Darwinism News

Behe’s rule vindicated again –paper shows adaptive evolution in the near term is maladaptive for the future

Spread the love

Natural Selection does not have foresight, and this lack of foresight destroys complex capabilities, it does not build them. Behe’s first rule of adaptive evolution is again vindicated. Behe’s rule states that adaptation is usually loss of function, not acquisition of function.

In contrast, Darwin envisioned that ever increasing complexity would be selected by nature. That new functions would emerge to enable adaptation. Not so. Nature selects for simplicity, if not out right extinction. Behe was right, Darwin was wrong.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003972

Whole Genome, Whole Population Sequencing Reveals That Loss of Signaling Networks Is the Major Adaptive Strategy in a Constant Environment

Molecular signaling networks are ubiquitous across life and likely evolved to allow organisms to sense and respond to environmental change in dynamic environments. Few examples exist regarding the dispensability of signaling networks, and it remains unclear whether they are an essential feature of a highly adapted biological system. Here, we show that signaling network function carries a fitness cost in yeast evolving in a constant environment. We performed whole-genome, whole-population Illumina sequencing on replicate evolution experiments and find the major theme of adaptive evolution in a constant environment is the disruption of signaling networks responsible for regulating the response to environmental perturbations. Over half of all identified mutations occurred in three major signaling networks that regulate growth control: glucose signaling, Ras/cAMP/PKA and HOG. This results in a loss of environmental sensitivity that is reproducible across experiments. However, adaptive clones show reduced viability under starvation conditions, demonstrating an evolutionary tradeoff. These mutations are beneficial in an environment with a constant and predictable nutrient supply, likely because they result in constitutive growth, but reduce fitness in an environment where nutrient supply is not constant. Our results are a clear example of the myopic nature of evolution: a loss of environmental sensitivity in a constant environment is adaptive in the short term, but maladaptive should the environment change.

Congratulations to the researchers for getting some excellent work published and to Michael Behe for having Behe’s rule affirmed yet again.

HT: Dr. L

32 Replies to “Behe’s rule vindicated again –paper shows adaptive evolution in the near term is maladaptive for the future

  1. 1
    Sebestyen says:

    It’s a bit like throwing out the spare tire and the jerry can to save weight. Works as long as you’re only driving in the city…

  2. 2
    Andre says:

    I wonder how the dirt worshipping cult handle these type of findings?

    “Ahhh we expected it to be so all along!!!”

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting – Michael Behe – November 21, 2013
    Excerpt: Lenski is an optimistic man, and always accentuates the positive. In the paper on mutT and mutY, the stress is on how the bacterium has improved with the second mutation. Heavily unemphasized is the ominous fact that one loss of function mutation is “improved” by another loss of function mutation — by degrading a second gene. Anyone who is interested in long-term evolution should see this as a baleful portent for any theory of evolution that relies exclusively on blind, undirected processes.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    It’s a bit like throwing out the spare tire and the jerry can to save weight. Works as long as you’re only driving in the city…

    Reminds me of the blind cavefish. Functioning eyes in a dark cave serve no purpose, so selection eliminates them since in a cave environment they are a metabolic liability. If the blind fish somehow break out into an environment with light, oh well…

    Darwin didn’t understand this problem. But that doesn’t stop Dawkins from proclaiming “the genius of Charles Darwin”. Genius, he was not. His conception of what Natural Selection actually does in the wild has be falsified.

    Blyth’s version of natural selection was closer to the truth.

  5. 5
  6. 6
    lifepsy says:

    scordova

    Reminds me of the blind cavefish. Functioning eyes in a dark cave serve no purpose, so selection eliminates them since in a cave environment they are a metabolic liability. If the blind fish somehow break out into an environment with light, oh well…

    The cavefish actually cease development of eyes as a direct reaction to dark environments. If they are moved to lit environments, subsequent embryos will begin expressing functioning eyes.

    The Darwin cult misleads the public (and probably themselves) about the myth of blind cavefish being the result of mutations and selection. They do this all the time.

  7. 7
    lifepsy says:

    andre

    I wonder how the dirt worshipping cult handle these type of findings?

    “Ahhh we expected it to be so all along!!!”

    Then they will make another sacrificial offering (sacrificing their Reason) to their god of “millions of years” that can magically turn all of this loss-of-function mutation into complex new body plans.

    Why worry about pesky things like scientific data when you can put so much faith in things nobody will ever be able to test? When will people wake up and realize Evolution is quite obviously a religion?

  8. 8
    Mapou says:

    The Darwin cult misleads the public (and probably themselves) about the myth of blind cavefish being the result of mutations and selection. They do this all the time.

    Yep, the dirt worshipping community is cunning and deeply dishonest. Blatantly and shamelessly lying for the cause is in their genes.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    JLAfan2001 says:

    Sal@19

    “Darwin didn’t understand this problem. But that doesn’t stop Dawkins from proclaiming “the genius of Charles Darwin”. Genius, he was not. His conception of what Natural Selection actually does in the wild has be falsified.”

    Please show this scientifically. If you can, I would recommend submitting a paper on it because you will the the one to go down in history that refuted Darwinian evolution. If you can’t then don’t make these assertions.

  11. 11
    Barry Arrington says:

    Classic.

    Andre @ 2 asks: “I wonder how the dirt worshipping cult handle these type of findings?”

    And JLAfan2001 @ 10 comes along and answers the question. Thank you JLA!

    For those who do not speak Darwinian, let me translate: First, stick your fingers in your ears and then say “La la la la la la la I’m not listening!!”

    Kind of like this clip (beginning at the 2:08 mark): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X90qKQAMh8A

  12. 12
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    Why are Mung’s posts being deleted from this thread?

    Mung’s point was (roughly) that functioning eyes in pitch black still have a function even in pitch black.

  13. 13
    scordova says:

    Please show this scientifically.

    On the contrary, the burden is on the Darwinists to show their theory scientifically.

    Please cite an experiments and observations which demonstrate new complex proteins are emerging faster in the wild than getting removed.

    Please cite a mutation in the human genome that is present in today’s population that expect to overtake the population. State the amount of time you expect this mutation to overtake the entire global population.

    When I posed that question to Darwinists, they offered lactose tolerance. But that mutation is likely a loss of function as well!

    If you think I’m not being scientific, fine. Go ask scientists these questions and report back what you find.

    The questions you ask Darwinists:

    1. what new complex protein is evolving in the human genome that you expect to become part of the entire human population some day

    2. how long will it take

    3. what evidence do you have that this will happen

    4. what is the track record of its advance

    5. if it is a new protein, how do you know it is a new protein versus maybe most of the population losing that protein?

    You come around UD pretending like you think Darwinism is true, yet you don’t offer one ounce of skepticism toward the theory. You trust their authority.

    Who should you ask? How about the
    The Science League of America.

    If they can’t offer proof of Darwinism, no one can.

  14. 14
    scordova says:

    Ian wrote:

    The link should be
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar…..en.1003972

    Thanks Ian. I fixed it in the OP.

  15. 15
  16. 16
    scordova says:

    Why are Mung’s posts being deleted from this thread?

    Hi Chance,

    I banned him from all my discussions because he has a history of trolling and vendettas against me personally.

    He’ll occasionally try to say something useful just to sneak in and participate, knowing I’ll remove his comment or edit it.

    Now, if you were in my position where he spammed an entire thread saying I didn’t know how to program (which is not true, I have computer science degree, he doesn’t) — you might not be so friendly to his posts either. There was no reason for him to be making up such stuff about me except a vendetta. He’ll say this despite the fact I analyzed the Avida program and was invited by Bill Dembski and Robert Marks to Baylor on a possible scholarship. Thankfully, Winston Ewert got the position, and I went to another school.

    Mung also said I have silly notions of thermodynamics. He has absolutely no background in thermodynamics or physics, but it doesn’t stop him from showing up on my discussions and saying that.

    I studied thermodynamics and statistical mechanics at a respected engineering graduate school. I shouldn’t have to be dealing with such trolling from him. I shouldn’t have to even reference what I do and do not know, but he’ll make accusations that are founded on falsehood, and it becomes a distraction on my discussions.

    I spent a lot of time with you on some math stuff. I’m happy to host such discussions. I don’t like hosting discussion where Mung comes along and starts making stuff up.

    Now, the fact that he showed up on my discussion has already started a distraction. I’m spending more time dealing with him again, versus talking about Behe’s rule.

    He may have a few things to say that are worth hearing. I don’t have the time or patience to deal with him.

    He has said I’m a liar, a deceiver, a hypocrite, etc at UD. Demanded I ask his forgiveness after after I deleted one his diatribes against me. Even if true, these aren’t discussions that have to be hosted on UD.

    I’d ask you to consider how you would deal with such a situation where you’ve been essentially stalked in this way for years.

    You can see, I’m quite willing to have reasoned discussions with those that disagree like Elizabeth Liddle, Mark Frank, RDFish — they’ve disagreed vigorously, but not with the invectives of Mung.

    If you want to hear what Mung has to say, you can visit him at Skeptical Zone. I’ve uninvited him from my threads at UD, but he’s welcome to comment elsewhere at UD.

  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
    Mung says:

    And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. … and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it…

    Repent, Sal.

  22. 22
    scordova says:

    Chance asked:

    functioning eyes in pitch black still have a function even in pitch black.

    Even supposing they are functioning, at issue is what selection will do with it. Selection destroys a lot of functioning systems by favoring dysfunction.

    In antibiotic resistance, selection selects for bacteria with broken pumps or disrupted protein expression, it doesn’t select for more complex functions. Those also illustrate Behe’s rule.

  23. 23
    Mung says:

    Repent, Sal.

  24. 24
    scordova says:

    Chance,

    Here is an example where Mung wants to take the conversation now:

    And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. … and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it…

    Repent, Sal.

    That’s him in his own words. That’s way off topic. Now, if you want to talk about Behe’s rule we can do that.

    Thanks.

  25. 25
    Sebestyen says:

    When I posed that question to Darwinists, they offered lactose tolerance. But that mutation is likely a loss of function as well!

    Lactose persistence means the degradation of lactase production – which is normal for all animals and a significant part of the human population – doesn’t happen or is much weaker. So it definitely is a loss of the usual function.
    However, since the only thing these mutations change is the amount of lactase that’s being produced at certain ages of the individual it is not really a big thing. I suppose it’s a similar to the “blue eyes mutation” which is basically a genetic defect that causes a lack of melanine in the iris.

    Interesting points:

    a) The data regarding natural selection of this trait is not clear without ambiguity. There are ethnic groups who rely heavily on milk products and for whom cows or camels play a very important role in their lifestyle, but who have a low reported frequency of lactase persistence.
    In other cases lactose persistence can be attributed to the adaptation of the colonic bacterial flora. [1]

    b) The data also suggests that lactose persistence has developed multiple times (at least two, possibly four or more) in different places independently (convergent evolution). [2]

    Sources:
    [1] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/.....Review.pdf
    [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC2672153/
    http://bioinfo2.ugr.es/PDFsCla.....erance.pdf

  26. 26
    PaV says:

    Here’s what I noticed in the article:

    From the Abstract:

    We identified 120 mutations over three experiments, and determined that the genes and pathways that had gained beneficial mutations were largely reproducible across experiments, and that many of the mutations led to the loss of signaling pathways that usually sense a changing environment, allowing the cell to respond appropriately. When these mutant cells were faced with uncertain environments, the mutations proved to be deleterious. Environmental sensing must carry a fitness cost in a constant environment, but is essential in a changing one.

    “Environmental sensing” is what drives the change in phenotype, not NS. There isn’t some stretch of DNA that’s created by RV+NS in the face of a changed environment; instead, 120 different “types” of mutations, mostly directed at some regulatory network, probably shutting it down, or limiting it, bring about a changed organism. If the environment changes, then enough organisms have to die (genetic load) before one of the 120 mutated areas are ‘mutated’ back to where they were.

    So, in a sense, NOTHING changes. We’re not dealing with the ‘creation’ of regulatory networks, and then their deletion; rather, we’re simply dealing with various types of SNP–all within the scope of Darwinian mechanisms. You know: “The Edge of Evolution.” Two amino acid changes or less. In this case, it’s likely just a one amino acid difference.

    So much for the “great and powerful” forces of Evolution. Should be now bow, having invoked the name ‘Evolution’?

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Mr. Cordova, Although I certainly don’t condone the low level that Mung has gone to to try to disrupt your posts. I do want you to know that there are others here on UD besides Mung that strongly disagree with some of your positions, and especially in the way you have conducted yourself in the past in airing those contrary positions. Be that as it may, I value where we do agree, areas like this thread on Dr. Behe, and seek to strengthen these areas and work through the areas we don’t agree. That being said, I do wish some effort could be made between both you and Mung to reach a some type forgiveness and reconciliation, especially considering that both of you guys are professing Christians. Mung, though he has his quirks (who among us doesn’t?) is actually very insightful from time to time, and, IF a friendship could be restored between you two, could actually be an asset for your threads.

  28. 28
    jstanley01 says:

    I agree that Mung can be insightful, not to mention funny. So I was surprised when I first observed the, to me, inexplicable burr under his saddle regarding Sal.

    In light of the below comment on another thread, along with the five posts in six minutes on this thread, I have to wonder if something other than dislike of Sal is involved:

    Heck, I can watch the earth spin anytime I want if I just drink too much.

    In response to the possible import of your post, Mung, I would commend to you, Is A.A. For You? Twelve questions only you can answer. AA is an organization that I have seen help a number of Christian men and women recover the sanity that they had unwittingly surrendered to degenerative disease of alcoholism.

    Maybe I’m full of it, jumping to an unwarranted conclusion and whatnot. But really, it’s only twelve little yes/no questions. Then, you decide…

  29. 29
  30. 30
  31. 31
    scordova says:

    The ability to adapt to changing environments can be said to be a fault tolerant feature of a species.

    This paper shows that selection tends to destroy fault tolerant systems because they consume resources (like extra baggage) and are not immediately beneficial in the near term. Since selection is expedient, it sacrifices future benefit for immediate benefit. Not good. It appears the authors say as much.

    Environmental sensing must carry a fitness cost in a constant environment, but is essential in a changing one.

    An otherwise useful feature is a liability (a fitness cost) in a stable environment. Reminds me of someone overloading his shelves with extra provisions in a healthy economy. It is costly, but if a disaster hits, it is beneficial.

    Whether he is wise in doing overstocking his shelves is somewhat beside the point, it demonstrates his ability to have foresight, which selection lacks.

    Thus we have features in biology that testify against the effectiveness of selection to maintain, much less construct, certain features like fault tolerance.

    There are other threads that discuss these and related difficulties for Darwinism:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....edundancy/

    and

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....omplexity/

    and

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ts-except/

  32. 32
    jstanley01 says:

    Mung: It doesn’t take too much digging to figure out how to email me, if you’d like to contact me personally — to chew me out or whatever. -Jeff

Leave a Reply