Joe Thornton beats on Behe

You mean a creationist misrepresented the work of a real scientist and reached exactly the opposite conclusion as the scientist who actually performed and published the research! I'm shocked. No wait ,,, I guess I'm not after all.

Joe Thornton’s response is a MUST READ.

It is one of the most articulate and easy to follow descriptions of evolving molecular systems; and it illustrates clearly the underlying physics and chemistry of complex evolving systems.

I wonder how many other San Jose Sharks fans will do a double take at this article?

So, this is the same Behe who claimed, in court, that he would not be satisfied that a protein could evolve unless he was shown a step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation, function-by-function path from an ancestral protein to a modern one. Yet, when shown exactly this mutation-by-mutation path, he uses the very research that he said would convince him of evolution to then claim that Evolution is impossible.

And our resident trolls wonder why we call them the Dishonesty Institute Liars for Jesus.

Scott F said: So, this is the same Behe who claimed, in court, that he would not be satisfied that a protein could evolve unless he was shown a step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation, function-by-function path from an ancestral protein to a modern one. Yet, when shown exactly this mutation-by-mutation path, he uses the very research that he said would convince him of evolution to then claim that Evolution is impossible.

And our resident trolls wonder why we call them the Dishonesty Institute Liars for Jesus.

Scott F said: So, this is the same Behe who claimed, in court, that he would not be satisfied that a protein could evolve unless he was shown a step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation, function-by-function path from an ancestral protein to a modern one. Yet, when shown exactly this mutation-by-mutation path, he uses the very research that he said would convince him of evolution to then claim that Evolution is impossible. And our resident trolls wonder why we call them the Dishonesty Institute Liars for Jesus.

Another dishonesty or at leat negligence of Behe is his (ab)use of a fitness landscape figure by Gavrilets.

See here

Mike Elzinga said: If I recall correctly, Behe and all ID/creationists want science to prove that exactly the same organism evolves every time starting from exactly the same place. This shtick is an egregious misuse of a concept in science that experiments must be repeatable or reproducible. It simultaneously mischaracterizes evolution and experimental results and what is meant by repeatable and reproducible in complex, evolving systems. And it also comes from one of the fundamental misconceptions of ID/creationism that all of evolution must be targeted, and that what appears in each of the millions of species we see in nature is so improbable that it is impossible. Joe Thornton’s response addresses these issues very clearly.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: So, this is the same Behe who claimed, in court, that he would not be satisfied that a protein could evolve unless he was shown a step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation, function-by-function path from an ancestral protein to a modern one. Yet, when shown exactly this mutation-by-mutation path, he uses the very research that he said would convince him of evolution to then claim that Evolution is impossible. And our resident trolls wonder why we call them the Dishonesty Institute Liars for Jesus.

If I recall correctly, Behe and all ID/creationists want science to prove that exactly the same organism evolves every time starting from exactly the same place.

It is so satisfying when you can nail down EXACTLY where creationists get it wrong. Does Behe have even a shred of credibility left? With anyone?

Thornton's piece is two years old (October 2009). Behe replied shortly after it appeared, at length. You can read his response (in four parts) starting here:

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-1/

Paul,

First, the article you linked to doesn't address anything and (surprisingly) there are zero links to any of his other replies. Do you have links for those or do they even actually exist?

Why does Behe (and all creationists for that matter) insist on using analogies? You'd think a biochemist could actually talk about the things he wants to talk about. I often use analogies for teaching, but that's because my students are not yet to a high enough level of knowledge for the full power science. But when talking with other scientists, you'd think that they could actually say things.

The 'crane' analogy is just a made up story that almost makes sense, but doesn't really, because it actually doesn't apply to biological systems under discussion. Perhaps if Behe had actually explained the point behind his analogy, but he didn't... at all.

It's kind of like a long-hair cat. You brush and brush and brush, but the cat still gets hairballs.

Paul Nelson said: Thornton's piece is two years old (October 2009). Behe replied shortly after it appeared, at length. You can read his response (in four parts) starting here: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-1/

Paul Nelson said: Thornton's piece is two years old (October 2009). Behe replied shortly after it appeared, at length. You can read his response (in four parts) starting here: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-1/

It’s really not that hard to understand. Here’s a little analogy to illustrate. Suppose some company claimed they could build a super-crane (tip of the hat to Daniel Dennett) which could hoist a whole mountain using a novel technology. Though untested, the great majority of the relevant engineering community was serenely confident it would work as advertised. In a carefully-devised, initial, “proof-of-principle” experiment, a laboratory at the University of Oregon demonstrated that the crane-technology could lift a smooth pebble. The work was published in Science, accompanied by a breathless editorial and a story in the New York Times. In a subsequent careful study published several years later in Nature, however, the same lab unexpectedly showed that if a pebble were even somewhat rough, the crane-technology would not lift it. Since mountains tend to be rough, too, if a super-crane wouldn’t move a rough pebble, then it certainly wouldn’t lift a mountain.

Something from a few years back:

Tornadoes, Junkyards, and 747′s

It used to be a pocket watch that “proved” evolution can’t happen. Now that lame creationist analogy has apparently evolved to demand that it be possible for a tornado to assemble a 747 out of a junkyard before we can admit the possibility of evolution.

What the creationist always conveniently leaves out of the analogy is the power of NON-random selection on repeated events. Allow a little leeway here for differences between mechanical assembly and natural systems (chemistry and life). Have the tornado roar through repeatedly, several times an hour (representing the speed of chemical reactions, or of cells multiplying). Allow selection pressures to “favor” parts or accidental assemblies that could function as part of a 747 (they’re allowed to “survive,” i.e. are not torn apart). Let the experiment run a few million years and you will have your wide-body jet.

Admittedly, that’s still a pretty lame analogy, but it represents evolution way better than the creationists’ single windstorm. This would make it even closer to evolution: Don’t demand a specific product at the end (like a plane or a human). Instead, “favor” any chance assembly that would be useful for any purpose. Allow assemblies to reproduce with occasional random changes. Select the most useful. Hey, that is evolution. Give it some time and you will have some amazingly “well-adapted” and useful mechanisms. Granted, the chances of one being a 747 are effectively zero (unless it was intentionally selected for), but no biologist I know of ever claimed that evolution “intended” to produce a person.

Mike Elzinga said: Behe is supposed to be a biochemist. His use of such an analogy illustrates clearly why Behe no longer does biochemistry.

Two of my favorite analogies are the mousetrap (as used during the Dover trial) and the arch. The arch can be seen as irreducibly complex (remove any stone and it collapses), except that it is easy to imagine that some sort of scaffolding existed which is no longer present (like a mound of dirt).

DS said: Who do you think is more likely to be right, the guy who does actual research, or the guy who sits on the sidelines and criticizes?

Matt G said:

DS said: Who do you think is more likely to be right, the guy who does actual research, or the guy who sits on the sidelines and criticizes?

Sitting on the sidelines and criticizing is all they have - or have EVER had.

One thing that comes up again and again in creationist arguments is the raffle fallacy.

It's a priori improbable that any given ticket will win the raffle, therefore, according to the fallacy, once a ticket it has been chosen, it has to be a miracle that it was that particular ticket. The probability that some ticket will win (100% in simple examples) is mistakenly perceived as the probability that a given individual ticket will win. A post hoc rationalization is usually applied as well - "If Smith hadn't won the raffle, he couldn't have afforded the new computer speakers he wanted, yet it was precisely Smith, a man who wanted computer speakers, who won the raffle - the odds are 1000:1 against this, so it must be magic - and that magic must have been done by the god of my particular religion".

I see three possibilities, although the final two are not mutually exclusive -

1) Some sort of cognitive difficulty in grasping this very basic concept. This seems odd but may be more common than one would expect.

2) Ability to grasp the concept, but unconscious emotional biases so strong that they cannot consciously apply it. I think that this is usually the problem. Affirmation bias is a strong bias. They are constantly looking for affirmation that the particular type of magic that they believe in is true.

3) Ability to grasp the concept, but conscious dissembling about it, in an attempt to deceive others. It's probably somewhat rare for anyone to be purely in this state, not because this state is unlikely, but because affirmation bias and defense mechanisms are likely to usually be present as well. In fact, the idea that the theory of evolution must be suppressed because of the consequences of people learning about it (implied - accurate or not it must be suppressed for this reason) is commonly brought up in creationist material, and by the trolls here. However, they usually mix it with biases that convince them that it the theory of evolution not supported and that their preferred magic dogma actually is true. The pure Straussian awareness of advocating false ideas to keep the masses in line is possible, but usually defensive biases are also present. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

I suspect that all of these occur. Behe could fit into any of these categories, or into more than one of them. I realize that "1)" seems like a stretch in his case, but I have known people who had extraordinary "photographic memory" rote memorization ability, but difficulty with basic abstract logic. Such people do incredibly well in certain fields, for example, language translation. They may not be elegant literary translators but they can quickly develop vast vocabularies and unreflectively master grammar irregularities - indeed, they may be far less annoyed by grammar irregularities than more analytic types. However, sometimes they move into fields where abstract logic is more crucial. They may manage to meet the requirements of these fields via memorization strategies, even through the doctoral level, but eventually tend to run into frustration. I don't mean to insult such people - they actually have a gift which is very valuable in many ways, when properly applied.

In short, Behe is probably driven by an ego syntonic affirmation bias.

But he could have a learning disability, or be consciously "lying for the greater good, to keep the masses from doubting the faith".

harold said: In short, Behe is probably driven by an ego syntonic affirmation bias. But he could have a learning disability, or be consciously "lying for the greater good, to keep the masses from doubting the faith".

Mike Elzinga said: There is another factor operating as well; once they have plunged into it and have reached the point of no return, they can’t quit. It’s their very livelihood; and it is now the only livelihood that remains accessible to them. They have to keep up the bravado. Publishing and selling books, getting theocratic sugar daddies to take them in, fund their institutions, and keep them fed, and keeping adoring rubes on the hook to buy their books and videos; they simply cannot loose face or admit they are wrong.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: In short, Behe is probably driven by an ego syntonic affirmation bias. But he could have a learning disability, or be consciously "lying for the greater good, to keep the masses from doubting the faith".

There is another factor operating as well; once they have plunged into it and have reached the point of no return, they can’t quit. It’s their very livelihood; and it is now the only livelihood that remains accessible to them. They have to keep up the bravado. Publishing and selling books, getting theocratic sugar daddies to take them in, fund their institutions, and keep them fed, and keeping adoring rubes on the hook to buy their books and videos; they simply cannot loose face or admit they are wrong.

harold said: By the time he published his first ID/creationist book, he had already violated the "when in a hole stop digging" rule, and he's been digging like a badger ever since.

ogremk5 said: Why does Behe (and all creationists for that matter) insist on using analogies? You'd think a biochemist could actually talk about the things he wants to talk about. I often use analogies for teaching, but that's because my students are not yet to a high enough level of knowledge for the full power science. But when talking with other scientists, you'd think that they could actually say things.

What makes you think they’re talking to scientists? They’re trying to make a sciency-sounding play for public opinion, not get published in J. Theor. Biol.

— SWT

Because Behe thinks that the new research shows that evolution cannot produce anything more than tiny changes. And if evolution can’t do it, intelligent design can. (Don’t ask how.)

The Thornton reply is a classic. He demolishes all of the arguments made by Behe and demonstrates once again exactly why ID proponents cannot do science, they simply cannot conceive that reality could possibly be other than what it is. They cannot conceive of a world in which they were never born. They have a deep psychological need to be the center of the universe, cherished by an all-loving deity who will never let them die. This unspoken assumption poisons everything they say or do, no matter how much they try to pretend to be scientific or objective.

For anyone who is interested in reading the original papers, here is a link to publications from the Thornton lab, complete with links:

http://pages.uoregon.edu/joet/pubs.htm

Joe is a real expert, he has a pretty good publication record. Behe is just crying sour grapes over spilt milk and letting it run under the bridge and down the river.

Matt G said: Two of my favorite analogies are the mousetrap (as used during the Dover trial) and the arch. The arch can be seen as irreducibly complex (remove any stone and it collapses), except that it is easy to imagine that some sort of scaffolding existed which is no longer present (like a mound of dirt).

You mean a creationist misrepresented the work of a real scientist and reached exactly the opposite conclusion as the scientist who actually performed and published the research! I’m shocked. No wait ,,, I guess I’m not after all.

— ”DS”

Paul Nelson said: Thornton's piece is two years old (October 2009). Behe replied shortly after it appeared, at length. You can read his response (in four parts) starting here: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-1/

The structure of AncGR revealed that these mutations didn’t mess up the part of the protein that binds hormones, as you might expect. Instead, they destabilized the entire protein. One mutation (V43A) carved a hole in the otherwise tightly packed protein, whereas the other (R116H) disrupted molecular interactions that were present in the original protein. These changes are far from subtle. They degraded the original structure and function of the entire protein, much like the glaring grammatical error that destroys the meaning of a sentence. That AncGR remained functional at all was due to a different mutation (C71S), that partly buffered the effects of the other two.

Atheistoclast said: Why has a 2 year old piece been resurrected? Running out of ideas are we, Darwinists? I was getting all excited about writing an email to Dr. Thornton in response thinking it was recent. None of you gentlemen understand what actually happened to the glucocorticoid receptor. It actually lost some of its functional specificity. According to Lucas Brouwers writing in Scientific American:

The structure of AncGR revealed that these mutations didn’t mess up the part of the protein that binds hormones, as you might expect. Instead, they destabilized the entire protein. One mutation (V43A) carved a hole in the otherwise tightly packed protein, whereas the other (R116H) disrupted molecular interactions that were present in the original protein. These changes are far from subtle. They degraded the original structure and function of the entire protein, much like the glaring grammatical error that destroys the meaning of a sentence. That AncGR remained functional at all was due to a different mutation (C71S), that partly buffered the effects of the other two.

Enough said. I win, you lose.

While these two mutations are harmful at first glance, in hindsight you could say that they opened up a new evolutionary opportunity. After all, it was only because GR became insensitive to hormones that it could find a distinct niche for itself. It remains to be seen how common this ‘bad mutation turns good’-scenario really is.

Atheistoclast said: Why has a 2 year old piece been resurrected? Running out of ideas are we, Darwinists? I was getting all excited about writing an email to Dr. Thornton in response thinking it was recent. None of you gentlemen understand what actually happened to the glucocorticoid receptor. It actually lost some of its functional specificity. According to Lucas Brouwers writing in Scientific American:

The structure of AncGR revealed that these mutations didn’t mess up the part of the protein that binds hormones, as you might expect. Instead, they destabilized the entire protein. One mutation (V43A) carved a hole in the otherwise tightly packed protein, whereas the other (R116H) disrupted molecular interactions that were present in the original protein. These changes are far from subtle. They degraded the original structure and function of the entire protein, much like the glaring grammatical error that destroys the meaning of a sentence. That AncGR remained functional at all was due to a different mutation (C71S), that partly buffered the effects of the other two.

Enough said. I win, you lose.

ogremk5 said: Just out of curiosity, why do you get your information from a blogger and say that it dooms all of science? Just out of curiosity, why don't you link to the source of this? Just out of curiosity, why didn't you quote the next paragraph? (Here it is for everyone else: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2011/07/25/breaking-a-protein-in-order-to-fix-it/)

While these two mutations are harmful at first glance, in hindsight you could say that they opened up a new evolutionary opportunity. After all, it was only because GR became insensitive to hormones that it could find a distinct niche for itself. It remains to be seen how common this ‘bad mutation turns good’-scenario really is.

I reply with my usual refrain: If it's true, why do you have to lie to support it? I won't go into the whole bad vs. good mutation. It's been explained to you countless times before and you either willfully don't get it or are not smart enough to understand it.

Atheistoclast said: I was getting all excited about writing an email to Dr. Thornton in response thinking it was recent.

[Change in bolding for emphasis. Changed triple-nested quote to italics.] ogremk5 said:

Atheistoclast said: Why has a 2 year old piece been resurrected? Running out of ideas are we, Darwinists? I was getting all excited about writing an email to Dr. Thornton in response thinking it was recent. None of you gentlemen understand what actually happened to the glucocorticoid receptor. It actually lost some of its functional specificity. According to Lucas Brouwers writing in Scientific American: The structure of AncGR revealed that these mutations didn’t mess up the part of the protein that binds hormones, as you might expect. Instead, they destabilized the entire protein. One mutation (V43A) carved a hole in the otherwise tightly packed protein, whereas the other (R116H) disrupted molecular interactions that were present in the original protein. These changes are far from subtle. They degraded the original structure and function of the entire protein, much like the glaring grammatical error that destroys the meaning of a sentence. That AncGR remained functional at all was due to a different mutation (C71S), that partly buffered the effects of the other two. Enough said. I win, you lose.

Just out of curiosity, why do you get your information from a blogger and say that it dooms all of science? Just out of curiosity, why don't you link to the source of this? Just out of curiosity, why didn't you quote the next paragraph? (Here it is for everyone else: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/2011/07/25/breaking-a-protein-in-order-to-fix-it/)

While these two mutations are harmful at first glance, in hindsight you could say that they opened up a new evolutionary opportunity. After all, it was only because GR became insensitive to hormones that it could find a distinct niche for itself. It remains to be seen how common this ‘bad mutation turns good’-scenario really is.

I reply with my usual refrain: If it's true, why do you have to lie to support it? I won't go into the whole bad vs. good mutation. It's been explained to you countless times before and you either willfully don't get it or are not smart enough to understand it.

Here we report on the reconstruction of the deepest ancestor in the GR lineage (AncGR1) and demonstrate that GR's reduced sensitivity evolved before the acquisition of restricted hormone specificity, shortly after the GR–MR split. Using site-directed mutagenesis, X-ray crystallography, and computational analyses of protein stability to recapitulate and determine the effects of historical mutations, we show that AncGR1's reduced ligand sensitivity evolved primarily due to three key substitutions. Two large-effect mutations weakened hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions within the ancestral protein, reducing its stability. The degenerative effect of these two mutations is extremely strong, but a third permissive substitution, which has no apparent effect on function in the ancestral background and is likely to have occurred first, buffered the effects of the destabilizing mutations. Taken together, our results highlight the potentially creative role of substitutions that partially degrade protein structure and function and reinforce the importance of permissive mutations in protein evolution.

Our analyses allow a detailed description of the genetic, structural, and biophysical mechanisms by which AncGR1 evolved its derived function – sensitivity to only high concentrations of corticosteroid hormone – after duplication of an ancestral receptor that was sensitive to very low doses of the same hormones. The shift appears to have been driven primarily by two large-effect mutations that caused partial degradation of the receptor's structure and function. The mechanism for the functional change appears to be that these mutations compromised favorable hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonds in the ancestral protein, destabilizing the hormone-receptor complex. Although the combined effect of the two large-effect mutations is so great that they nearly abolish hormone sensitivity in the double mutant, a third mutation – which occurred during the same historical interval strongly buffers their effect.

After duplication of AncCR, MRs retained the ancestral receptor's sensitivity, while the evolution of reduced sensitivity in the GR created a distinctly different transcriptional regulator that responded only to high doses of hormone.

Sorry -- I didn't realize the other parts of Behe's reply to Thornton weren't linked from the first entry. Here are parts 2-4:

Part 2: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-2/

Part 3: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-3/

Part 4: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-4/

Atheistoclast said: OK, my Darwinist friends, here is Thornton's latest piece on this glucocorticoid receptor. There are also two evolutionary biologists called Sean Carroll! Muhaha! Mechanisms for the Evolution of a Derived Function in the Ancestral Glucocorticoid Receptor http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3116920/?tool=pubmed From the abstract:

Here we report on the reconstruction of the deepest ancestor in the GR lineage (AncGR1) and demonstrate that GR's reduced sensitivity evolved before the acquisition of restricted hormone specificity, shortly after the GR–MR split. Using site-directed mutagenesis, X-ray crystallography, and computational analyses of protein stability to recapitulate and determine the effects of historical mutations, we show that AncGR1's reduced ligand sensitivity evolved primarily due to three key substitutions. Two large-effect mutations weakened hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions within the ancestral protein, reducing its stability. The degenerative effect of these two mutations is extremely strong, but a third permissive substitution, which has no apparent effect on function in the ancestral background and is likely to have occurred first, buffered the effects of the destabilizing mutations. Taken together, our results highlight the potentially creative role of substitutions that partially degrade protein structure and function and reinforce the importance of permissive mutations in protein evolution.

From the Discussion:

Our analyses allow a detailed description of the genetic, structural, and biophysical mechanisms by which AncGR1 evolved its derived function – sensitivity to only high concentrations of corticosteroid hormone – after duplication of an ancestral receptor that was sensitive to very low doses of the same hormones. The shift appears to have been driven primarily by two large-effect mutations that caused partial degradation of the receptor's structure and function. The mechanism for the functional change appears to be that these mutations compromised favorable hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonds in the ancestral protein, destabilizing the hormone-receptor complex. Although the combined effect of the two large-effect mutations is so great that they nearly abolish hormone sensitivity in the double mutant, a third mutation – which occurred during the same historical interval strongly buffers their effect.

Thornton et al make the following concluding point:

After duplication of AncCR, MRs retained the ancestral receptor's sensitivity, while the evolution of reduced sensitivity in the GR created a distinctly different transcriptional regulator that responded only to high doses of hormone.

I think it is clear that Thornton is referring to a case of functional degradation followed by compensation - something I specialize in. The outcome is that the duplicated and evolved receptor has changed but only because it has lost its structural integrity and is thus less sensitive - as such, it responds to only high doses.

Our study highlights a creative role for partial loss-of-function mutations in the evolution of novel genes and gene functions. This aspect of GR evolution is related to the process described by Bridgham et al. [61] during post-duplication evolution of a different steroid receptor: in that case, a loss-of-function mutation abolished the modular LBD's ligand-activated transcriptional function and generated a competitive repressor that retained its ability to compete with its paralog for DNA and dimerization partners.

Paul Nelson said: Sorry -- I didn't realize the other parts of Behe's reply to Thornton weren't linked from the first entry. Here are parts 2-4: Part 2: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-2/ Part 3: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-3/ Part 4: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-4/

ogremk5 said: Quotmining and cherry picking... still 'clast.

Boom goes the dynamite.

That 'loss of function' was the change needed for the gene to move in a completely new direction.

Atheistoclast said: I think it is clear that Thornton is referring to a case of functional degradation followed by compensation - something I specialize in. The outcome is that the duplicated and evolved receptor has changed but only because it has lost its structural integrity and is thus less sensitive - as such, it responds to only high doses.

In most bony vertebrates, the intrinsic functions of the GR and MR LBDs differ in both specificity and sensitivity. GR is more specific, being activated by high doses of the adrenal hormone cortisol to regulate aspects of immunity, glucose metabolism, and the long-term stress response [20], [21]. MR, in contrast, is activated by the adrenal mineralocorticoids aldosterone or deoxycorticosterone, as well as cortisol (albeit with somewhat lower sensitivity), and primarily regulates osmotic homeostasis. GR is also considerably less sensitive than MR, often requiring concentrations several orders of magnitude higher for activation [19], [22], [23]. Some information is available on GR and MR evolution. The two paralogs descend by duplication from a single ancestral corticosteroid receptor (AncCR), which existed in an ancient jawed vertebrate ∼450 million years ago, before the divergence of bony vertebrates from cartilaginous fishes (Figure 1) [19], [24]. Reconstruction and experimental analysis showed that AncCR, like the extant MRs, was extremely sensitive to both mineralocorticoids and glucocorticoids, and its structure was MR-like, as well [19]. Subsequent work revealed that GR's specificity for glucocorticoids evolved later in the lineage leading to bony vertebrates, after the divergence of cartilaginous fishes but before the split of ray-finned fish from the lineage leading to tetrapods and lobe-finned fish, due to a small specific set of historical mutations [15], [16], [19] (Figure 1).

Atheistoclast said: (snip)I think it is clear that Thornton is referring to a case of functional degradation followed by compensation - something I specialize in. (snip)

Atheistoclast said:

ogremk5 said: Quotmining and cherry picking... still 'clast.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's rich!

Boom goes the dynamite.

Yeah....a novel function that has reduced sensitivity. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That 'loss of function' was the change needed for the gene to move in a completely new direction.

You evidently have neither read nor understood the paper. This is a case of a compensatory mutation rescuing two loss-of-function mutations. The result is a protein less capable than before. Is this your idea of "novel"?

RBH,

Joe is going to go on whining about "loss of function" for the next fifty pages, regardless of what anyone says. You might think about dumping him to the bathroom wall after one or two more pages, just to let everyone see that he is recalcitrant to reason. After that, rational discussion will be preempted and Joe will just start hurling random insults at strangers and howling about his "publication record". He has done this so many times that it is absolutely predictable. Why let him get away with it again?

Rumraket said: Oh look, another case of Atheistoclast making a big fuss out of Feature X degraded, but neglecting to mention that Feature Y arose in it's stead. That's how evolution works you gimp. It's the same at higher levels. Whales became excellent swimmers at the cost of horrible terrestrial locomotion. It's not like this is a hard concept to grasp, Bozorgmehr. This reduced sensitivity but increased selectivity isn't going to prevent you from sharing a common ancestor with chimps. You're still an evolved ape, Bozorgmehr, get over it.

Atheistoclast said:

ogremk5 said: Quotmining and cherry picking... still 'clast.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's rich!

Boom goes the dynamite.

Yeah....a novel function that has reduced sensitivity. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That 'loss of function' was the change needed for the gene to move in a completely new direction.

You evidently have neither read nor understood the paper. This is a case of a compensatory mutation rescuing two loss-of-function mutations. The result is a protein less capable than before. Is this your idea of "novel"?

the ancestral functions were largely conserved in the MR lineage, but the functions of GRs—reduced sensitivity to all hormones and increased selectivity for glucocorticoids—are derived.

Taken together, our results highlight the potentially creative role of substitutions that partially degrade protein structure and function and reinforce the importance of permissive mutations in protein evolution.

In most bony vertebrates, the intrinsic functions of the GR and MR LBDs differ in both specificity and sensitivity. GR is more specific, being activated by high doses of the adrenal hormone cortisol to regulate aspects of immunity, glucose metabolism, and the long-term stress response [20], [21]. MR, in contrast, is activated by the adrenal mineralocorticoids aldosterone or deoxycorticosterone, as well as cortisol (albeit with somewhat lower sensitivity), and primarily regulates osmotic homeostasis. GR is also considerably less sensitive than MR, often requiring concentrations several orders of magnitude higher for activation [19], [22], [23].

hese observations suggest that GR regulates stress in response to high doses of hormones, while MR regulates osmolarity in response to much lower doses [23].

Our results do not allow us to determine the roles of selective and neutral processes in the fixation of these mutations, and the physiological significance of the GR's reduced sensitivity in the ancestral organism is unknown; it is possible, however, that the advent of a low-sensitivity GR, along with the high-sensitivity MR, allowed a greater degree of endocrine control by different doses of corticosteroids, as appears to be the case in extant elasmobranchs.

If a molecule is in a “stable” form, I would imagine that it is less likely to mutate to another form.

DS said: RBH, Joe is going to go on whining about "loss of function" for the next fifty pages, regardless of what anyone says. You might think about dumping him to the bathroom wall after one or two more pages, just to let everyone see that he is recalcitrant to reason. After that, rational discussion will be preempted and Joe will just start hurling random insults at strangers and howling about his "publication record". He has done this so many times that it is absolutely predictable. Why let him get away with it again?

Enough said. I win, you lose

John said:

DS said: RBH, Joe is going to go on whining about "loss of function" for the next fifty pages, regardless of what anyone says. You might think about dumping him to the bathroom wall after one or two more pages, just to let everyone see that he is recalcitrant to reason. After that, rational discussion will be preempted and Joe will just start hurling random insults at strangers and howling about his "publication record". He has done this so many times that it is absolutely predictable. Why let him get away with it again?

I strongly second DS' recommendation, RBH. Looks like Joe Bozo is trying to derail yet another PT thread. May I suggest that you think of sending him immediately to the BW, please?

These replies from Behe are irrelevant, Paul. You have yet to respond to my request as noted yesterday:

— John

Frank J said:

These replies from Behe are irrelevant, Paul. You have yet to respond to my request as noted yesterday:

— John

Get in line. I have been waiting over 3 years (I asked if it was true that he's an Omphalos creationist, not a true YEC, as someone else has speculated). Others have been waiting over 7 years for answers about Ontogenetic Depth. I guess we'll be waiting even longer as he sits back and enjoys the feeding frenzy. BTW, my usual nitpick: We don't know that Behe doesn't understand molecular evolution. He could be faking it, at least after being corrected umpteen times. Especially given this compelling reason to do so.

Paul Nelson said: Sorry -- I didn't realize the other parts of Behe's reply to Thornton weren't linked from the first entry. Here are parts 2-4: Part 2: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-2/ Part 3: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-3/ Part 4: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/response-to-carl-zimmer-and-joseph-thornton-part-4/

John said:

DS said: RBH, Joe is going to go on whining about "loss of function" for the next fifty pages, regardless of what anyone says. You might think about dumping him to the bathroom wall after one or two more pages, just to let everyone see that he is recalcitrant to reason. After that, rational discussion will be preempted and Joe will just start hurling random insults at strangers and howling about his "publication record". He has done this so many times that it is absolutely predictable. Why let him get away with it again?

I strongly second DS' recommendation, RBH. Looks like Joe Bozo is trying to derail yet another PT thread. May I suggest that you think of sending him immediately to the BW, please?

Thanks Steve.

Let me ask you this. Is reduced sensitivity to cholesterol a bad thing or a good thing? Of course, it all depends on the environment. In humans, in an environment with a large supply for fatty foods, reduced sensitivity to cholesterol is a GOOD thing (unless you just like heart attacks).

Steve Matheson said: RBH isn't the only person with authority to send trolling to the BW. All future contributions by Joe to this thread will go there by default. Those who wish to discuss how the blatant misreading of Joe Thornton's research has led to the death of "Darwinism" are invited to join the conversation there.

harold said:

Frank J said:

These replies from Behe are irrelevant, Paul. You have yet to respond to my request as noted yesterday:

— John

Get in line. I have been waiting over 3 years (I asked if it was true that he's an Omphalos creationist, not a true YEC, as someone else has speculated). Others have been waiting over 7 years for answers about Ontogenetic Depth. I guess we'll be waiting even longer as he sits back and enjoys the feeding frenzy. BTW, my usual nitpick: We don't know that Behe doesn't understand molecular evolution. He could be faking it, at least after being corrected umpteen times. Especially given this compelling reason to do so.

This link just goes to the top of this page. I'm guessing you meant to link to something else.

harold said: ogremk5 - While I agree with virtually all of your replies to Atheistoclast, I am going to offer some comments on this one -

Let me ask you this. Is reduced sensitivity to cholesterol a bad thing or a good thing? Of course, it all depends on the environment. In humans, in an environment with a large supply for fatty foods, reduced sensitivity to cholesterol is a GOOD thing (unless you just like heart attacks).

I believe that you may be confusing two mainly separate systems involving cholesterol here. All steroid hormones (glucocorticoids, mineralocorticoids, "male" steroid "sex hormones", and "female" steroid "sex hormones") are biosynthesized, directly or indirectly, from cholesterol. The receptors are proteins but the hormones are hydrophobic sterols. The hormones and their receptors have complex, overlapping functions; the overall system is extremely well-explained by evolution and poorly explained by magical instantaneous creation. Steroid hormones may have a role in atherogenic heart disease, since men have a higher rate of heart disease than same age pre-menopausal women, but not same age post-menopausal women. Extensive research has failed to determine an exact mechanism for this but the facts are suggestive. However, the "cholesterol level" that is directly associated with increased atherogenic heart disease risk is related to the system of molecules that transport cholesterol in the blood stream. In general, high levels of LDL cholesterol are found to be associated with risk of atherosclerosis and related diseases, including but not limited to myocardial infarction, with the caveat that sub-types of LDL may be distinguishable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ldl_cholesterol Transportation of cholesterol is not totally unrelated to steroid hormone production, of course, it's how cholesterol gets from the GI tract/liver to the gonads and adrenals. However, despite the obvious indirect connections, steroid hormone receptor sensitivities have not (yet) been related to atherosclerosis. You may have been thinking about serum lipoproteins, which are a seperate system of cholesterol binding proteins.

Ogremk5 -

Yes, as far as serum LDL cholesterol and heart disease go, some of the strongest evidence that it is a real risk factor is genetic. Mutations which impact the level of circulating LDL cholesterol one way or the other have strong impact on the risk of atherosclerosis related diseases. Unfotunately, the opposite of what you describe also exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_hypercholesterolemia

For completeness, though, I should note that very premature death from atherosclerosis related disease, where LDL levels driven by dietary saturated fat are the only risk factor, is not that common. There are some people who are sensitive to this, but the "heart attack epidemic" of the 1960's was largely due to high levels of cigarette smoking. with consumption of industrial trans fat (different from and far more dangerous than natural saturated fats) as a weaker factor. There is also a possibility that saturated fat from dairy sources may not have the same effect as saturated fat from red meat. And as everyone knows, consuming cholesterol itself directly has little impact on serum cholesterol levels in almost all people. Nevertheless, consuming a diet rich in healthy oils, fruit and vegetables, lean sources of protein, and very low in saturated fat and refined carbohydrates, with essentially no industrial trans fat, is highly logical.

As it happens, although excess levels of serum cholesterol can be a risk factor for diseases (typically expressed late in middle age or at an elderly age when this risk factor is the only one, although some people are more at risk), cholesterol is also a very critical molecule for the maintenance of life in humans. It isn't a required nutrient, because it can be biosynthesized, if essential fatty acids are present. (The amounts of these essential fatty acids necessary for life are so low that, although they are required nutrients, virtually any diet provides them. Only in bizarre circumstances could a specific deficiency, not in the context of overall starvation or multinutrient deficiency, develop.) One of several key roles of cholesterol is that it is the precursor for steroid hormones.

Years ago I recall seeing college athletes with "Steroid Free Body" T-shirts. However, a steroid free body would not be compatible with life.

Steve Matheson said:

John said:

DS said: RBH, Joe is going to go on whining about "loss of function" for the next fifty pages, regardless of what anyone says. You might think about dumping him to the bathroom wall after one or two more pages, just to let everyone see that he is recalcitrant to reason. After that, rational discussion will be preempted and Joe will just start hurling random insults at strangers and howling about his "publication record". He has done this so many times that it is absolutely predictable. Why let him get away with it again?

I strongly second DS' recommendation, RBH. Looks like Joe Bozo is trying to derail yet another PT thread. May I suggest that you think of sending him immediately to the BW, please?

RBH isn't the only person with authority to send trolling to the BW. All future contributions by Joe to this thread will go there by default. Those who wish to discuss how the blatant misreading of Joe Thornton's research has led to the death of "Darwinism" are invited to join the conversation there.

Bullshit, SteveP.
Atheistoclast is a lying troll, just like you are.
Atheistoclast revels in his lack of social skills, and he is being punished for trying to disrupt this thread with his lies and deliberate distortions. He was caught quotemining in order to literally lie about how Evolutionism is magically dead.

And you're lying and whining "censorship" simply because you happened to like the troll who got put in his place.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Steve Matheson said: RBH isn't the only person with authority to send trolling to the BW. All future contributions by Joe to this thread will go there by default. Those who wish to discuss how the blatant misreading of Joe Thornton's research has led to the death of "Darwinism" are invited to join the conversation there.

Thanks. I've been preoccupied and didn't get to it sooner.

I call censorship.

— A Masked Panda

At least we were talking about Biology...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: I call censorship. Atheistoclast's commentary in no more inflammatory, derogatory, or off-topic than any comments made by regular posters on this board. The only difference is that he happens to play for the opposition. Oh, no, Steve won't ban him. He will just make it hard for anyone to keep track of the thread. Clever, there, Steve. Clever. Spirit or the letter? SteveP.

apokryltaros said: Bullshit, SteveP. Atheistoclast is a lying troll, just like you are. Atheistoclast revels in his lack of social skills, and he is being punished for trying to disrupt this thread with his lies and deliberate distortions. He was caught quotemining in order to literally lie about how Evolutionism is magically dead. And you're lying and whining "censorship" simply because you happened to like the troll who got put in his place.

apokryltaros said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Steve Matheson said: RBH isn't the only person with authority to send trolling to the BW. All future contributions by Joe to this thread will go there by default. Those who wish to discuss how the blatant misreading of Joe Thornton's research has led to the death of "Darwinism" are invited to join the conversation there.

Thanks. I've been preoccupied and didn't get to it sooner.

Richard, you don't suppose you could also send SteveP's posts to the Bathroom Wall, too? After all, SteveP is also notorious for disrupting threads with his blatant lying and love of trolling.

@John:

There's probably no better criterion to differentiate a pseudoscience peddler from a supporter of real science than to examine their "love fests." The former generally ignore each other except for the occasional vague support, which itself invariably obsesses over their common enemy rather than anything dealing with their own alternate "theories." Whereas an intra-mainstream-science "love fest" invariably involes spirited debates on even the most minor differences. Also, in the latter, differences in the science rarely have anything to do with their religious/political/philosophical differences, which as you know, span almost the entire range. As opposed to the extremely narrow range of extreme authoritarian views that characterizes nearly all peddlers of anti-evolution propaganda.

ogremk5 said: At least we were talking about Biology...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said:

Steve Matheson said: RBH isn't the only person with authority to send trolling to the BW. All future contributions by Joe to this thread will go there by default. Those who wish to discuss how the blatant misreading of Joe Thornton's research has led to the death of "Darwinism" are invited to join the conversation there.

I call censorship. Atheistoclast's commentary in no more inflammatory, derogatory, or off-topic than any comments made by regular posters on this board. The only difference is that he happens to play for the opposition. Oh, no, Steve won't ban him. He will just make it hard for anyone to keep track of the thread.

Back on topic.

Mr. Hoppe,

Regarding your suggestion that readers check out Steve Matheson's comments you linked to on his blog on natural selection, it seems there is an obvious mistake in his reference to natural selection as a force. One of your own contributors here, in addition to other scientists emphasize that natural selection is an outcome, not some type of force. Off the bat, he gets the descripton of natural selection wrong.

One has to be skeptical of a writer that unwittingly or purposefully seeks to aggrandize natural selection.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Back on topic. Mr. Hoppe, Regarding your suggestion that readers check out Steve Matheson's comments you linked to on his blog on natural selection, it seems there is an obvious mistake in his reference to natural selection as a force. One of your own contributors here, in addition to other scientists emphasize that natural selection is an outcome, not some type of force. Off the bat, he gets the descripton of natural selection wrong. One has to be skeptical of a writer that unwittingly or purposefully seeks to aggrandize natural selection.

Mike Elzinga said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Back on topic. Mr. Hoppe, Regarding your suggestion that readers check out Steve Matheson's comments you linked to on his blog on natural selection, it seems there is an obvious mistake in his reference to natural selection as a force. One of your own contributors here, in addition to other scientists emphasize that natural selection is an outcome, not some type of force. Off the bat, he gets the descripton of natural selection wrong. One has to be skeptical of a writer that unwittingly or purposefully seeks to aggrandize natural selection.

What units does it have? Did you check the units? That should be a clue.

When faced with such a an obvious error, Elzinga defends.... and descends, waaay dowwwwn.

"Don't eat that yellow snow, that's where the Huskies go."

You haven't the faintest notion of what Mike Elzinga was talking about, have you?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: When faced with such a an obvious error, Elzinga defends.... and descends, waaay dowwwwn. "Don't eat that yellow snow, that's where the Huskies go."

Dave Luckett said: You haven't the faintest notion of what Mike Elzinga was talking about, have you?

DS said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: When faced with such a an obvious error, Elzinga defends.... and descends, waaay dowwwwn. "Don't eat that yellow snow, that's where the Huskies go."

When faced with an obvious error, Steve chooses to play word games and berate those whose understanding is far superior to his.

Steve P said: “Don’t eat that yellow snow, that’s where the Huskies go.”

That’s not a word game, Steve P. is telling Mike to eat urine-contaminated snow in revenge for a request to quantify Intelligent Design. Steve P. isn’t interested about word games, he isn’t interested about discussing anything. All Steve P is interested in is is to insult, whine at and berate us for not being stupid, bobble-headed anti-science bigots like he and all the other Creationist trolls here are.

Steve P. may regard Natural Selection as either a "force" or an "outcome" (Hint: It is neither, but instead, as the name strongly implies, a natural process.). He most certainly does reject that it can act on modern human populations. Well, coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this report on a just published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44775790/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/population-study-suggests-humans-are-still-evolving/?gt1=43001

IMHO this is the key paragraph:

"By studying an island population in Quebec, the researchers found a genetic push toward younger age at first reproduction and larger families. This is the first direct evidence of natural selection in action in a relatively modern human population."

Of course, given Steve P.'s consistent streak of breathtaking inanity, he would conclude otherwise, claiming that this was indeed the result of an Intelligent Designer (e. g. The Almighty, Jehovah).

Frank J said: @John: There's probably no better criterion to differentiate a pseudoscience peddler from a supporter of real science than to examine their "love fests." The former generally ignore each other except for the occasional vague support, which itself invariably obsesses over their common enemy rather than anything dealing with their own alternate "theories." Whereas an intra-mainstream-science "love fest" invariably involes spirited debates on even the most minor differences. Also, in the latter, differences in the science rarely have anything to do with their religious/political/philosophical differences, which as you know, span almost the entire range. As opposed to the extremely narrow range of extreme authoritarian views that characterizes nearly all peddlers of anti-evolution propaganda.

John said: Steve P. may regard Natural Selection as either a "force" or an "outcome" (Hint: It is neither, but instead, as the name strongly implies, a natural process.). He most certainly does reject that it can act on modern human populations. Well, coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this report on a just published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44775790/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/population-study-suggests-humans-are-still-evolving/?gt1=43001 IMHO this is the key paragraph: "By studying an island population in Quebec, the researchers found a genetic push toward younger age at first reproduction and larger families. This is the first direct evidence of natural selection in action in a relatively modern human population." Of course, given Steve P.'s consistent streak of breathtaking inanity, he would conclude otherwise, claiming that this was indeed the result of an Intelligent Designer (e. g. The Almighty, Jehovah).

DS said:

John said: Steve P. may regard Natural Selection as either a "force" or an "outcome" (Hint: It is neither, but instead, as the name strongly implies, a natural process.). He most certainly does reject that it can act on modern human populations. Well, coincidentally, I just stumbled upon this report on a just published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44775790/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/population-study-suggests-humans-are-still-evolving/?gt1=43001 IMHO this is the key paragraph: "By studying an island population in Quebec, the researchers found a genetic push toward younger age at first reproduction and larger families. This is the first direct evidence of natural selection in action in a relatively modern human population." Of course, given Steve P.'s consistent streak of breathtaking inanity, he would conclude otherwise, claiming that this was indeed the result of an Intelligent Designer (e. g. The Almighty, Jehovah).

Actually, Matheson describes how selective sweeps leave evidence in the human genome. We thus have evidence for selection in humans and their ancestors going back millions of years. You could call that information in the genome, you know the kind that ID proponents claim cannot be produced by natural processes.

Joe T said: Apokryltaros said:

Steve P said: “Don’t eat that yellow snow, that’s where the Huskies go.”

That’s not a word game, Steve P. is telling Mike to eat urine-contaminated snow in revenge for a request to quantify Intelligent Design. Steve P. isn’t interested about word games, he isn’t interested about discussing anything. All Steve P is interested in is is to insult, whine at and berate us for not being stupid, bobble-headed anti-science bigots like he and all the other Creationist trolls here are.

What is even worse is that he screwed up the Frank Zappa quote. From the classic album, Overnight Sensation, it should be: "Don't go where the huskies go, Don't you eat that yellow snow."

Sylvilagus said: I thought it was "Watch out where the huskies go. Don't you eat that yellow snow."

Dave Luckett said: You haven't the faintest notion of what Mike Elzinga was talking about, have you?

Joe T said: Apokryltaros said:

Steve P said: “Don’t eat that yellow snow, that’s where the Huskies go.”

That’s not a word game, Steve P. is telling Mike to eat urine-contaminated snow in revenge for a request to quantify Intelligent Design. Steve P. isn’t interested about word games, he isn’t interested about discussing anything. All Steve P is interested in is is to insult, whine at and berate us for not being stupid, bobble-headed anti-science bigots like he and all the other Creationist trolls here are.

What is even worse is that he screwed up the Frank Zappa quote. From the classic album, Overnight Sensation, it should be: "Don't go where the huskies go, Don't you eat that yellow snow."

DS said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: When faced with such a an obvious error, Elzinga defends.... and descends, waaay dowwwwn. "Don't eat that yellow snow, that's where the Huskies go."

When faced with an obvious error, Steve chooses to play word games and berate those whose understanding is far superior to his. The point that Matheson was making is that ignoring the role of such processes as drift and hitchhiking is a blatant misrepresentation of the Thornton results. But of course, rather than admit that, Steve just harps on one word in a description of a complex process. Now we know that Steve doesn't believe in selection. He doesn't even believe that competition exists. Man, no wonder he tried to defend the right of a bigoted troll to lie and slander his way through this thread. Face it Steve, the jig is up. Thornton has answered the Behe challenge in a convincing fashion, by reconstructing ancestral sequences and testing the effects of mutations experimentally. There are plausible pathways by which new genes and new functions can evolve. Irreducible complexity is nothing more than imaginary. More specifically, it represents a distinct lack of imagination. And now, it requires a level of willful ignorance that is unimaginable in any honest person. SImilar types of processes and pathways doubtless exist for any and all examples of anything that Behe imagines to be irreducibly complex. Deal with it.

Steve P., perhaps you can offer an answer to harold's question.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: I do love Behe's timing. Seems he's got a new post up on Thorton's work.

Matheson et al have their work cut out to wriggle out of this one.

By the way, DS. You really need to get over that competition stuff. HGT is a perfect example of the cooperative nature of life. Struggle seems true up and personal, but at the end of the day its cooperation that sustains life.

Again, you need to think in terms of giving. Organisms share themselves in order to collectively live. Rabbits give 9 in order to keep 3. Snakes give 100 in order to keep 5. Roaches give 10s of thousands to keep hundreds. "Give and it will be given back to you. Take and it will be taken from you."

SWT said: Steve P., perhaps you can offer an answer to harold's question.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Again, you need to think in terms of giving. Organisms share themselves in order to collectively live. Rabbits give 9 in order to keep 3. Snakes give 100 in order to keep 5. Roaches give 10s of thousands to keep hundreds.

Maybe they were talking about the Shmoo in Dogpatch?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: I do love Behe's timing. Seems he's got a new post up on Thorton's work.

Dave Lovell said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: I do love Behe's timing. Seems he's got a new post up on Thorton's work.

Indeed he has and it's priceless. His central point is that since RM+NS cannot reverse several unrelated random mutations to get back to the original functional code, it therefore cannot generate several unrelated random mutations to get to a new functional code. At last he has found a point of agreement with every other Evolutionary Biologist. Reaching a previously specified target in either direction is a tornado in a junk yard scenario. I did contemplate posting this at http://behe.uncommondescent.com/, but he seems to have forgotten to enable comments.

Dave Lovell said: At last he [Behe] has found a point of agreement with every other Evolutionary Biologist. Reaching a previously specified target in either direction is a tornado in a junk yard scenario.

Dave Lovell said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: I do love Behe's timing. Seems he's got a new post up on Thorton's work.

Indeed he has and it's priceless. His central point is that since RM+NS cannot reverse several unrelated random mutations to get back to the original functional code, it therefore cannot generate several unrelated random mutations to get to a new functional code. At last he has found a point of agreement with every other Evolutionary Biologist. Reaching a previously specified target in either direction is a tornado in a junk yard scenario. I did contemplate posting this at http://behe.uncommondescent.com/, but he seems to have forgotten to enable comments.

eric said:

Dave Lovell said: At last he [Behe] has found a point of agreement with every other Evolutionary Biologist. Reaching a previously specified target in either direction is a tornado in a junk yard scenario.

Talk about retreat. I guess he's decided that as long as he finds some true "evolution shouldn't produce X" statement, it doesn't matter what X is. This X is completely unrelated to his original point OR reality. Yet, he's probably going to declare victory over it.

DS said:

eric said:

Dave Lovell said: At last he [Behe] has found a point of agreement with every other Evolutionary Biologist. Reaching a previously specified target in either direction is a tornado in a junk yard scenario.

Talk about retreat. I guess he's decided that as long as he finds some true "evolution shouldn't produce X" statement, it doesn't matter what X is. This X is completely unrelated to his original point OR reality. Yet, he's probably going to declare victory over it.

Right. It's the old "evolution can't produce a flying horse, therefore it can't produce a bird or a horse" routine. Priceless.

Is this in response to Behe's recent post on Time Asymmetric Reality Denial?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Back on topic. Mr. Hoppe, Regarding your suggestion that readers check out Steve Matheson's comments you linked to on his blog on natural selection, it seems there is an obvious mistake in his reference to natural selection as a force. One of your own contributors here, in addition to other scientists emphasize that natural selection is an outcome, not some type of force. Off the bat, he gets the descripton of natural selection wrong. One has to be skeptical of a writer that unwittingly or purposefully seeks to aggrandize natural selection.

Behe's cranes just made me all confused. Dennet's cranes were a lot simpler to understand. Lol.