RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >   
  Topic: BIO-Complexity, the shiny new ID journal< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 228
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2016,20:05   

Denyse O'Leary! Jonathan Wells! Casey Luskin! Hugh Ross! It's truly a "who's who" of "who's a purveyor of ignorant twaddle"!


Posts: 1995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2018,09:09   

Just opened Bio-Complexity and found the following from 2014
This document doi:10.5048/BIO-­‐C.2011.1.e1 Published: November 19, 2014

Erratum for: Gauger AK, Axe D (2011) The evolutionary accessibility of new
enzyme functions: A case study from the biotin pathway. BIO-­‐Complexity 2011(1):1-­‐
17. doi:10.5048/BIO-­‐C.2011.1

Using genes from E. coli, we previously found one instance where a single amino acid replacement in BioF that increases sequence identity with Kbl appeared to eliminate the BioF2 function in vivo. We reported this substitution to be H152N. In the course of further study, we discovered that our original plasmid that fails to confer BioF2 function actually has a second mutation in the bioF gene, this one encoding the substitution S265G. By making new plasmid constructs carrying the H152N mutation alone and the S265G mutation  alone,  we determined  that neither  of these  mutations  eliminates  BioF2 function  on its own. Function is lost only when the two are combined.

This  correction  reduces  our  previous  estimate  of  the  minimum  number  of  nucleotide  substitutions required  for  conversion  from  seven  to  six,  with  corresponding  revisions  needed  in  our  Results  and Discussion  sections.  In  particular,  most  of  the  first  three  paragraphs  under  the  subheading  Stage  2: Testing short-­‐listed  candidates  by BioF →Kbl mutation are now irrelevant, as they discuss the essential role  of  an  amino-­‐acid  residue  now  known  not  to  be  essential.  Also,  the  following  sentence  in  our
discussion (page 12) should be revised:

In fact, even the unrealistically favorable assumption that kbl duplicates carry no fitness cost leaves the conversion just beyond the limits of feasibility.

The corrected sentence should read:

Only under the unrealistically favorable assumption that kbl duplicates carry no fitness cost does the Kbl→BioF conversion fall just within the limits of feasibility.

The main point of the paper is unchanged.

Further details, including a brief discussion of the functional significance of H152 and S265, may be found in a forthcoming paper (in press): Reeves MA, Gauger AK, Axe DD (2014) Enzyme families—Shared evolutionary history or shared design? A study of the GABA-­‐aminotransferase family. BIO-­‐Complexity
2014 (4). doi:10.5048/BIO-­‐C.2014.4.

I am just wondering if the main point of the paper really remained unchanged if it now says that even their own unrealistic assumptions that were designed to let evolution look impossible would now allow for Kbl turn into BioF.

"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

  121 replies since May 13 2010,21:56 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 3 4 [5] >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]