Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Grand Darwinian experiment with 10,000 generations of yeast proves that Mike Behe is right


The 10,000 generations of budding yeast tracked in a Harvard lab showed massive evolution of complex new features, right? Wrong:

From the paper:

…we observe widespread parallelism across strains and environments at the level of genes and pathways: populations predictably adapt through loss-of-function mutations in the adenine biosynthesis pathway, sterility-associated genes, and negative regulators of the Ras pathway.” (p. 14)

“We note that once a population has fixed an upstream loss-of-function mutation, it requires reversion of both the original ade2-1 mutation and the upstream mutation to find the higher fitness genotype. While this is possible in principle, both mutations have single-codon target sizes and when they occur alone are likely neutral and deleterious respectively, making this evolutionary path extremely improbable. We do not observe any populations that move from the lower fitness genotype to the higher fitness genotype even after 10,000 generations of evolution. (P. 10)

Milo S Johnson, Shreyas Gopalakrishnan, Juhee Goyal, Megan E Dillingham, Christopher W Bakerlee, Parris T Humphrey, Tanush Jagdish, Elizabeth R Jerison, Katya Kosheleva, eLife 2021;10:e63910 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.63910

Note these “populations predictably adapt through loss-of-function mutations” and “We do not observe any populations that move from the lower fitness genotype to the higher fitness genotype even after 10,000 generations of evolution.”

Wait. What’s this “predictably” stuff?

If the authors could have predicted adaptation through loss-of-function mutations, why didn’t they let high school textbook authors and pop science presenters in on the secret?: Michael Behe is right: Darwin devolves. Evolution is mostly about devolution.

Does that maybe make sense in a universe where entropy is growing? But where does it leave Darwin? At the bus stop after the last bus has left?

The paper is open access.

See also: A forthright admission of how the lamprey larvae change official vertebrate history. Lamprey paper first author: “Once fortified with historical inertia, just-so stories are difficult to interrogate.” Just-So stories in science are not just difficult to interrogate but risky! People fear the questioner Doubts the Narrative and That Is Not Allowed. The essay is charming and it is heartening to read someone in science who is prepared to let evidence, not Narrative, be the guide.

i still don't understand, why are all these Darwinian laymen like Seversky so self-confident (including most Darwinian scientists). All new findings (we see it every day) just add more nails in Darwin's coffin. The Darwinian theory is like a house of cards... The other day the lamprey-larvae thing. Quoting mainstream researcher: "This Haeckelian view has held its status as conventional wisdom for 150 years, around for as long as Victorian novels...the Ammocoete-First (or Ammocoete-Primitive) story is just so convenient that it has infiltrated our way of thinking about vertebrate origins irreplaceably."- now it is wrong ... martin_r
PaV @4 good point.... you know, the less people see these results, the better for Darwinists.... martin_r
Seversky "...why they would reasonably expect to see one in 10,000 generations?..." please enlighten us, how many yeast generations would YOU expect to see Darwinian evolution or an increase in fitness or whatever ? martin_r
Bornagain77 yes, people like Seversky, who can't tell difference between bacteria and virus, are now the top experts on Darwinian evolution. But Seversky advanced his Darwinian religion, now he seems to doubt even Darwinian researchers :))) This is exactly the problem with Darwinian laymen like Seversky. Even if Richard Dawkins himself would admit, that he was wrong his entire life, and Creationists were right, Darwinian fanatics like Seversky would say, that Dawkins is now too old and probably mentally sick, or, he is paid now from Creationists :))) martin_r
Seversky are you suggesting that this who's who's list of researchers might have missed something important about Darwinian evolution and that is the reason why they failed to evolve a higher fitness genotype after 10,000 generations? ,,
Milo S Johnson Is a corresponding author , Shreyas Gopalakrishnan, Juhee Goyal, Megan E Dillingham, Christopher W Bakerlee, Parris T Humphrey, Tanush Jagdish, Elizabeth R Jerison, Katya Kosheleva, Katherine R Lawrence, Jiseon Min, Alief Moulana, Angela M Phillips, Julia C Piper, Ramya Purkanti, Artur Rego-Costa, Michael J McDonald, Alex N Nguyen Ba, Michael M Desai - Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, United States; Quantitative Biology Initiative, Harvard University, United States; NSF-Simons Center for Mathematical and Statistical Analysis of Biology, Harvard University, United States; Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, United States; John A Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, United States; Graduate Program in Systems, Synthetic, and Quantitative Biology, Harvard University, United States; Department of Physics, Harvard University, United States; Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University, United States; Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States; AeroLabs, Aeronaut Brewing Co, United States; The Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany; School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Australia; Department of Cell and Systems Biology, University of Toronto, Canada
Seversky, perhaps you should drop them an e-mail and tell them what they are doing wrong. I'm sure you will dazzle them in all your Darwinian. brilliance. Or perhaps not. :) At the very least you will give them a good laugh. :) bornagain77
Do the researchers explain how they define a higher fitness genotype and why they would reasonably expect to see one in 10,000 generations? Seversky
Waiting for regular UD trolls to download this information and update their databases in real time and then see it all reflected in their comments. Stay tuned... Andrew asauber
My question is this: Why is this being published in eLife and not a more prestigious journal? Is it because their results throw a negative light on the tenets of Darwinian evolution? PaV
in Darwinian fantasy world miracles happen all the time - from very simple to extremely complex. Complexity is costly. So why should any complexity evolve in the first place? This makes no sense (it only makes sense to Darwinist) In regards to devolution- another great example is human genome. To date, there are 6000 known genetic disorders (and counting). Just go to wikipedia, there is a very long list of HARMFUL genetic mutations. But i can't find any list of beneficial mutations. So where is the evolution ? Human genome devolves. No doubt. martin_r
Human products devolve in the same way. Language starts with huge complexity in sound systems and morphemes, in order to maintain privacy for Our Family or Our Tribe. If Our Tribe conquers other tribes, Our Language loses complexity as it rubs up against the countercomplexities of the other languages and becomes less private. Human inventions start out with all sorts of interesting features and capabilities. As other inventions compete and production grows. the features simplify down to the bare minimum. In all three cases new colors and minor variations (epigenes) will appear later on, but new basic forms and functions (genes) don't appear later. polistra
From the paper, "making this evolutionary path extremely improbable." 10,000 generations and all they get is an evolutionary path is extremely improbable. Much like the 30 year E coli. experiment that never produced a single positive mutation to support the view that evolution exists, which was the equivalent of 1,000,000 years, the evidence to support Darwin is not there. Darwinists will ignore the lack of evidence with this as they did with E coli. BobRyan

Leave a Reply