Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Behe on Lenski’s lambda virus: “Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “More from Lenski’s Lab, Still Spinning Furiously” (Evolution News & Views, January 30, 2012), Michael Behe summarizes the real discovery from a much-heralded experiment involving a virus called lambda, that infects bacteria (and is supposed to be a fast learner when it comes to infecting):

To me, the much more significant results of the new paper, although briefly mentioned, were not stressed as they deserved to be. The virus was not the only microbe evolving in the lab. The E. coli also underwent several mutations. Unlike for lambda, these were not modification-of-function mutations — they were complete loss-of-function mutations.

The mechanism the bacterium used to turn off LamB in 99% of cells to resist initial lambda infection was to mutate to destroy its own gene locus called malT, which is normally useful to the cell. After acquiring the fourth mutation the virus could potentially invade and kill all cells. However, E. coli itself then mutated to prevent this, too. It mutated by destroying some genes involved in importing the sugar mannose into the bacterium. It turns out that this “mannose permease” is used by the virus to enter the interior of the cell. In its absence, infection cannot proceed.

So at the end of the day there was left the mutated bacteriophage lambda, still incompetent to invade most E. coli cells, plus mutated E. coli, now with broken genes which remove its ability to metabolize maltose and mannose. It seems Darwinian evolution took a little step sideways and two big steps backwards.

More. You can’t comment there, but you can comment here.

Comments
B77: "Bilbo I, does it not strike you as exceedingly queer that you are willingly squabbling of such a trifling thing as to be either a gain or modification of function...." I squabble over it because Behe squabbled over it. I'm trying to understand why he did so.Bilbo I
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Hi Nick, Most of the time I think Behe makes sense. This time, however, I'm tempted to disagree with him. What makes me hesitate is that this is from a peer-reviewed paper, where I would hope the reviewers read and accepted Behe's defintion of "modification of function."Bilbo I
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Bilbo I, does it not strike you as exceedingly queer that you are willingly squabbling of such a trifling thing as to be either a gain or modification of function (I hold it is merely modification), when the 'gain of function' that desperately needs to be explained by neo-Darwinists is many, many, orders of magnitude greater than this??? i.e. Why exactly are you willingly reduced to being such a pitiful beggar, for any substantiating evidence whatsoever, when in reality it would be merely a grain of sand that you need to payoff a mountain of empirical debt???bornagain77
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Yes, binding 2 molecules is presumably a gain-of-function compared to binding 1 molecule. But you are expecting rigorous, non-question-begging definitions from an ID advocate. Prepare to be disappointed!NickMatzke_UD
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Considering the fact that Darwin himself emphasized the importance of change-of-function in evolution, and also how IDists regularly protest that change-of-function is just a wildly improbable chance event on which evolutionary biologists should not be allowed to rely in explaining systems, and also Behe's previous claims that binding sites are amazingly precise and require multiple simultaneous mutations to evolve, it's hard to see Behe's statement can be seen as anything other than a huge concession to mainstream evolutionary theory.NickMatzke_UD
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
From Behe's review: "It [modification of function] includes point mutations as well as other mutations that have a quantitative effect on a preexisting FCT, increasing or decreasing its strength, for instance, or shifting its activity somewhat (such as allowing a protein to bind a structurally-related ligand at the same site as its normal substrate), but without effectively eliminating it." But I don't see why this shouldn't be considered a gain of function. If the bacteriophage wasn't able to bind to OmpF before, but now it can, that seems like a gain of function, whether it is at the same binding site for LamB or not.Bilbo I
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Behe: "As the authors state, however, the mutated viral J protein can still bind to the original protein, LamB, which strongly suggests the same binding site (that is, the same location on the J protein) is being used. It turns out that both LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, so that strengthening the binding to one fortuitously led to binding to the other. In my review (Behe 2010) I discussed why this should be considered a "modification of function" event rather than a gain-of-function one. The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant." Behe's conclusion here seems rather counter-intuitive. It certainly seems to be a gain-of-function event to me. I guess I should go back and read his 2010 review.Bilbo I
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
'Pretty much what human computer users do' Yes, and how intellegent they are too!PeterJ
February 1, 2012
February
02
Feb
1
01
2012
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Pretty much what human computer users do in the short run to prevent importing viruses.Petrushka
January 31, 2012
January
01
Jan
31
31
2012
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply