part-i/

You can't "admit" to what you have always agreed with.

Nobody ever denied this, and that was not Behe's original claim. It was that the mutations had to be simultaneous, as in both of them being required to happen in the same individual, in a single generation, not just them happening in a specific order was going to be the best outcome.

Also, again, there is no good reason to think this result can be extended to the entirety of the rest of life.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13174
Age: 39

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests