ERV’s challenge to Michael Behe

_{Salvador Cordova

August 28, 2007

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[continued from Dr. D.A. Cook’s thread, Where Did Sea Anemones Get Human Genes?]

Michael Behe has certainly given his critics a thrashing at his Amazon weblog. When I saw Mike taking Ken Miller to task for Miller mischaracterizing Lipids as Proteins (a sophomoric mistake by Miller), I knew Mike was slamming the best the Darwinist could muster onto the floor. Behe single handedly defeated Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Michael Ruse, and Richard Dawkins, and thus earned the title “Darwin Slayer”.

But there have been minor skirmishes between Behe’s supporters and detractors. One such skirmish was between Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute and Abbie Smith of the ERV weblog. Abbie is an AIDS/HIV researcher. We’re pleased to have Abbie visiting with us, and I’d like to grant her a fair hearing regarding what she has to say, especially since she is a scientist in the field.

The skirmish involved this post at Pandas Thumb ERV & HIV versus Behe. Behe loses.

Later Casey Luskin joined in with: Pandas Thumb Fails to Refute Michael Behe on HIV Evolution.

I invite discussion and research on the topic. I am aware of one minor error in Mike’s books, so I’m glad to help the editorial process for any subsequent editions, and if Abbie has some useful corrections to suggest, I certainly welcome them.

I’d like to thank Abbie Smith for volunteering her expertise and time in providing public peer review for the work of one of today’s leading thinkers in the origins discussion.

Comments

ERVÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s comments HERE didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t cross the line into being discourteous, and the ID side lost points, in my view, for shutting down the debate. Zed, one of the problems in these debates is that Darwinists have a very annoying strategy of using data dumps and lit bluffing. These replies always sound reasonable and almost always appear conclusive until someone takes the time to delve into what the lit cite actually says or to wade through the data provided to determine its reliablity and germaneness to the debate. I suspect that was the motivation of the mods for giving them the boot. And it looks like Sal has established that EVR was lit bluffing. Also, that EVR appeared to misrepresent Michael Behe's position didn't help.tribune7_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Zed wrote: This isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t about who has the right to be discourteous. It is about how to be persuasive.
Well, my interaction with them has continued at ERV for the sake of the readers. I hope the exchange will be informative. Please consider these central questions I raised as I believe Ms. Smith was hasty to judgement, and doing so allowed her to arrive at badly mistaken conclusions. I will keep hammering the following points:
1. Vpu pre-existed HIV entry into humans 2. CD4 degradation capability existed before HIV entry into humans 3. viral relase regulation via Vpu existed before HIV entry into humans 4. possibly even ion channel capability existed before HIV entry into humans
Therefore these points can't be used to refute Michael Behe, and Ms. Smith was badly mistaken to appeal to them in the first place. I smelt something of a weak hand in her treatment of the TM domains. :-) Hammering the phylogeny by Dr. Musgrave is what I'll do. If they avoid answering the 4 simple assertions, you'll know I was right. :-)scordova_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

So Sal, Is a literature bluff exactly what you got them on?
It is possilbe Ms. Smith was very hasty to render judgement, and PT presenting her prominently as having destroyed Behe's arguments, put her in a very precarious position. If someone comes along and finds major holes in her understanding, her friends will have to try to correct a few mistakes with even more. They can never admit that they are wrong since it is impossible they are wrong, if you know what I mean.... At issue is the simple question I posed in various incarnations: "if you have two organisms with a common ancestor, one has an eye and the other doesn't, how do you interpret the evolution? Did one line gain an eye, or did one line lose an eye?" I was willing to grant Ms. Smith's claim that Vpu emerged recently. Her own diagrams suggest Vpu emerged just before HIV-1 entered humans, NOT AFTER. Actually, I'm now thinking I was too generous. It's possible Vpu was in all the strains, and any strains lacking them may be through loss of function, not because they are more "primitive" than other strains!!!!! Same with the supposed novel emergence of ion channel capbility. My current hypothesis based on peer-reviewed literature:
1. Vpu pre-existed HIV entry into humans 2. CD4 degradation existed before HIV entry into humans 3. viral relase regulation via Vpu existed before HIV entry into humans 4. possibly even ion channel capability existed before HIV entry into humans
Yet, all these 4 capabilities were presented as something new, when indeed the peer review literature argues the opposite. The reason I posed the question to Dr. Hunt is that for him to answer honestly might result in him refuting absolutely everything Ms. Smith said. Her whole essay would be discredited at the hands of one of her own. I for one had little to lose. And I already admitted, I have in my back pocket a minor error which Mike made, and I'm quite happy to disclose my finding later. I assure you all it is minor (on the order of a few typos), and does not refute his conclusions. So one can't accuse me of always defending Mike, and in fact when I was on C-SPAN, I gently objected to Mike giving credit to Darwin rather than Blyth. I was sincere, if there was a mistake, what better thing than getting free public peer-review to help Mike with his next edition? We can acknowlege Dr. Hunt and Ms. Smith for helping us. I'm sure they'll be appreciative of our public gratitude.scordova_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

kairos #61, I agree completely and that's the point. I was hoping to get Ms. Smith and Dr. Hunt to admit that even if their speculative scenario was correct it's still not a challenge to ID. But now that they're banned that's unlikely... The worst assumption is the presumption that the only possible mechanism for this evolution scenario is unguided Darwinian processes. If they really want to challenge Behe they need to find evidence where the mechanism is KNOWN to be unguided Darwinian processes.
That said, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see why they were banned here. ERVÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s comments here seemed within the bounds of acceptable argument. ERVÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ideas will never get a thorough vetting over there, and UD has now destroyed the chance for a real, fair debate here.
Agreed. That said, it's amazing the lack of maturity they're showing in their responses on their own sites.Patrick_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Stephen B: This isn't about who has the right to be discourteous. It is about how to be persuasive. ERV's comments HERE didn't cross the line into being discourteous, and the ID side lost points, in my view, for shutting down the debate. To be persuasive, the ID side needs to rise above the other side's immaturity. The other side's commetns may be hard to take, and it can be fun to engage in flame wars, but ask yourself, is it really helping to advance your argument?Zed_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

To sum this all up (adding to StephenB's last paragraph in 79) : Both Sal & Casey are saying that Behe is talking about "apples" (HIV-1 only). ERV is saying that Behe is talking about "oranges" (xIV-x, with x being any letter denoting any known & "related" virus or no letter). If we can make any predictions about this debate we can predict this scenario. That is we can predict that when an IDist makes a claim someone will say that claim is falsified. Yet on closer examination they refuted a strawman. And they will cling to that strawman until they die, regardless of what the data demonstrates. They do this because they can always claim- "Sure, he says that NOOOWWWW! But we know what he meant before I corrected him."Joseph_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Zed, the problem is that, all too often, Darwinists attack ID for what it is not, and ignore what it is. Logically, one must be able to define a theory and understand what it is prior to attacking it. Note, for example, the way they criticize the concept of "specified complexity." They will say, "well just because something is complex doesn't mean that design was involved." Clearly, statements like that prove that they don't have a clue about what "specified" means. Everyone knows that complexity alone does not indicate design. This kind of ignorance does not occur on the other side of the debate. ID advocates understand every aspect of Darwinian evolution, its claims, and all the implications involved. We argue against their theory, and they argue against their false characterization of our theoory. If anyone has earned the right to be discourteous, it is us. Nevertheless, our side is usually much more civil.StephenB_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: You canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t reason with unreasonable people.
I am dealing with the questions for the sake of the people sitting on the sideline wanting to hear the debate, not because I believe Ms. Smith or Dr. Hunt will be convinced. If I don't address the questions, that might instill lingering doubts amongst the readers. Oh well, it's a moot point as the semester is about to start and I'll be scarce in a little while.scordova_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Well Oleg Tchernyshyov IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m in the unfortunate position of stuydying physics at your school, Johns Hopkins. Do you look forward to dismissing me?
Congratulation Sal; this is genuine and fair psicological war :-) BTW, I've found the following biography of your (possible) future professor: "Oleg Tchernyshyov is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy of the Johns Hopkins University. He is a condensed matter theorist interested in strongly correlated electron systems, such as high-temperature superconductors and **frustrated** magnets."kairos_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

So Sal, Is a literature bluff exactly what you got them on? If you get time I do want to know what they have that is supported by observational data (I suspect well within EOE) and what they tried to claim with unsupported postulations and literature bluffing.bornagain77_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Sal, LOL,,,LOL,,,LOL,,,LOL...bornagain77_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

I'm someone who's interested in ID but who frankly doesn't know enough to weigh in on the merits. I follow the arguments on each side as best I can. One thing that has made me more likely to credit ID is the other side's childish, dismissive manner in responding to ID arguments. It suggests defensiveness and lack of confidence in their position. On her webiste, ERV and her commenters are great examples of this and do their side no favors with their rudeness and snarkiness. That said, I don't see why they were banned here. ERV's comments here seemed within the bounds of acceptable argument. ERV's ideas will never get a thorough vetting over there, and UD has now destroyed the chance for a real, fair debate here. Please -- resist the temptation to sink to their level. It's hard to ignore their juvenile attacks, but please remember how your responses will be interpreted by undecided people like me.Zed_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Here is an update in response to Olegt's question as it will be inevitable:
Well Oleg Tchernyshyov I'm in the unfortunate position of stuydying physics at your school, Johns Hopkins. Do you look forward to dismissing me? Salvador T. Cordova
scordova_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

#67 Sal you forgot to quote the "incipit" by ERV in its site. I quote it to show what's the fairness of the person to whom you had kindly asked information. Dave is completely right: this person has to grow more and more to become (perhaps) a good scholar. ---------------------------- from: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/another-savage-blow-to-my-behe-critique.html Thursday, August 30, 2007 Another savage blow to my Behe critique ERV, banned at UD for being *sarcastic*, aka repeatedly anticipating and demolishing Sallys attempts to move goal posts, and answering Davies attempts at being *mean* with cheer. Have fun scissoring each other, pussies. ROFL! Poor Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb, too stupid to know Behe was trying to let my post blow over. Trying sooooooo hard to ignore my post, hoping others would forget I wrote it... And then Dee and Dumb plaster it on the front page of UD and let me smash their Creationist Claims on their own damn blog! AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! IDiots! AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Posted by ERV at 7:39 AM Labels: Creationism --------------------------kairos_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Sal You can't reason with unreasonable people. The bottom line remains that rapid reproducers like falciparum and HIV have been observed in nature replicating and mutating in numbers orders of magnitude larger than all the mammals that ever lived and in all that opportunity to build complexity they accomplished almost nothing. So on the one hand we have a mechanism that is observed to do very little in billions of trillions of actual replications yet on the other hand chance pundits insist this same mechanism with far less opportunity built all the complexity in mammals that distinguish them from reptiles. This is the mother of all non sequiturs. Under actual observation in numbers sufficiently large to remove any doubt that we just haven't observed it long enough, rm+ns does exactly what ID predicted it would do. RM+NS simply cannot defeat the statistical odds working against it. The only thing in nature with a known ability to choose desired outcomes from a virtually infinite set of equally probable undesirable outcomes - defeating at least temporarily the laws of entropy in thermodynamics and information - is intelligent agency.DaveScot_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

I'm going to skip reporting a lot of the spam at ERV's website, but here was the latest:
Salvador Cordova, Invasion Force Commander: Olegt said: "You have started graduate school. Tell us where and in what field. We're dying to know." I'm learning the science of Denial and Deception from the University of Charles Darwin. Ah, but I see Dr. Arthur Hunt of Pandas Thumb is here. YAY! You know Art, I'd like to answer your question, but there is something I need a little help with first so I can understand where you're coming from. When you read those phylogenies Dr. Musgrave offered, does that suggest to you that Vpu existed in HIV-1 strains prior to their introduction into humans? I was hoping Ms. Smith could offer her expert opinion, but perhaps in the interim you could tell us what you think of Dr. Musgrave's phylogenies with respect to that questin.
Prediction: 1. Dr.Arthur Hunt of PT will obfuscate the issue, accuse me of evasion etc., throw out red herrings and equivocations, literature bluffs 2. Ms. Smith will do the same, through out red herrings and equivocations, literature bluffs 3. More spam and ad hominems from the Howler Monkeys to try to derail the discussion 4. I will keep hammering the phylogenies because they know they pulled a "literature bluff" and equivocated the notion of "new function". Watch it unfold. They'll be reluctant to admit when I catch them on something. Notice when they don't respond to a simple question such as those I pose about Musgrave's phylogenies. [Learn more about Darwinist literature bluffing and the fine art of countering it: Becoming a Jedi Master in the online ID Wars]scordova_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

#68 Dave
are beneficial in Avida because they provide additional food without requiring any additional consumption. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s survival of the fattest!
In my opinion the high number of references to Avida by NDE supporters is one of the most evident signs of their hidden desperation. Please let us always remember that, fattest or fittest, anyway we are speaking of the evolution of trivially simple EQU operators ...kairos_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

If RM/NS were truly a successful way to build proteins then life should never even arise past the lowliest organisms with the most Ã¢â‚¬Å“Mutational FirepowerÃ¢â‚¬Â. In fact this is what is revealed by computer simulations of RM+NS. Edge of Evolution pg. 276
In Avida, acquiring new abilities is only one way for an organism to get computer food. Another way is by simply acquiring surplus instructions, whether or not they do anything. In fact, instructions that aren't ever executed - making them utterly useless for performing tasks - are beneficial in Avida because they provide additional food without requiring any additional consumption. It's survival of the fattest! It's also very unrealistic. Biological organisms show the opposite behavior - genes that are useless in the real world are not rewarded; the genes are rapidly lost or degraded by mutation. Why, then, was Avida programmed to do the opposite? As explained on the Avida website, the counterbiological feature was needed, "Otherwise there is a strong selective pressure for shorter genomes." In other words, otherwise the program wouldn't give the desired results.
DaveScot_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Well here is the play by play so far at the comemnt section of Another Savage Blow to My Critique
Salvador Cordova, Invasion Force Commander: Ms Smith, This is Salvador Cordova from UD. I had nothting to do with your banning and I lobbied DaveScot to allow you to stay. I was wondering if I could we could continue our dialogue. I only have a few more questions, and don't intend to trouble you much over them. Salvador
============
Anonymous Darwinist: Ooh, yes, please let Sal continue. He is about to deliver the coup de grace, don't you know. Hey, Sal, since you seem to have insights not available to actual practitioners of biology, genetics, and virology you really should start your own biomedical research company based on the ID paradigm. I'll bet you could attract lots of funding and wouldn't it be a big splatter of egg on the Darwinists faces when you patented a breakthrough treatment.
============
Salvador Cordova, Invasion Force Commander: Annonymous said: "since you seem to have insights not available to actual practitioners of biology," Not at all, I'm just a dumb uneducated dolt who has an overinflated view of himself, that's why I was hoping Ms. Smith could help me understand something. I looked at the phylogeny that was suggested by Dr. Musgrave here: Illustrated Guide to Vpu Is it Ms. Smith's expert scientific opinion that Dr. Musgrave's diagram indicates that Vpu was present in HIV-1 strains when they were first introduced into the human population?
scordova_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

LOL, you go get em SAL, But please do let us know exactly how you destroy their fallacies.bornagain77_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Waah!!!! The Darwinsits are gone. Sniff. They just couldn't control themselves. Crying shame. I was just about to deliver the coup de grace to all 3. It would have been nice if I could have delivered it here before our fans. Our fans come to UD afterall for a bit of entertainment. I was about to ask Dr. Hunt about the phylogenies and the interpretation of various papers like SHIVTM. Same with factian. I was about to ask Ms. Smith too. But now I'll have to wander to the slime pits to hunt my prey down rather than wage the battle on friendly territory. Man those guys make my life hard. Wish me luck man, as I'll have to go it alone at PT, ERV, and the blogshpere, unless there is anyone who wants to join me on this glorious expedition. If anyone wants to help me on this expedition, come forward, or do I have to go it alone? I shall land my expedition here. Salvadorscordova_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Good point. In a certain sense (and provided that really it seems highly implausible that RM+NS could have produced them) only the more basic organisms, such as viruses and procariotes, should be the winners. In a more general sense this argument could be enhanced. The more an organism is complex the less is its number and the slower is its capacity to reproduce. How can a blind mechanism such as RM+NS hope to explain thie reverse pyramidal status?kairos_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

I think this following statement is very telling to the whole ID/evolution issue: However, patients with sustained suppression do not develop the resistant mutations. This is because replication must be maintained for the development of such mutations under the selective pressure of the drug. Therefore the only most successful way, so far, to arrest the disease is to dramatically suppress the HIV numbers and to thus restrict their access to the numbers they need to continue their RM/NS search for a "successful deleterious" mutation that will block the drug/virus interaction. Another thought that may be of use to this discussion: If RM/NS was truly the power behind the development of novel information of life on earth then "the survival of the fittest" would belong to the most lethal (non-living) viruses since they have vastly greater access to the powers of RM/NS than higher organisms above them. Lethal Viruses should rule the earth in this RM/NS scenario since any organism with which the viruses reacted would quickly be destroyed because they are vastly outclassed by this "hypothetical" power of the Virus to develop successful protein/protein binding sites with accelerated RM/NS. That is to say simply that the "fittest" organisms on earth would be the ones to have greatest access to this RM/NS power. Yet this is not what we see we see. We see higher organisms with access to arguably far less mutation firepower successfully coexisting with viruses. If RM/NS were truly a successful way to build proteins then life should never even arise past the lowliest organisms with the most "Mutational Firepower". In a hypothetical "blind" world of natural selection only the fittest would survive and the fittest would definitely not be us it would be "mutational powerhouses"!bornagain77_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

#60
Remember these people actually believe whole heartedly that evolution of CSI is possible in HIV.
10% faith.
But we have a surprise for them in the actual practice of hard science, So I ask that we may exercise a little patience with our guest until we have the observation data we need to destroy their case.
This is a good argument.kairos_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

For the sake of discussion, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assume Smith is correct in her assumptions.
and this is what Sal is questioning.
1. Would this go significantly beyond BeheÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s current estimate for the edge?
Absolutely NOT.
2. Would this be CSI?
Absolutely NOT. So, where did ERV take the certainty that Behe analysis is "fatally flawed"?kairos_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, Remember these people actually believe whole heartedly that evolution of CSI is possible in HIV. We know for a fact, from rigorous math and the study of observational data of deleterious mutation rates in other organisms, that this is not possible. I think Sal is doing an excellent job of gathering the available observational data that is available in HIV in which to clearly show these people why it is not remotely possible. Their snide comments probably come from years of brainwashing in the Darwinism doctrine and the arrogant and mistaken assumption that they can't possibly be wrong. But we have a surprise for them in the actual practice of hard science, So I ask that we may exercise a little patience with our guest until we have the observation data we need to destroy their case.bornagain77_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

I think this site may be useful for those following this discussion on HIV evolution. http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv14a.htm Its an overview of the treatment of the HIV virus. This is an interesting excerpt from the paper; Protease inhibitors With the advent of protease inhibitors, there has been optimism that HIV might become a tractable disease since now we have the promise of a drug regimen that can suppress indefinitely the progress of disease. If, as seems to be the case, viral load is the key to the progression from infection to the clinical manifestations of the disease, combination therapy may make HIV infection manageable. Many aspartyl protease inhibitors are being developed but at present, only a few are approved. They are all substrate analogs, that is they mimic a peptide that can bind to the active site of the viral protease. The latter is a dimeric aspartyl protease (has catalytic aspartates at its active site). When used individually, protease inhibitors can drive down viral load to between one 30th and one 100th of initial value but sub-optimal doses of these inhibitors when used alone can result in loss of suppression after several weeks or months and an accumulation of multiple mutations in the protease gene giving a high level of drug resistance. However, patients with sustained suppression do not develop the resistant mutations. This is because replication must be maintained for the development of such mutations under the selective pressure of the drug.bornagain77_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

art (and art2) is no longer with us erv can also take her sarcastic mouth elsewhere factician has also been included in the housecleaning DaveScot_{August 30, 2007
August
08
Aug
30
30
2007
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Ms Smith said:
Subtype C evolved biochemically to form these viroporins better than other subtypes.
But I looked at your comment at PT:
Viroporin capabilities have not been found with SIVcpz Vpu. Knowing what we know about Vpu, this is not surprising. If you scramble the transmembrane region of HIV-1 Vpu (the portion responsible for the ion channel formation), viral release is crippled.9 And when you compare AA homology between SIVcpz and HIV-1 Vpu in the transmembrane region is unremarkable (roughly two) Ã¢â‚¬â€œ thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s as good as a Ã¢â‚¬ËœscrambleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.
I'm having problems accepting that viropoin capability was novel after emergence in humans in light of this paper: Scrambling of the amino acids within the transmembrane domain of Vpu results in a simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIVTM) that is less pathogenic for pig-tailed macaques.
To date, no studies have been performed to assess the role of this domain in virus pathogenesis in a macaque model of disease. Using a pathogenic molecular clone of simian human immunodeficiency virus (SHIVKU-1bMC33), we have generated a novel virus in which the transmembrane domain of the Vpu protein was scrambled but maintained hydrophobic in nature (SHIVTM), which presumably would disrupt any ion channel TM properties of this protein ... Thus, these results show for the first time that the TM domain of Vpu contributes to the pathogenicity of SHIVKU-1bMC33 in pig-tailed macaques.
This paper would appear to weaken the claim that even if "Viroporin capabilities have not been found with SIVcpz Vpu", that they emerged brand spanking new in humans. Thus, this would appear not to be an appropriate counter example to Behe's claims. The fact that one may not see a function in one strain does not imply that it emerged brand new in another strain. It is entirely possible this was a loss of fucntion, and with respect to the issue of this viroporin capability, it was a loss of function (if at all). Speaking of which, were there even studies done on SIVcpz regarding scrambling of the TM domain? Can't very well find them if one doesn't even look for them.scordova_{August 29, 2007
August
08
Aug
29
29
2007
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Are you ready to start listing to what I say, or are you going to keep squirming?
It is true that I've been accused of being dense, so I hope you'll be willing to assist my lack of understanding. I posed this question:
2. When did CD4 functionality emerge? Before or after introduction into humans?
I did this just to make sure that I'm interpreting this paper correctly which you reference: Vpu-mediated CD4 down-regulation and degradation is conserved among highly divergent SIV(cpz) strains. It would appear this paper suggests the capacity to degrade CD4 pre-existed the introduction into humans. Is that correct? In that case, it would be difficult to argue that this is really a new feature whatsoever in the time frame which Michael Behe was examing, but rather an inhereted feature. Thus CD4 down regulation and degredation cannot be used as an argument against Michael Behe's claims. Is that correct?scordova_{August 29, 2007
August
08
Aug
29
29
2007
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply