Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was Michael Behe Right?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An very interesting study has now made the press cycle. Susanne Dobler and Anurag Agrawal studied the genetic mechanism employed by monarch butterflies to resist cardenolides, a powerful toxin which binds the cell’s sodium pump, and which is common to milkweed and foxgloves.

They found that a single ” specific mutation — called N122H — of the Na,K-ATPase gene” was enough to confer resistance.

They then looked in other insect lines to see what genetic mechanism was employed by these other lines.

“Already knowing how monarchs deal with the toxin, we wanted to see if it was the same molecular solution used by beetles, flies and true bugs that are also resistant to cardenolides,” said Anurag Agrawal, a Cornell professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.

What did they discover?

By examining molecular changes in the sodium pump gene, the researchers found the mutation N122H in all four orders of insects studied. Furthermore, they discovered a second mutation in the same gene that also conferred resistance in 11 of the 18 species.

What do you know? Not just any old mutation worked. A very specific one. (So much for neutral drift coming to the rescue.) And, an second mutation conferred a higher level of resistance.

What do you know? Evolution at work, and what do we see? Two specific mutations in the gene involved with the cell’s sodium pump.

Doesn’t that sound familiar? Yes, it does. When Michael Behe studied the malarial parasite to see how it developed resistance to quinine, he found two specific mutations. And then he was roundly criticized by the evolutionists for his The Edge of Evolution.

Here we have it in spades!!!! Four different orders of insects, and the same, two mutations show up. And, one mutation generally suffices, with two being the maximum needed for development of resistance. Just as with the malarial parasite, faced with imminent death, evolution’s answer—that is, NS’ answer—was TWO mutations.

Read about it here.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

Comments
Arm waving is not reasoning. You made some general comments, which would support the contention that there would be some similarities under common design. But you've done nothing to show that there would be more similarities. And that is your fault.A Gene
July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
I backed it up with reasoning. And as I said apparently you have issues comprehending what I post. Not my fault.Joe
July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Sorry, Joe. No you haven't. You made a quantitative statement, but haven't backed it up with any numbers. How many similarities would you expect under common design for cardenolides resistance?A Gene
July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
I have answered your question. Again don't blame me for your failure to comprehend my posts. OTOH you equivocate- see #3 above...Joe
July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Once more, Joe, you're not answering my question. Why is it so difficult for you? Are you unable to support your assertion?A Gene
July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
1- “Evolution” doesn’t say anything about similarities. It would be OK if everything were different. 2- That is because “evolution” doesn’t say anything about origins which means there could be many different trees and “evolution” is OK with that as it is concerned with what happens AFTER. 3- and finally “evolution” is an equivocation – what “evolution” are you talking about? Intelligent Design evolution, front-loaded evolution, blind watchmaker evolution, some other evolution? Please do tellJoe
July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
I said a common design says something about similarities and I gave examples.
You said more than that, though. You said that design would give more similarities than evolution. How did you come to that conclusion? You're repeatedly ducking that question.A Gene
July 31, 2012
July
07
Jul
31
31
2012
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
But how does common design outside biology allow you to infer common design inside biology?
The observance of common design outside of biology tells us that common descent is not the only explanation for similarities. The observance of convergence within biology tells us that common design isn't the only alternative to common descent wrt similarities. And all of that means is common descent is not the only explanation for similarities. Then there is a common mechanism which says that similar DNA sequences will tend to act, ie mutate/ change, similarly given similar environmental pressures. (feel free to sub identical with similar, makes no diff)
how did you come to your conclusion?
A lifetime of observances and experiences. For example- I have worked in carpentry, plumbing, auto mechanics and technology. In each there are standards that must be followed.Joe
July 30, 2012
July
07
Jul
30
30
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
I said a common design says something about similarities and I gave examples. I know something about designs and how they sometimes have to play with other designs and that is where design standards come in- IEEE, for example. Building codes for another. IOW my lifetime of experience dealing with designs is how I came to that claim. I can't help it if you can't undersatnd that. perhaps you should not be discussing science.Joe
July 30, 2012
July
07
Jul
30
30
2012
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
But how does common design outside biology allow you to infer common design inside biology? You're repeatedly dodging the question - how did you come to your conclusion? Give us the specifics.A Gene
July 30, 2012
July
07
Jul
30
30
2012
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
A Gene- you are confused. Common design extends beyond biology. And it the common design outside of biology that allows me to make the common design inference wrt biology. As for mutations, well your position's claims is that they are all random, chance events. And it sez that due to total ignorance.Joe
July 30, 2012
July
07
Jul
30
30
2012
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
The only one of those sentences that applies to biology is the one about the spinal column, so the rest are irrelevant. And that says nothing about mutations, which is what your original statement was about, so that's irrelevant too. Care to try again?A Gene
July 30, 2012
July
07
Jul
30
30
2012
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
A Gene- You are afaraid, however that does not mean I didn't explain it. I did: It all depends. For example many houses have the same structure- wall studs are 16? apart on center, floor joists are 16? apart on center, rafters 16? apart, etc. Yet the floor plans can be entirely different. A computer and its printer will have some degree of common design and also many differences. All PCs have a great deal of common design and some differences. So it all depends on the requirements. If the requirement is to have a spinal column then there is no need to reinvent the sc for each organism that requires it. and I said a common design says something about similarities and I gave examples. I know something about designs and how they sometimes have to play with other designs and that is where design standards come in- IEEE, for example. Building codes for another. IOW my lifetime of experience dealing with designs is how I came to that claim. That is how science works- observations and experiencesJoe
July 30, 2012
July
07
Jul
30
30
2012
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
Joe - I'm afraid you haven't explained it. You've made vague statements, but haven't given any substance. You mad ea quantitative statement, so either you were BSing or you actually made a quantitative assessment. I'm assuming it was the latter, so I just want to know how you made that assessment - what were the steps? What specific aspects did you assess and how?A Gene
July 30, 2012
July
07
Jul
30
30
2012
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
A Gene- I have explained it for you. I cannot make you understand what I post. And IEEE is all about standards, which lead to a common design. Do you understand how examples work?Joe
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Joe, you specifically said "given a common design then we would even expect more similarities [than evolution]". I just want to know how you come to that conclusion, and how many more. I'm not sure the IEEE are much help here, unless who (or whatever) is responsible for Intelligent Design is a member.A Gene
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
A Gene- I said a common design says something about similarities and I gave examples. I know something about designs and how they sometimes have to play with other designs and that is where design standards come in- IEEE, for example. Building codes for another. IOW my lifetime of experience dealing with designs is how I came to that claim.Joe
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
You’re taking the position that it is aberrant; but I don’t share that view since this is something that is seen over four orders of insects.
We're still talking about one trait - resistance to cardenolides. My argument is that it is this trait that is aberrant, because resistance can be conferred by only a very specific genotype. It's different from other instances of convergent evolution, which involve different mutations in different species. I, too, hope that someone's looking at more insects (assuming that there are more insects with this resistance, of course). It would also be interesting to investigate if there are other mutations that would give the same phenotype.A Gene
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
Joe - can you answer my question now, please. You made a claim about what ID says about similarity, and I'm interested in how you came to that claim.A Gene
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
A Gene: PaV – I don’t see that this puts a constraint on evolution per se: as I pointed out, convergent evolution usually doesn’t involve exactly the same DNA changes: there’s more than one route to increased fitness. But here there’s apparently only one route, which is a surprise. However, when evolutionists speak of convergent evolution, they're usually talking about "phenotypic" convergence, not "genotypic" convergence. Here, we see constraints; and the natural question that flows is: is this typical, or this aberrant? You're taking the position that it is aberrant; but I don't share that view since this is something that is seen over four orders of insects. It is surprising; and, if further confirmed, severely undermines what evolutionists think can be arrived at via neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Why don't these scientists start looking at more and more orders of insects, and then crossing over to different classes? I suspect they might; hope that they are.PaV
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
1- "Evolution" doesn't say anything about similarities. It would be OK if everything were different. 2- That is because "evolution" doesn't say anything about origins which means there could be many different trees and "evolution" is OK with that as it is concerned with what happens AFTER. 3- and finally "evolution" is an equivocation - what "evolution" are you talking about? Intelligent Design evolution, front-loaded evolution, blind watchmaker evolution, some other evolution? Please do tellJoe
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Joe - yes, we know that design constraints, resources and costs exist, but how do you know what they are? IOW, how do you know what it is that is required to lead to the similarities you are claiming would be more than we would see under evolution?A Gene
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
A Gene:
If the ID is not about the designer, then how come it is about the customer?
I said it wasn't. Can you read?
OK, but more seriously, how do you work out what the design constraints, resources and costs?
As a designer I know they exist and have to be dealt with.
In particular, how do you know what resources are available to the intelligent designer?
Well we know that the resources used have to be able to work in this universe governed by a set of laws.Joe
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
If the ID is not about the designer, then how come it is about the customer? OK, but more seriously, how do you work out what the design constraints, resources and costs? In particular, how do you know what resources are available to the intelligent designer?A Gene
July 29, 2012
July
07
Jul
29
29
2012
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
Or the designer is the customer. And ID is not about the designer nor the customer, so why would Behe discuss it?Joe
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Ah, so you're saying the Designer has a customer, Joe? Who or what is this Intelligent Customer? I don't recall Behe ever discussing this.A Gene
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Customer wants/ desires vs design constraints, resources and costs :)Joe
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Fair enough, Joe. So for a biological problem, how would you decide what the requirements are?A Gene
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
A Gene- It all depends. For example many houses have the same structure- wall studs are 16" apart on center, floor joists are 16" apart on center, rafters 16" apart, etc. Yet the floor plans can be entirely different. A computer and its printer will have some degree of common design and also many differences. All PCs have a great deal of common design and some differences. So it all depends on the requirements. If the requirement is to have a spinal column then there is no need to reinvent the sc for each organism that requires it.Joe
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
PaV - I don't see that this puts a constraint on evolution per se: as I pointed out, convergent evolution usually doesn't involve exactly the same DNA changes: there's more than one route to increased fitness. But here there's apparently only one route, which is a surprise.A Gene
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply