Richard Lenski responds to Michael Behe's book.

[Arete]

Hi All, 

Apologies if this breaks forum protocol, as I'm about to post a link to a blog post (Mods feel free to remove if inappropriate). The blog is Richard Lenski's blog, where he responds to Michael Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves" and it's treatment of Lenski's own long term evolution experiment (LTEE). He really does a great job of explaining the limitations and context of the LTEE, and why the arguments Behe makes are simply not supported by the experiment. Basically, the LTEE houses bacteria in a nutrient rich environment with selective conditions deliberately minimized. It's not reasonable to assume that the bacteria would evolve novel functions given the environment they are in, and it is unsurprising that functions that do not benefit the bacteria in this environment are lost. Not only that, but novel, advantageous mutations HAVE arisen in the LTEE.

Worth a read. 

https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/is-the-ltee-breaking-bad/

Edited March 1, 2019 by Arete

[CharonY]

Off-topic, but it is the first time I saw someone using beakers as stoppers (presumably to allow gas exchange without the expensive filter-stoppers?). 

 

[studiot]

I fail to understand why it always seems to be Darwin or nothing, with both sides digging in.

And so bacetria failed to evolve into superbugs over a period of a geologically few weeks of favourable conditions.

Just like the Stromatolites managed several thousand million years of stabilty.

Uniformitarianism reuls OK?

 

We have at last seen Geology coming out the the 'either or' phase of internecine arguments and allowing the possibility (probability) of multiple processes, either fully or partly concurrent.

 

Oh and thank you for pointing out another crank to avoid.

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by studiot

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I fail to understand why it always seems to be Darwin or nothing, with both sides digging in.

Well, modern evolutionary theory has gone far beyond the original Darwin-Wallace model. So it isn't "Darwin or nothing". 

But as the alternative promoted by Behe is, as the article points out, not testable then there's no real reason to consider it.

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, modern evolutionary theory has gone far beyond the original Darwin-Wallace model. So it isn't "Darwin or nothing". 

But as the alternative promoted by Behe is, as the article points out, not testable then there's no real reason to consider it.

 

So the alternatives are twofold ?

Behe or extended Darwin?

 

Rather demonstrates my point doesn't it?

Edited March 1, 2019 by studiot

[Arete]

Just now, studiot said:

I fail to understand why it always seems to be Darwin or nothing, with both sides digging in.

And so bacetria failed to evolve into superbugs over a period of a geologically few weeks of favourable conditions.

Just like the Stromatolites managed several thousand million years of stabilty.

Uniformitarianism reuls OK?

 

We have at last seen Geology coming out the the 'either or' phase of internecine arguments and allowing the possibility (probability) of multiple processes, either fully or partly concurrent.

 

Oh and thank you for pointing out another crank to avoid.

 

1) The LTEE has been going since 1988 - so it's 30 years rather than a few weeks. 

2) The modern synthesis does include a wide range on non-mutually exclusive evolutionary mechanisms. The problem the intelligent design crowd have is that none of them are "omnipotent deity". 

It'd be as if there was a crowd of non-traditional geologists claiming that plate tectonics doesn't work without a supernatural being pushing the earth's crust around. 

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Arete said:

1) The LTEE has been going since 1988 - so it's 30 years rather than a few weeks. 

2) The modern synthesis does include a wide range on non-mutually exclusive evolutionary mechanisms. The problem the intelligent design crowd have is that none of them are "omnipotent deity". 

It'd be as if there was a crowd of non-traditional geologists claiming that plate tectonics doesn't work without a supernatural being pushing the earth's crust around. 

1) 30 years on a geological timescale?

As compared to 3500 million years?

2) I refer to the original Uniformitarianism v Catastrophism conroversy.  Not plate tectonics.

[Arete]

Just now, studiot said:

1) 30 years on a geological timescale?

As compared to 3500 million years?

2) I refer to the original Uniformitarianism v Catastrophism conroversy.  Not plate tectonics.

Apologies, I misinterpreted and thought you meant a few weeks in the literal sense, and yes, I knew that - I was making an analogy to a well established scientific theory and an inappropriate alternative hypothesis rather than trying to directly comment on your own example. 

The point was that evolutionary theory does have plenty of alternative mechanisms and hypotheses - it's just that ID insists that none of them are adequate and there HAS to be a supernatural explanation. It's not really the case that it is one explanation or the other. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Arete

[studiot]

50 minutes ago, Arete said:

Apologies,

None needed. +1

 

50 minutes ago, Arete said:

The point was that evolutionary theory does have plenty of alternative mechanisms and hypotheses - it's just that ID insists that none of them are adequate and there HAS to be a supernatural explanation. It's not really the case that it is one explanation or the other.  

ID is a proposition that does seem to invite the 'digging in' I speak of.

Why is it not possible to have an ID kicking things off, then leaving them to run?

Consider 'exploding kittens' ,

The designer (opinion is divided on the intelligent bit) created the game, rules and all, but I don't think has touched the pack since.

 

Did we not do the same with Dolly the sheep?

Edited March 1, 2019 by studiot

[Arete]

Just now, studiot said:

Why is it not possible to have an Id kicking things off, then leaving them to run?

That's certainly the position someone like Francis Collins takes -  ID proponents like Behe argue that life is irreducibly complex and natural mechanisms are inadequate to explain it, meaning that there HAS to be supernatural involvement beyond simply kicking it off. 

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, Arete said:

That's certainly the position someone like Francis Collins takes -  ID proponents like Behe argue that life is irreducibly complex and natural mechanisms are inadequate to explain it, meaning that there HAS to be supernatural involvement beyond simply kicking it off. 

Irreducible complexity seems a self contradictory meaningless phrase to me.

There are many examples of emergent phenomena in the inanimate world to study, but none (that I know of)  are irreducibly complex.

Edited March 1, 2019 by studiot

[Strange]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

So the alternatives are twofold ?

Behe or extended Darwin?

The article was about Behe's criticisms of evolution. So when you said "both sides" I assumed that is what you were talking about (ie. Behe on one side and evolution on the other). If you are brining in a "third side" maybe you should say what it is.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Rather demonstrates my point doesn't it?

No. It demonstrates that it wasn't clear (to me) what you were talking about.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Why is it not possible to have an ID kicking things off, then leaving them to run?

That is a reasonable (but perhaps untestable) hypothesis. Or at least, until we have a more complete and convincing theory of abiogenesis. But I suspect it is just another "god of the gaps" argument.