reading Michael Behe's book Darwin Devolves

[Jeff S]

I have three of Behe's books now. Its main premise is that Darwinian mechanisms do not build genetic information. Instead, biological processes break apart DNA thus possibly creating animals that are more adaptable in the short run but yet, in the long term, less genetically fit and limited in the amount of variation they can produce. Early in the book there is a section that reveals the vast complexity of some animals that suggests intelligent design - an example being some insects called planthoppers. Young planthoppers have strange bumps in their hind legs, and at one-time scientists did not know what they were. However, a pair of British entomologists, using sophisticated high-speed video equipment, revealed that these bumps are the teeth of gears which enable them to jump. Behe says this “is the first example of a (relatively) large, in-your-face, interacting gear system in an animal.”

Later chapters go into more detail on his main premise and are difficult to summarize. I will have to reread them to get a good idea of what he is talking about. In particular, he discusses the work of Richard Lenski on bacteria which is cited by Richard Dawkins as an example of evolution's ability to craft new genetic information.

In an appendix, he discusses how his original arguments about irreducible complexity have withstood the test of time. I'm reading this part right now.

 

[Shemjaza]

Has he actually defined how information can be objectively measured and it what unit yet? (That has been the biggest flaw in every version of ID I've seen presented).

I'm curious how something can be more adaptable yet less genetically fit?

 

[nolidad]

I have three of Behe's books now. Its main premise is that Darwinian mechanisms do not build genetic information. Instead, biological processes break apart DNA thus possibly creating animals that are more adaptable in the short run but yet, in the long term, less genetically fit and limited in the amount of variation they can produce. Early in the book there is a section that reveals the vast complexity of some animals that suggests intelligent design - an example being some insects called planthoppers. Young planthoppers have strange bumps in their hind legs, and at one-time scientists did not know what they were. However, a pair of British entomologists, using sophisticated high-speed video equipment, revealed that these bumps are the teeth of gears which enable them to jump. Behe says this “is the first example of a (relatively) large, in-your-face, interacting gear system in an animal.”

Later chapters go into more detail on his main premise and are difficult to summarize. I will have to reread them to get a good idea of what he is talking about. In particular, he discusses the work of Richard Lenski on bacteria which is cited by Richard Dawkins as an example of evolution's ability to craft new genetic information.

In an appendix, he discusses how his original arguments about irreducible complexity have withstood the test of time. I'm reading this part right now.

It is true that there is no empirical scientifically tested and verified mutation that has ever produced more complex a, or new or added previously unwirtten information which is the base necessity for evolution to work!

We do see adaptation and variation which is due to a shuffling of existing genetic information, or we see systems work as designed to defend an organism (like bacteria adapting to antibiotics for example),

But we have no solid proven evidence of microbes to man by mutation and natural selection. What we do know of gentic mutation produces a degrading not an upgrading!

 

[Shemjaza]

It is true that there is no empirical scientifically tested and verified mutation that has ever produced more complex a, or new or added previously unwirtten information which is the base necessity for evolution to work!

Can you describe what new information would be then?

The only mechanisms I've ever seen described within the theory of evolution is a variation on existing genes.

We do see adaptation and variation which is due to a shuffling of existing genetic information, or we see systems work as designed to defend an organism (like bacteria adapting to antibiotics for example),

But we have no solid proven evidence of microbes to man by mutation and natural selection. What we do know of gentic mutation produces a degrading not an upgrading!

Positive mutations that allow for increased survival can be described easily. The ability for adult humans to digest milk is an easy one.

Mutations can cause duplication of genetic patterns or changes to existing patterns. As far as I'm aware that is all that is required to add new variation and new information.

Do you have a different definition of information you are using in this context, and if so, do you have a method of measuring it?

 

[-57]

Has he actually defined how information can be objectively measured and it what unit yet? (That has been the biggest flaw in every version of ID I've seen presented).

I'm curious how something can be more adaptable yet less genetically fit?

A memory stick full of 0's weighs the same as a memory stick full of 1's.

What are you looking for?

 

[-57]

Can you describe what new information would be then?

The only mechanisms I've ever seen described within the theory of evolution is a variation on existing genes.


Positive mutations that allow for increased survival can be described easily. The ability for adult humans to digest milk is an easy one.

Mutations can cause duplication of genetic patterns or changes to existing patterns. As far as I'm aware that is all that is required to add new variation and new information.

Do you have a different definition of information you are using in this context, and if so, do you have a method of measuring it?

A skateboard does poorly going down a hill covered with several inches of snow. But remove the wheels and it does fairly well.

Then again that would be a loss of information.

 

[-57]

Positive mutations that allow for increased survival can be described easily.

Evolution fails when one realizes evolution requires many of what you call "positive" mutations happening. I think you would agree that it took more than one positive mutation to change a 4 legged mammal into a dolphin. In fact each new evolving system seen in the dolphin would require many positive mutations. Increased genetic information would be required.

As the evos tell us most mutations are harmful or neutral....and an extremely small amount would be considered as "positive". We also know the amount of base pairs in animal DNA is very large. For humans it's about 3.5 billion. That's one place where the problem raises it's head and stops evolutionism. Odds.

What are the odds of a positive mutation occurring anywhere? As mentioned earlier it takes many positive mutations to create the information in DNA to code for a new body part. What does that mean? The odds raise exponentially as the requirement for it to repeat in an animals future progeny..stops evolution from happening.

Perhaps you can tell us how when the evos tell us the mutations accumulate in little steps form something new like the dolphins echo-location system with all of the cooperating features in the sophisticated portions that allow it to function.

 

[Shemjaza]

A memory stick full of 0's weighs the same as a memory stick full of 1's.

What are you looking for?

People often discuss increasing and decreasing of genetic, specified or other labels for what they call "information". But without an objective system and a metric it isn't possible to compare or measure quantity.

A skateboard does poorly going down a hill covered with several inches of snow. But remove the wheels and it does fairly well.

Then again that would be a loss of information.

But an increase in survivability. Skateboards are not really analogous to living things.

Dolphins don't have hind limbs (despite having the atavistic genes for them), but are excellent swimmers.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolution fails when one realizes evolution requires many of what you call "positive" mutations happening. I think you would agree that it took more than one positive mutation to change a 4 legged mammal into a dolphin. In fact each new evolving system seen in the dolphin would require many positive mutations. Increased genetic information would be required.

As the evos tell us most mutations are harmful or neutral....and an extremely small amount would be considered as "positive". We also know the amount of base pairs in animal DNA is very large. For humans it's about 3.5 billion. That's one place where the problem raises it's head and stops evolutionism. Odds.

What are the odds of a positive mutation occurring anywhere? As mentioned earlier it takes many positive mutations to create the information in DNA to code for a new body part. What does that mean? The odds raise exponentially as the requirement for it to repeat in an animals future progeny..stops evolution from happening.

Perhaps you can tell us how when the evos tell us the mutations accumulate in little steps form something new like the dolphins echo-location system with all of the cooperating features in the sophisticated portions that allow it to function.

Trivial. The dolphin isn't a goal, it's merely the current successful example.

All the little advantageous mutations just need to not be significantly negative.

I think you have a misunderstanding about mutations having to repeat in offspring. If the new trait is an advantage, the offspring who naturally inherit it will have the advantage.

 

[-57]

Trivial. The dolphin isn't a goal, it's merely the current successful example.

All the little advantageous mutations just need to not be significantly negative.

I think you have a misunderstanding about mutations having to repeat in offspring. If the new trait is an advantage, the offspring who naturally inherit it will have the advantage.

Becoming a dolphin doesn't in no way need to be a goal.

The fact that mutations need to effect a certain part of the genetic information...where ever it may be...over and over in an animals progeny...is still the issue you avoid discussing.

You simply assume they can.

 

[-57]

People often discuss increasing and decreasing of genetic, specified or other labels for what they call "information". But without an objective system and a metric it isn't possible to compare or measure quantity.

Are you saying that if you look could look at the genetic of a proto-dolphin...one with out an echo location system....then one with an echo-location system...there would be no increase in information?????

 

[Shemjaza]

Becoming a dolphin doesn't in no way need to be a goal.

The fact that mutations need to effect a certain part of the genetic information...where ever it may be...over and over in an animals progeny...is still the issue you avoid discussing.

You simply assume they can.

I think you don't understand inheritance. A random mutation that changes an aspect of an animal is now a part of it's genetic structure and can be passed along to its offspring.

Are you saying that if you look could look at the genetic of a proto-dolphin...one with out an echo location system....then one with an echo-location system...there would be no increase in information?????

In a vague hand wave sense, probably. A dolphin uses its skull and ears in a more sophisticated way then most mammals.

But if you can't measure changes or complexity without subjective judgments you can't make claims about comparative complexity or possibility.

 

[-57]

I think you don't understand inheritance. A random mutation that changes an aspect of an animal is now a part of it's genetic structure and can be passed along to its offspring.


In a vague hand wave sense, probably. A dolphin uses its skull and ears in a more sophisticated way then most mammals.

But if you can't measure changes or complexity without subjective judgments you can't make claims about comparative complexity or possibility.

You can count codons.

 

[Shemjaza]

You can count codons.

Doesn't work.

Length of genetic code doesn't correlate with complexity of traits or animal.

Take this flower or this fish as examples.

 

[-57]

Doesn't work.

Length of genetic code doesn't correlate with complexity of traits or animal.

Take this flower or this fish as examples.

Seems as if you would think man isn't more complex or contains more genetic information than a worm.

 

[Shemjaza]

Seems as if you would think man isn't more complex or contains more genetic information than a worm.

Is he? Human's are certainly smarter, more dangerous and have much more complicated bodies then worms; but genetic information? I don't know, it probably varies.

You suggested a method to test this, but it was trivially incorrect.

In my experience, ID doesn't have actual objective measures, just opinions and begging the question.

 

[-57]

Is he? Human's are certainly smarter, more dangerous and have much more complicated bodies then worms; but genetic information? I don't know, it probably varies.

You suggested a method to test this, but it was trivially incorrect.

In my experience, ID doesn't have actual objective measures, just opinions and begging the question.

Looks like you just found a way to measure it.

NEXT

 

[Shemjaza]

Looks like you just found a way to measure it.

NEXT

Obnoxious, unearned confidence won't ever make "-57 and Shemjaza eyeball it..." into an objective scientific measure.

Stop being silly.

 

[Jeff S]

I see this post has gotten a lot of play and I'm happy about that. I had done some digging into Behe's book this morning while getting ready to respond to the first question that came up here.
p.s. i looked at the index to see if Behe had mentioned "information" or defined it and didn't see that word listed. So I'm assuming he didn't mention it and define it.

Chapter 8 discusses professor of biology at University of Oregon Joseph Thornton and his colleagues trying to understand how molecules called steroids interact with their receptor proteins. These work together in a sort of lock-and-key interaction. His group set out to investigate questions related to the evolution of two different kinds of steroid receptor proteins. The genes for them are thought to have arise when an ancestor gene was duplicated in the past. (as I"m reading this, the next few paragraphs are quite technical) Near the end of the discussion, Behe concludes that any changes inferred throughout the evolutionist history of these proteins was modest and that one of the proteins actually became much less capable of binding a steriod than its ancestor. That indicates an evolutionist loss of function, not a progress toward greater function.

Behe then goes into something I never heard of before this book - Dollo's law. Named after Louis Dollo, a nineteenth century biologist, Dollo's law said that if a complex structure was lost in an evolutionary lineage, then it wouldn't reevolve there. Thornton and his colleages decided to find out if you can take a modern steroid receptor protein and find a Darwinian pathway back to the original ancestral one (like taking a metal rod and fashioning it into a hammer and then managing to change the hammer back into a metal rod). Behe's says they couldn't do it. One the protein receptor changed it was stuck there, a confirmation of Dollo's law.

Behe says taht when he read Thornton's report his jaw dropped because he had always assumed Darwinian evolution explained a llot of biology but the results of this changed his mind.

That's all for now. My brain is fried just from writing this. Time to relax and watch Sunday night football

 

[nolidad]

Can you describe what new information would be then?

The only mechanisms I've ever seen described within the theory of evolution is a variation on existing genes.


Positive mutations that allow for increased survival can be described easily. The ability for adult humans to digest milk is an easy one.

Mutations can cause duplication of genetic patterns or changes to existing patterns. As far as I'm aware that is all that is required to add new variation and new information.

Do you have a different definition of information you are using in this context, and if so, do you have a method of measuring it?

Well wings are not a variation of limbs and feathers are not a variation of scales.

And if you study and think. If milk is so poorly tolerated- it should have taken generations of generations of people getting sick drinking milk for evolution to change in order for people to learn to digest milk. Evolution as its proponents keep remining me is not an overnight process. So you need to show X generations getting sick on milk in order to eventually change the population to tolerate and thrive on milk.

Well what you call "mutations" to add variation almost exclusively is just a shuffling of exisitng information to produce a variant. It is not new previously unwritten information that was added to the genome, just existing info adjusted, much like a child is a combining of mother and father genetic info.

Information is simply the instructions found in DNA to produce X in a creature. Like people always produce legs, while fish always produce fins for example. That is information. The measuring of the information is a fairly young field of scientific study. It has to do with mapping genomes of creatures.

Evolution assumes a very slow process of changing the DNA to go from theropod to bird or fish to reptile. But they have no empirical evidence that mutations altered the DNA or that the fossil record shows that the varied creatures they place in a line are transitonal forms from one family or genus to another.

Back to positive mutations. Milk tolerance is nothing more that a genetic "switch" going from an off to an on position so to speak. It is not a mutation in that the Gens was altered . and survival of a species is not a change in the microbe to man hypotheses that evolution declares.

It has been shown that nearly all mutations fall on the hermful side of the equation (granted most are nearly benign), and even the most ardent of evolutionary geneticists have declared that all mutations if not toxic to the host- ultimately reduce the viability of the speices which is the opposite of evolution.