Professor Jerry Coyne Addresses Michael Behe's "response" to Coyne's review of Behe's new book.

It is important to draw the distinction between Behe and his fellow IDers, lest people mistake ID for a monolithic theory accepted by all its proponents. Behe is one of the few intelligent-design proponents who accepts common descent, macroevolution, natural selection, and an old earth. This puts him severely at odds with his other ID colleagues at the Discovery Institute, including William Dembski and Stephen Meyer.

Oh, Crap. I was going to say "Even Behe is still using the evolution=RM+NS dodge. It's hopeless," but then I realized he was sort of loosely paraphrasing Coyne. What a mess. Lots of "Darwinian/ism/ist"s dropped in there, too. Sad, really.

The world of ID looks very different under oath :-)

It seems to me that it is possible to lose an important point in arguing over scientific issues. (As well as give the impression that there is a scientific controversy being discussed.)

Nowhere in any of the writings about ID is there any description of what "design" might be. Other than something-or-other which is capable of doing anything, capable of being responsible for anything from fiddling with bacteria, giving them flagella, to fixing the basic physical constants of the universe. It would be easy to dwell on the vast, unsupported extrapolation that this amounts to; but "design" - whatever it might be - is never shown to be capable of doing anything which is not done by natural processes, for the only design that we are aware of operates within, and because of, the laws of nature. There is never any interest shown in thinking about what this vastly more capable "design" might be like, what its limitations (if any) might be, Who, What, Where, When, Why, or How - much less subjecting the hypothesis to any test of its efficacy.

Added to the list. . . .

This 'quintuple mutant' is considered as a molecular marker for clinical failure of SP treatment of P. falciparum malaria.

If evolution is a car, then natural selection is the engine and mutation is the gas.

Coyne's rebuttal is embarrasingly inadequate.

A researcher by the name of White calculated the 1 in 10^20 probability, not Behe.

In any given year, there are about 10^17 malarial parasite cells in the human population.

Because of fitness disadvantages, host immunities, and sampling, the rate of spontaneous resistance to malarial drugs is 1 in 10^12, and involves one mutation. The probability of a second mutation developing in a cell that has already developed the first mutation (since TWO mutations are always needed--though they need not be the same two mutations), would be 1 in 10^8, based on genome size. That means that the probability of the two needed mutations developing in a human is 10^20 [(1 x 10^12) x (1 x 10^8)]. Since, as noted above, the total population of malarial cells in any given year is only 10^17, then spontaneous resistance isn't seen. It takes more than one year for the resistance to develop.

So, bottom line, Behe's statistics hold up. And Coyne (and Miller) should re-examine their critcisms.

And, what Behe says in TEOE, still holds true. In trillions upon trillions of every kind of conceivable mutations that have taken place over the tens of thousands of years in which humans and P.falciparum have engaged in "trench warfare", where selective advantages are extremely high, are a series of SNPs in hemoglobin. Indeed, Darwinism is very limited in what pathways it can fruitfully trace out.

Here's the other side to raven's post:

"A study from Malawi (Kublin et al., 2002) showed correlations between mutation patterns and clincial failures. One of the findings was that a quintuple mutant(carrying DHFR mutations at positions 51, 59, and 108 and DHPs mutations at positions 437 and 540) is associated with SP treatment failure and that the presence of a single DHFR mutation (Arg-59) combined with a single DHPS mutation (Glu-540) accurately predicts the presence of a quintuple mutant. In study II, all patients who still had parasites on day 14 had an adequate clinical response. IN study V, one patient was a quintuple mutant on day 14, but still had an adequate clinical and parasitlogical response. One of these patients had all five mutations on day 14, but still had an adequate clinical response, contrary to the findings in the Malawi-study (Kubling et al., 2002) All our patients had a Glu-540 mutation on day 0; many of these together with the Arg-59 mutation, though only one of them was a quintuple mutant. This contrasts with the findings of Kublin et al. (2002) on the value of these mutations to predict quintuple mutations, but agrees with findings in another recent study in Malawi (Bwijo et al., 2003)

From: Kobayakawa, T. (2003) High prevalence of quintuple mutant dhps/dhfr genes in. Plasmodium falciparum infections seven years after introduction of sulfadoxine

So, the quintuple mutation can be present and you still get SP suppresion of the malaria. And, in many cases, you have two of the quintuple mutations present without the quintuple mutations being present--which throws into question when, and how, two of the quintuple mutations came about.

Blast, your comment is embarrassingly inadequate.

Coyne doesn't go into the details of Behe's numbers, because he sees immediately that "Behe's bizarre and unrealistic assumption that for a protein-protein interaction to evolve, all mutations must occur simultaneously" is wrong. And raven's and your reference indeed each shows data on stepwise mutations.

pollywannacrackerism

Leave aside the fact that the parts of the opinion Coyne finds so congenial (which are standard Darwinian criticisms of intelligent design) were actually written by the plaintiffs' lawyers and simply copied by the judge into his opinion. (Whenever the opinion discusses the testimony of any expert witness --- for either side, whether scientists, philosophers, or theologians --- the judge copied the lawyers' writing. Although such copying is apparently tolerated in legal circles, it leaves wide open the question of whether the judge even comprehended the abstruse academic issues discussed in his courtroom.)

Just one question. Everybody does this but what is with putting quotation marks around "response"? Was Behe's response not a real response? It may have been wrong but even if it was wrong it was a response. putting quotes around it seems like a subtle ad hominem.

Torbjörn Larsson:

Your response is embarassingly inadequate. Where does Behe ever say the mutations have to be simultaneous? Please give me a page number.

Colin (comment 185721) points out that placing the quote marks around the word "response" regarding Behe's reaction to Coyne's critique is a subtle form of ad hominem. This remark may sound superficially true for those readers who are not familar with what Behe wrote replying to Coyne. A real response to critique is supposed to address the essence of critical remarks without irrelevant comments designed to denigrate the opponents. If you (Colin or anybody else) read Behe's post (quoted by Coyne in detail) you'll see that Behe's "response" does not meet those minimal conditions to qualify as a real response. Just one example. When Behe asserts that "...Coyne hides behind the judicial skirts of the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board," this phrase comprises two not quite "subtle" ad hominems in one cheap shot, one personally denigrating Judge Jones and the other doing the same to Professor Coyne, and it has nothing to do with the essence of Coyne's critique. Because of such irrelevant remarks, obviously designed to hurl mud upon his opponents without providing a substantive response to the opponent's arguments, IMHO the quote marks around the word "response" regarding Behe's post are fully deserved.

IMHO the quote marks around the word "response" regarding Behe's post are fully deserved.

Here's some more from White's review: "Antimalarial drug resistance"; White, Nicholas J.; J.Clinical Investigation 113:1084-1093. (April, 2004)

"Recent remarkable molecular epidemiological studies in South America, southern Africa, and Southeast Asia have challenged this view. By examination of the sequence of the regions flanking thePfdhfr, it has become apparent that , even for SP, multiple de novo emergence of resistance has not been a frequent event, and that, instead a single parasite ( with a mutation in Pfdhfr at positions 51, 59 and 108) has in recent years swept across each of these continents."

You'll notice this matches three of the five "quintuple" mutations. Malawi is in southern Africa.

Your response is embarassingly inadequate.

Where does Behe ever say the mutations have to be simultaneous?

Not surprisingly, it turns out that getting by mutation a set of three to four amino acids required for only one protein-protein interaction is very low (mutations in the DNA affect the building blocks of proteins, since DNA codes for a sequence of amino acids). It is especially low because Behe requires all of the three or four mutations needed to create such an interaction to arise simultaneously. [Bold added.]

Could someone explain to me how the following is more palatable than the ideas of Behe et al...thank you

'To avoid damage...the microorganisms...traveled in the head of an unmanned spaceship sent to earth by a higher civilization which had developed elsewhere some billions of years ago...Life started here when these organisms were dropped into the primitive ocean...We called our idea Directed Panspermia...'

Crick, Francis - LIFE ITSELF, (NY:, Simon & Schuster, 1982) pp. 15-16

or this...

'Note that chemical evolution is a special case of spontaneous generation...'

Dodson, Edward O. & Dodson, Peter - EVOLUTION: Process and Product, (Boston: Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, 1985) p. 349

Please refrain from the old wives's tale that Darwinism doesn't deal with Origins...we all know that he imagined his " warm little pond" while writing to Joe Hooker...

Coyne's assessment is not on Behe's treatment of malaria resistance specifically but about his general treatment of protein-protein interaction. Are you claiming that Behe is inconsistent? Well, it certainly seems so, but I am surprised to hear a creationist admit to that.

Please refrain from the old wives's tale that Darwinism doesn't deal with Origins... we all know that he imagined his " warm little pond" while writing to Joe Hooker...

Re "they don't work for mammalian species."

I thought the species under discussion was malaria?

Henry

Henry: I thought the species under discussion was malaria?

What was under discussion was the number of organisms that need to be born in order to bring about two SNPs. Malarial parasites are eukaryotes. Mammals are eukaryotes. Humans, caught in the same "trench warfare" with malarial parasites, have come up with only one SNP, as in sickle-cell anemia, or thalassemia.

Re "Malarial parasites are eukaryotes. Mammals are eukaryotes."

So? It's mammals that need more time for mutations to accumulate, not eukaryotes in general.

Henry

Test post, due to spam queue.

Please refrain from the old wives's tale that Darwinism doesn't deal with Origins

[Missed piece that was to go before the start of the last comment:]

Seems my latest commentaries didn't pass the spam filter. I will recreate some of it, and cut it to non-offending pieces..

[Cont:]
The conditions and mechanisms for biogenesis as a scientific area of its own is an acute interest for astrobiologists.

Panspermia is an interesting mechanism, but of limited value in our universe which has finite history. It is in principle testable too - if we get to the planets in question we can test for common descent on biochemistry et cetera. So yes, it is more palatable, but not a main interest for biogenesis.

The main interest for astrobiologists is to find and define the conditions for habitable planets. IIRC at the current rate of discovery, the expectation is to see an habitable earth analog in 2 +/- 1 years. The discovery of worlds with detectable life (imbalanced atmosphere chemistry et cetera) can come anytime from that point.

AFAIK one of the main researchers claims that within 10-20 years we will likely have a good statistical description of how planets with life looks now and when life started. That will be a good guide for future biogenesis research.

we all know that he imagined his " warm little pond" while writing to Joe H... [Edited for spam filtering.]

It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.

This has nothing to do with Behe's calculations, however!

Not surprisingly, it turns out that getting by mutation a set of three to four amino acids required for only one protein-protein interaction is very low (mutations in the DNA affect the building blocks of proteins, since DNA codes for a sequence of amino acids). It is especially low because Behe requires all of the three or four mutations needed to create such an interaction to arise simultaneously. [Bold added.]

It's quite clear that Coyne suggests the high improbability of Behe's CCC is due to Behe's requirement that the mutations be simultaneous.

Behe's talk at DI on his new book will be carried on C-SPAN2 from 4:10 to 5:45 New York time Saturday afternoon July 7.

See
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8382&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

You insist on conflating these two arguments.

Great post!