Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,11:17)|
|Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it. Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.|
The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency).
According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.
You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed. In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary.
To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'. There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done. That's the claim.
The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful). So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works.
The critique to Darwinian evolution on a chip, was that it was totally artificial and had no basis in nature.
The scientists skewed the variables to create positive gain of FCT mutations.
Question if his paper was falsified, is there a paper that address this. So I can say it's not only marty that's got this idea.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin