|
Author
|
Topic: Is the Behe/Snoke paper true, accurate, correct or valid?
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 11. July 2006 15:55
Zachriel wrote:
quote:
There are many, many problems with Behe & Snoke's paper. They choose a rather difficult example from protein evolution, but no matter. They assume that the duplicate gene has fixed in a population and deactivated along the way. The reasonably correct model is that a duplication starts in a single individual, then evolves from there. They assume that every mutation that doesn't reach the teleological goal are deleterious. This is not the case, and flies in the face of modern protein biology which finds that most genes are very tolerant of amino acid substitutions. They then assume that these intermediaries are not subject to selection. In fact, a substantial portion of the intermediate products will be subject to positive selection and fixation. For the same reason, the original unduplicated gene in the population may already have many of the features of the teleological goal.
As Behe admitted this teleological goal could be reached in 20,000 years, it would seem this does not present a problem for the standard evolutionary model of population genetics.
Specialists indicate that Behe and Snoke's estimate is far too long. Behe additionally admits that his model doesn't include many of the salient processes of actual evolution. In his reply to Lynch's criticism he even confuses beneficial selection of reduced function with deleterious selection.
You might actually read Lynch's paper on this. Publication in a peer journal is just the first step of the scientific review process.
M. Lynch
Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins
Protein Sci., September 1, 2005; 14(9): 2217 - 2225.
http://protsci.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/9/2217
Thanks, Zach. I'll read this as soon as I can. Meanwhile, I think I made a major mistake in my calculations.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 12. July 2006 17:17
Jehu's reply:
quote:
Behe and Snokes replied to Lynch in the same journal. Lynch made a strawman argument and his comments were little more than high sounding statements devoid of relevance but intending to satisfy those who are convinced by such things.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 12. July 2006 17:20
Hmmm...all I can get for free is the abstract. Anyway of seeing the full article for free?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 13. July 2006 08:23
Hi Jules,
I understand you wanted to divide the question into two parts, but unfortunately, once a thread is started, it can be very difficult to control. I should have noted your other thread title included the word "implications", but your originating post didn't seem to indicate that. I also noticed that no one was responding, so I thought I would throw a bit of kindling on the fire.
As it appears both aspects of the issue are under discussion in the other thread -- and threads do tend to take on a life of their own -- under the circumstances, this thread seems redundant.
[ 13. July 2006, 10:08: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 13. July 2006 08:25
Jules: "Hmmm...all I can get for free is the abstract. Anyway of seeing the full article for free?"
You could try a university library. Peruse a few scientific journals to see what is really happening in science. Arguments that scientists are not empiricists is an unfair caricature.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jules
Member
Member # 181
|
posted 13. July 2006 17:25
I'm not giving up on this thread, yet. In my perfect world -- the one where I am a god -- I could control all your responses, and make you put the appropriate comments in the appropriate threads.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 14. July 2006 11:22
Jules: "the one where I am a god..."
Good luck with the God-thing.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic