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
Joe -
How many similarities would be expected given common design?
As many as required.
Required for what? It's not clear to me.A Gene
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
"if they had read Behe’s book" It's not too late A gene:
"The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism" http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206 The Edge Of Evolution - Michael Behe - Video Lecture http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/199326-1 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution
Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135:
"Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
bornagain77
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Well then elephant generation times were obvioulsy much quicker in the unseen past. Only when we started watching them did it slow down. ;)Joe
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
A Gene: Thank you for spelling out exactly how the Darwinist brain thinks (defectively): . . . the usual pattern with convergent evolution is that as you look more closely at convergence, you find that there are differences in the details . . .. So I imagine they would have expected that different mutations would have arisen in different lineages. That they didn’t is a surprise, but suggests that there’s a strong evolutionary constraint. But this is the entire point of my post: that it is the very same mutation across all four orders. This puts a "constraint" on neo-Darwinism. It puts a constraint on "neutral drift". A very "specific" mutation is required. This requires that a multitude of replications is needed, which, as the elephant example demonstrates, might be just fine for insects---with large populations and small generation times---but not for elephants. Given reasonable population sizes and generation times for elephants, these "constraints" mean that almost nothing can have happened via putative neo-Darwinian mechanisms in the entire history of elephants. But, then, blithely, you just "hand-wave" it away: "That they didn’t is a surprise, but suggests that there’s a strong evolutionary constraint>" "No big thing." Well, it is a big thing. Why do you think they invoke Stephen Gould. But this shouldn't have come as a surprise to them. Why? Because if they had read Behe's book, they would have known what to expect: a "specific" mutation arrived at at the cost of a very high number of replications.PaV
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
A Gene- the probabilities are the same for each mutation. Once one happens the slate is wiped clean and the next one has a go at it. Just as with lotteries. Then, given a large enough population, the evolutionary eons of time and the limited number of choices, we can turn one identical mutation into hundreds or even thousands, especially given similar environmental pressures. And even more so given "built-in responses to environmental cues" ala Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothesis".
How many similarities would be expected given common design?
As many as required.Joe
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Joe - the probability of "a lot" arising separately will be much less, as I indicated. With only 250 loci, the probability will be below the universal probability bound (assuming 4 equally likely bases).
And given a common design then we would even expect more similarities…
How many similarities would be expected given common design?A Gene
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Nice job,Mayorvelikovskys
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
A Gene- If one mutation can arise spearately then so can "a lot". So who is being naive? And given a common design then we would even expect more similarities...Joe
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Joe - You>'re being naive. We don't use a single mutation to infer ancestry, we use a lot. There's a reasonable probability that two species will have the same base at one position. So we use many - hundreds to thousands - of bases. The probability of all of them being the same after mutation is vanishingly small.A Gene
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
A Gene, Well if the same random mutation can arise sperately in different populations then evos canNOT use genetic similarity as evidence for a common ancestry. You have just destroyed a MAJOR piece of evidence for universal common descent. Congratulations, nicely done.Joe
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
So, as an evolutionist, you assume common descent. We know that sponges have genes that are the same as those found in humans. But now you want to say: “Oh, well, other insects must do things differently; and, surely, elephants must do things differently.”
Well, that's certainly putting words into my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.
How do we know that? Evolutionists were surprised by this finding. IOW, they weren’t expecting it.
They probably weren't expecting to see exactly the same mutation in all orders. the usual pattern with convergent evolution is that as you look more closely at convergence, you find that there are differences in the details, e.g. in the evolution of flight in vertebrates. So I imagine they would have expected that different mutations would have arisen in different lineages. That they didn't is a surprise, but suggests that there's a strong evolutionary constraint.A Gene
July 28, 2012
July
07
Jul
28
28
2012
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
"Yet IDer’s ignore all of these and just talk about mutations." IDers hardly ignore these things. At the same time, there could not possibly be a larger blind eye as the one turned by materialists towards the existence of recorded information. Except perhaps, the blind eye they turn towards the material requirements of that existence. "Life is matter controlled by symbols" Pattee 1968.Upright BiPed
July 27, 2012
July
07
Jul
27
27
2012
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Mutation is not the only mechanism in evolution. Genetic drift is more important than mutation anyway... and also see the book Evolution–the Extended Synthesis and a few other recent books becuase theres a heck load more factors influencing evolution... evolution is far more complex than just mutation! Check out the extended synthesis including stuff like niche contruction .. nongenetic inheritance (jablonka et al), biological emergence & self-organization (Kauffman et al), field theories (goodwin et al) etc.. statis (Gould), saltation (Ryan et al) ... phenotypic plasticity, gene regulation, internal selection (wallace authur) etc. Yet IDer's ignore all of these and just talk about mutations.forests
July 27, 2012
July
07
Jul
27
27
2012
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
A Gene: So, as an evolutionist, you assume common descent. We know that sponges have genes that are the same as those found in humans. But now you want to say: "Oh, well, other insects must do things differently; and, surely, elephants must do things differently." How do we know that? Evolutionists were surprised by this finding. IOW, they weren't expecting it. You're simply say you don't "expect" that other orders/classes of insects and other phyla will react this way. How do you know? If one assumes that 'specific' mutations are required, then neo-Darwinism is very, very, very limited. That's what Behe pointed out. Do you think Behe was right? I do. Here's more evidence vindicating Behe's very conservative conclusions. Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.PaV
July 27, 2012
July
07
Jul
27
27
2012
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Mutations are random. But here variation is not. It is the SAME mutation that occurs in four different orders of insects.
Yes, which can still happen randomly. There are a lot of insects out there, so I think the probability of it happening is reasonable.
I discussed elephants because of their long generation times, which makes replicating take longer.
Yes, much longer than insects. And their population sizes are much smaller. So, why did you bring them up? How are they comparable to insects? (BTW, elephants have a higher mutation rate, because their testes remain in the body, so they have a higher temperature. Not really relevant, but a fun fact)A Gene
July 27, 2012
July
07
Jul
27
27
2012
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
A Gene: The random variation is in the mutation process. Mutations are random. But here variation is not. It is the SAME mutation that occurs in four different orders of insects. I hope you appreciate the difference---which leads to: I've no idea why you brought up elephants, they’re not insects. Perhaps you meant to discuss blue whales? I discussed elephants because of their long generation times, which makes replicating take longer. The import of the insect experiment is that SPECIFIC SNPs are needed. And that requires a whole lot of replications. And I used the worst case scenario simply to highlight the problems for Darwinism. I'll let you fill in the rest.PaV
July 26, 2012
July
07
Jul
26
26
2012
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
The random variation is in the mutation process.
That is the propaganda. However with ID the mutations are not necessarily random.Joe
July 26, 2012
July
07
Jul
26
26
2012
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Four different orders of insects came up with the exact same mutation for resistance. Where’s the “random variation” part of this?
The random variation is in the mutation process. I've no idea why you brought up elephants, they're not insects. Perhaps you meant to discuss blue whales?A Gene
July 26, 2012
July
07
Jul
26
26
2012
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Behe's edge was meant to be two mutations where the first one which happened, be it in either order, was either neutral or deleterious. The argument about two protein-protein binding sites with six mutations was made on about two pages and seems like an afterthought. The central thrust of the book is the two mutation limit. But again, this is not just any two mutations. It's two mutations that are both simultaneously required for the trait. That said, finding one mutation which does the trick doesn't "break" the edge. It fits nicely within it, especially, as the OP emphasized, when four different species have the same one. It means these types of mutations, where one is enough, are so rare that only a very small number do the trick. Not nearly enough to provide a smooth Darwinian pathway from "ancestral" proteins to modern ones.tragic mishap
July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
A Gene: If there’s a larger selective advantage to resistance, and this is the only mutation that would confer an advantage, I’m not surprised it repeatedly appears: that’s the power of natural selection. Well, may be it didn't surprise you, but it sure surprised the experimenters. Four different orders of insects came up with the exact same mutation for resistance. Where's the "random variation" part of this? ______________________ In the case of the malarial parasite, again, the same thing. Now some what to crucify Behe over his use of 10^20 replications. From a simple population genetics point of view, it can easily be argued that a number of 10^16 should be used (the scientist studying the parasite found that, in practice, 10^12 replications were needed when only 10^8 would be needed per calculation via genome size and mutation rates). So, let's use the figure a very conservative figure of 10^10 replications needed for two amino acids to change in ONE protein. The generation time for elephants is 35 years. Their population size is small. But let's be generous. Let's say you had a population size of one million. Then how many years would it take to come up with 10^10 replications: 35 x 10^4=350,000 years. This would be how long it would take for the mutation to show up. But what is the probability of this mutation taking hold in the entire population, i.e., becoming "fixed"? Well, per Kimura, it's 1/2N. IOW, we would need 2 million generations, which would require 70 million years. So, let's use a smaller population size. IIRC, the maximal population size for fixation given known mutation rates is around 50,000. Then, we would need only 1.75 million years. Added to the 350,000 years, a total of 2 million years would be needed for two amino acids to change. One wonders why Darwinists don't give up. ________________ [Well, it's because they try and fool themselves and everyone else by saying that these odds are only for "specific" amino acid changes. But the probability of some kind of mutation is quite high in each generation---the neutral drift approach. But, we can see here, that "specific" amino acid changes are required. Neutral drift can't help us out. Oh, alas and alack, another day, and another bad day for Darwinism!]PaV
July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Joe: I was talking about the malarial parasite, not Behe's limit on evolution---which is a generous lean towards evolution. I've had correspondence with him, and he is more generous than I am when it comes to conceding what evolution can do (which, of course, is not much).PaV
July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Behe's edge of evolution is set at two new protein-to-protein binding sites.Joe
July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Wasn't Behe's argument that Plasmodium falciparum needed both mutations for resistance, so only having one wouldn't confer any advantage? But here, having one mutation is enough for resistance. So we're a long way from Behe's edge of evolution. If there's a larger selective advantage to resistance, and this is the only mutation that would confer an advantage, I'm not surprised it repeatedly appears: that's the power of natural selection.A Gene
July 25, 2012
July
07
Jul
25
25
2012
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply