tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2002955664607832885..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Edge of EvolutionLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23279798374970038612010-10-20T16:10:04.795-04:002010-10-20T16:10:04.795-04:00Larry:
Behe's version of the history of life r...Larry:<br /><i>Behe's version of the history of life requires a God who intervenes quite frequently to create specific mutations that are almost impossible to account for by random mutation.</i><br /><br />No- a targeted search takes care of the need for intervention although intervention cannot be ruled out.<br /><br />Also evidence, not rhetoric, is going to "win out".<br /><br />Yes I understand that if a mutation is not fatal, just harmful, it can stick around for X generations.<br /><br />However there was this recent peer-reviewed paper about getting two specific muatations and it didn't look good for you guys-<br /><br /><i>Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution</i>Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14288426572246458512010-10-16T14:41:59.730-04:002010-10-16T14:41:59.730-04:00That is the reason why this is a major flaw in Beh...That is the reason why this is a major flaw in Behe's argument. He is a biochemist, and mysteriously he never clarifies, what he wrote an entire book about. His whole argument is based on probability, yet he never states where he got his numbers from, only that he measured the probability of "protein protein interactions" occouring. And he has to know, he is an expert in this particular field. That's why I said earlier, that these are random numbers, Behe does not tell how he came to them. <br /><br /><br />What's the problem with this? Here in Hungary on the lottery you play five numbers from one to ninety. You can calculate the exact odds of winning, if you play once. You can calculate the odds if one, two, three, six, or ten numbers has to match with random numbers, and these odds differ considerably. For instance if you have to guess one number, one in every 90 lottery tickets will win. <br /><br />These odds are reflected by the number of winners. Last week ~75000 people managed to guess two numbers, 2364 players guessed three numbers right, and 30 players managed to guess four numbers out of five. So, what are the chances of winning the lottery if you have to guess "some numbers"? How can you measure this without knowing how many numbers you have to guess?Gyalogtankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16951292618994737282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55435104291405865282010-10-16T13:16:01.148-04:002010-10-16T13:16:01.148-04:00RE: 'if there's a designer, we'd expec...RE: 'if there's a designer, we'd expect a higher rate of advantageous mutations'.<br /><br />It really does sound like that must be some sort of test for ID no? Sure, there could be neutral and deleterious mutations even if there was a designer, so long as he simply 'allowed it' (and of course, is even that really that simple???), but we'd still expect that, when there was a mutation, it'd tend to be advantageous.<br /><br /><br />Also, the type of protein connections that Behe is talking about in the above, these are SERIOUSLY common events, are they not? If they're beyond the edge of evolution, and require intervention by a designer, then it means that, god isn't just jumping into evolution at a few critical points, but is CONSTANTLY meddling with creation. He's putting as much effort into bacterial flagellum as Human Brains. Evolution says that we just happen to be created by similar processes (similar existence), ID says that we were on par with one another in the mind of the designer/creator. That's a HELLUVA lot worse; yes, there is a god, and he thinks no more of you than a bacterial flagellum. Or put another way, "evolutions's" assesment of you is 'neutral', god's assement, you're shit.<br /><br /><br />Also, returning to the idea that by looking at proteins and the like we can find evidence of supernatural design (and that we can really only find it there), that's pretty weird. I mean, it says that the designer CREATED the universe, and was able to make it SUPERFICIALLY look like it was natural. But for some reason didn't bother to make protein evolution look natural. I mean, are we saying that the designer sucks and couldn't make proteins systems look natural, or that he's deceitful? The Designer in ID constantly sounds like a deceitful supernatural being, it sounds like a Devil God more than anything else.Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10802843636373254323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41774917044125611642010-10-16T13:05:20.062-04:002010-10-16T13:05:20.062-04:00Thanks to Prof. Moran, acting very nicely in his r...Thanks to Prof. Moran, acting very nicely in his role as instructor here. The question he proposed in his post may as well be a 'short response' question on one of his biochem finals, no?<br />To repeat my understanding of the answer, and repeat me if I am wrong, the answer is NOT that Behe is wrong because he calculated the probabilities wrong, and its NOT that the two mutations don't need to occur together to be advantageous, and its NOT the the single mutations are not deleterious. Those would be answers on the test marked 'incorrect'. Its that you CAN get away with a deleterious mutation. The misconception is that evolution is a super-machine that relentlessly destroys all vice and promotes all virtue. And the lesson that Prof. Moran wants to test if we have learned, is that Dr. Behe IS HARDLY the only person with that misconception.<br /><br />And if you consider that there was objection within the scientific community to 'neutralism', this is even worse, because here 'deleterious' mutations are allowable, and infact they can be promoted throughout the population.<br /><br />Biology is sloppy, its a sloppy tangled, muddy bank.<br /><br />(see that, we're getting a U Toronto edumacation for free, how'd'ya like them apples)Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10802843636373254323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11565226830350121172010-10-13T22:43:47.930-04:002010-10-13T22:43:47.930-04:00> It is not a typical value, it is the highest ...> It is not a typical value, it is the highest value ever measured.<br /><br />Well, I meant to pick a typical value, so say 1 uM. Say 1 nM. Say "a typical value", and you can tell me what that might be.<br /><br />> Can you show me one single example of six proteins interacting with Kd=1fM or less? I don't know any.<br /><br />And that wasn't what I meant--I freely admit I'm not a biochemist.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24529434961259738222010-10-12T14:30:47.208-04:002010-10-12T14:30:47.208-04:00>lee_merrill:
"So, for a general interact...>lee_merrill:<br /><br />"So, for a general interaction, pick a typical value? Maybe 1 fM or so?"<br /><br />LOL! So, as you have surely read int he wikipedia article you have linked, the biotin-avidin protein complex is the strongest protein complex known to man, with a Kd of 1fM. It is not a typical value, it is the highest value ever measured. Congratulations, you have just invalidated all your previous arguments. You have clearly spoken of "protein interactions", when you have set the treshold of the "interaction" to a Kd value, that only two or three proteins have ever achieved. <br /><br />So let's examine your statements: <br /><br />"the great majority of proteins in the cell work in complexes of six or more. Far beyond that edge"<br /><br />"If either of these statements is correct, then it would seem the edge is practical. "<br /><br />Groups of six? Can you show me one single example of six proteins interacting with Kd=1fM or less? I don't know any.<br /><br />So if your statement of the treshold for "protein-protein interactions" is valid, it directly cotradicts Behe's staement, as the vast majority of proteins do not form protein-protein interactions at all, their complexes are weaker than 1fM by several orders of magnitude. If Behe's argument is correct, you have clearly misjudged the Kd of the typical "protein-protein interaction". So where is the error?Gyalogtankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16951292618994737282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1605201784088499882010-10-12T10:54:17.957-04:002010-10-12T10:54:17.957-04:00@Blue
I'm a big fan of bricolage or tinkering...@Blue<br /><br />I'm a big fan of bricolage or tinkering [<a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/evolution-as-tinkering.html" rel="nofollow">Evolution as Tinkering</a>].<br /><br />I'd love to teach public school children the concept of <a href="http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_by_Accident.html" rel="nofollow">Evolution by Accident</a>. But first I have to teach 95% of my fellow scientists, beginning with evolutionary biologists who, by and large, seem remarkably resistant to the idea.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25777064105778317412010-10-12T00:39:57.678-04:002010-10-12T00:39:57.678-04:00I'm surprised not to see the word bricolage in...I'm surprised not to see the word <i>bricolage</i> in any of the answers. It seems to me that in explaining evolution we have failed to explain the importance of cobbling together existing things to create something new.<br /><br />The key to so much of evolution is the richness of the component collection out of which new things may be created. Most evolution is not a result of a linear sequence of mutations. It is a result of the creation of large collections of elements, which can combine in various ways. It's the size of the population of components that counteracts the improbability of any one combination forming on its own. <br /><br />One of my favorite examples is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicrocoelium_dendriticum" rel="nofollow">Lancet fluke</a>. The probability that the world would evolve specifically to support the life cycle of the Lancet fluke is, of course, minuscule. On the other hand, an ID explanation would have to say that cattle, ants, and grass were designed so that the Lancet fluke could live the life it does. That's even more ridiculous. <br /><br />The story of the Lancet fluke must include the pre-existence of cattle, ants, and grass. Even then its evolution seems quiet amazing. But it would not have happened at all without them. And certainly cattle, ants, and grass were clearly not "designed" for its benefit.<br /><br />When we explain evolution to the general public I think we do ourselves a disservice unless we stress the importance of its bricolage-like nature.Russ Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15431389045571531450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38301406467262644322010-10-11T22:21:20.940-04:002010-10-11T22:21:20.940-04:00> Gyalogtank: And what is your model system? Tw...> Gyalogtank: And what is your model system? Two hypothetical proteins?<br /><br />Yes, Behe speaks in general terms.<br /><br />> And as I asked before, what do you mean by "interaction"? From what Kd do you consider two proteins as they interact?<br /><br />So, for a general interaction, pick a typical value? Maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_constant" rel="nofollow">1 fM</a> or so?<br /><br />> Lee: And if proteins typically will interact in groups of six or more, then such a new interaction from scratch is unlikely indeed.<br />><br />> Gyalogtank: Why? Why can't a complex begin with one protein, then acquire another interactor partner, then another one, and so on?<br /><br />Certainly it's possible, but it seems we would not generally expect new clusters of interactions to have such a selectable path, which results in a new six-protein interaction.<br /><br />For something to be biologically plausible, it needs to not only be possible, but with in a reasonable timeframe, probable.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18961054370910701212010-10-11T13:47:56.760-04:002010-10-11T13:47:56.760-04:00>lee_merrill:
If indeed new (as opposed to enh...>lee_merrill:<br /><br />If indeed new (as opposed to enhancing current weak) interactions require the modification of six or so amino acids in one location, before selection kicks in, then there are no apparent selectable stops along the way--with regard to the function of the new interaction.<br /><br />And what is your model system? Two hypothetical proteins? If those two tproteins are actin and myosin, they do not need any point mutations to form a complex. And as I asked before, what do you mean by "interaction"? From what Kd dou you consider two proteins as they interact? <br /><br /><br />"And if proteins typically will interact in groups of six or more, then such a new interaction from scratch is unlikely indeed."<br /><br />Why? Why can't a complex begin with one protein, then acquire another interactor partner, then another one, and so on?Gyalogtankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16951292618994737282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21185464320077100362010-10-10T08:03:04.841-04:002010-10-10T08:03:04.841-04:00> Gyalogtank: What is your model system?
The m...> Gyalogtank: What is your model system?<br /><br />The main one in Edge of Evolution being new protein-protein interactions.<br /><br />> Gyalogtank: I presume, that you have proof, that there were no "selectable stops" during the evolution of your model system.<br /><br />That would be the discussion at hand here! I am maintaining that you and others are proposing different scenarios, changing the edge, and then demonstrating that evolution can get beyond.<br /><br />If indeed new (as opposed to enhancing current weak) interactions require the modification of six or so amino acids in one location, before selection kicks in, then there are no apparent selectable stops along the way--with regard to the function of the new interaction.<br /><br />And if proteins typically will interact in groups of six or more, then such a new interaction from scratch is unlikely indeed.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89109935181580833312010-10-09T16:51:35.859-04:002010-10-09T16:51:35.859-04:00>lee_merrill: "Well, not quite! If there i...>lee_merrill: "Well, not quite! If there is a selectable stop along the way, then indeed a four-mutation sequence can evolve in a reasonable amount of time. "<br /><br />I presume, that you have proof, that there were no "selectable stops" during the evolution of your model system. (What is your model system?)Gyalogtankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16951292618994737282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81198851865688441952010-10-09T15:25:36.942-04:002010-10-09T15:25:36.942-04:00Section I of http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/Crit...Section I of <a href="http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/Critical_notice_Sober.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/Critical_notice_Sober.pdf</a> explains what is wrong with an argument like Behe's. See in particular pp. 7-8.Ingo Brigandthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02143980200951209647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69812181342243344822010-10-09T05:59:12.984-04:002010-10-09T05:59:12.984-04:00Great post Larry... I learn a lot of evolutionary ...Great post Larry... I learn a lot of evolutionary genetics with your posts, even though I'm phd student in populations genetics... Thanks a lot.<br />Regarding Behe's opinion, I agree with all your comments. Since molecular machinery is the core of life, it's origin is very old and still very unknown. The problem is that even though we decode the genetic message, we dont know how really works. I whant to add that I was thinking that Behe is not considering Motoo Kimura's theory of neutralisim, in it's very core. In my opinion Behe may be a extremist selectionist, (Dobzhansky's follower). If the main mutations are neutral nature can test lots of possibilities... do you agree?. What about if molecular machinery are quantitative traits?<br />In my opinion these guys are just coping the old theory of William Paley. However, the knowledge fild of evolutionary genetics still evolving whithing the science framework. IDots dont know how science works... evolutionary genetics is in it's childhood. We need to answer lots of questions...Ceballosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25116251381310817482010-10-08T18:43:47.078-04:002010-10-08T18:43:47.078-04:00> Anonymous: We see absolutely no trend towards...> Anonymous: We see absolutely no trend towards combinations that *will* work.<br /><br />Unless Behe's edge is correct, and interventions are needed to get to some greater level of complexity.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50492357568554636192010-10-08T14:51:53.503-04:002010-10-08T14:51:53.503-04:00"This seems to be the problem of evil questio..."This seems to be the problem of evil question"<br /><br />Well, yes, to an extent. I know that it bothers you theists. Never seen the problem, myself. <br /><br />But this is a measurable, testable way of seeing if God is 'improving' things. Not even in a moral sense, but simply in a functional sense. A designer, however inept, at least *attempts* improvement.<br /><br />And this isn't what we observe, is it? The process isn't 'random', but it's certainly not 'purposeful', either. <br /><br />*If* a new combination works, it thrives (by definition). But it's always after the fact. We see absolutely no trend towards combinations that *will* work. <br /><br />If Behr's right - and I'll defer to others on that - about the statistical chance of something like that happening ... isn't that a staggeringly clear example that the system *isn't* trending towards this purpose?<br /><br />And here's the point:<br /><br />The sort of forensic 'how did we get to here?' approach is the scientific approach. The 'where are we going?' one is the religious. You literally have to have things exactly backwards for this sense of 'purpose' to work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20306382676162164612010-10-08T14:24:50.591-04:002010-10-08T14:24:50.591-04:00> Lee: ID does make predictions! If this edge i...> Lee: ID does make predictions! If this edge is correct, then were we to have developed and administered chloroquine / SP together, malaria would be done for.<br /><br />This it seems also implies that if we were to develop medicines in groups of say, six or more, and always administer them together--such that at least four mutations would be required to resist them all, then the viruses / bacteria couldn't get around that.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56638265013118435292010-10-08T13:36:28.702-04:002010-10-08T13:36:28.702-04:00Lee Merrill's grasp of reality is tenuous at b...Lee Merrill's grasp of reality is tenuous at best. But he does love him some Behe thought!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55003510995507266552010-10-08T12:33:53.646-04:002010-10-08T12:33:53.646-04:00> Anonymous: If God's around, guiding the p...> Anonymous: If God's around, guiding the process then 'favorable mutations' should be more common than unfavorable ones. I mean, at its strictest, why would there ever be *one* 'unfavorable mutation'?<br /><br />This seems to be the problem of evil question--you know, it's been considered! Lots and lots of consideration.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80784997080032895922010-10-08T11:34:47.716-04:002010-10-08T11:34:47.716-04:00"there aren't different rates for favorab..."there aren't different rates for favorable mutations that I know of"<br /><br />I wonder if we've inadvertently stumbled across something new to say in the theist mindset debate. <br /><br />Theists are stuck on 'purpose'. I think that's the fundamental problem / mistake. <br /><br />The problem is that once you've decided that there's an overriding purpose to reality ... well, logically, everything meets that purpose. <br /><br />At one level, there's a mindset that in its craziest form says God sent Katrina to New Orleans because lesbians live there. But the 'mainstream' Christian would thank God for the good things in their life and that's *exactly* the same thought process in play, just put to less malevolent use. God's got the steering wheel.<br /><br />You're a good Christian who makes money - it's a reward. Lose money, it's teaching humility. If someone does something Unchristian and gains reward - well, the true rewards are in heaven.<br /><br />Christians learn that doublethink early, and learn to navigate it. <br /><br />What's more insidious: if you think there's a universal purpose underwriting everything that happens ... well, everything has to be part of that process. <br /><br />And Lee betrays that here. <br /><br />'Favorable', in this context, for an atheist/materialist can only possibly work in retrospect. we judge it favorable *after* the event. <br /><br />In this case, the two proteins develop independently, it's (essentially) a coincidence that when they bump into each other, they stick. The reason it looks so extraordinary is precisely because almost none of the billions of other combinations there are would stick. <br /><br />There is no such thing as a favorable *mutation*, only a favorable *outcome* of that mutation. And that's an absolutely crucial distinction that anyone who believes in a divine plan just won't get.<br /><br />Not because they haven't read enough theology or science, or whatever, it's that once you concede that, you've conceded any notion of the Christian God as worshiped by any modern Christian. God doesn't have a plan for your life, he hasn't got the steering wheel, he can, at best, just put a tick next to the right answers. <br /><br />(Although, I note that in Genesis, God creates something and *only then* sees that it's good). <br /><br />Lee's hit on something, though. Obviously it's the opposite of what he thought he'd hit:<br /><br />If God's around, guiding the process then 'favorable mutations' should be more common than unfavorable ones. I mean, at its strictest, why would there ever be *one* 'unfavorable mutation'? <br /><br />But if mutation is being guided, we ought to see the odds *before the fact* tipped towards a 'favorable mutation'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79504621212124195442010-10-08T10:32:46.944-04:002010-10-08T10:32:46.944-04:00> karmaiko: The odds of a favourable mutation -...> karmaiko: The odds of a favourable mutation - one that you're looking for, which the author is - are much higher than the actual mutation rate.<br /><br />The odds of a selectable mutation being fixed are certainly much higher. But there aren't different rates for favorable mutations that I know of.<br /><br />> In this case, there is a selectable stop for both resistances, if enough people are given just one of these drugs.<br /><br />Which by the way, gives a way to test Behe's edge, if only we can find two such drugs for one disease, and administer both together.<br /><br />ID does make predictions! If this edge is correct, then were we to have developed and administered chloroquine / SP together, malaria would be done for.lee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3477024030842141202010-10-08T10:18:42.355-04:002010-10-08T10:18:42.355-04:00The odds of a favourable mutation - one that you&#...The odds of a favourable mutation - one that you're looking for, which the author is - are much higher than the actual mutation rate. Thus while a specific mutation is very rare to find, mutations themselves are occurring naturally all the time.karmaikohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210845244650948955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14194374831006039022010-10-07T23:16:56.159-04:002010-10-07T23:16:56.159-04:00Lee: Actually, it's a mathematical point
Anon...Lee: Actually, it's a mathematical point<br /><br />Anonymous: No, it's not. They don't evolve simultaneously *to* stick together.<br /><br />But that is not my point, you changed my point, and then showed that this new point was not mathematical.<br /><br />> Gyalogtank: The emergence of the cloroquine resistance is a CCC. The emergence of the SP resistance is another CCC. If your method of calculation is correct, there should be no Plasmodium falciparum cells on Earth which are resistant to both cloroquine, and SP, because that would need an insane amount of time.<br /><br />Well, not quite! If there is a selectable stop along the way, then indeed a four-mutation sequence can evolve in a reasonable amount of time. In this case, there is a selectable stop for both resistances, if enough people are given just one of these drugs.<br /><br />> The usual chance-measuring used by Behe, and every other creationist is simply flawed. Two, three, ten, one hundred, etc. mutations do not have to occur all at once. One mutation happens, stabilizes in the population, then another one happens, etc.<br /><br />Yes, with selectable stops along the way, you can get as far as you want. But Behe's edge is at four mutations <i>before</i> selection gets to kick in.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Leelee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-334905975571210432010-10-07T12:49:24.970-04:002010-10-07T12:49:24.970-04:00lee_merill:
> Lee: ... two such mutations occu...lee_merill:<br /><br />> Lee: ... two such mutations occurring simultaneously is the same as the probability of them occurring at different times.<br /><br />> Anonymous: This is just the bombardier beetle argument.<br /><br />"Actually, it's a mathematical point, it follows from statistical independence. "<br /><br />"Well, the question is if the edge Behe marks here is correct. And Behe acknowledges that evolution can produce new structures--just not structures that require more than four or more new independent mutations."<br /><br />You surely have read the second half of my comment. If you are right, a CCC occours in 10^20 individuals. Two CCCs occour in 10^40 individuals. The emergence of the cloroquine resistance is a CCC. The emergence of the SP resistance is another CCC. If your method of calculation is correct, there should be no Plasmodium falciparum cells on Earth which are resistant to both cloroquine, and SP, because that would need an insane amount of time. <br /><br />So why is malaria still a deadly disease? If this is truly the edge of evolution, a single cell can be resistant to klorokin, or SP, but not to both, so treating the infection with both drugs should cure any infection.<br /><br />Hovever these double resistant cells, harboring two CCC -s comapred to the wild type Plasmodium, have been detected, as early, as 1981, as malaria, that is resistant both to cloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, clearly harboring two CCC -s, comapred to the wild type, easily crossing the edge of evolution in Behe's own model system in a few decades, not in billions of years. <br /><br />The usual chance-measuring used by Behe, and every other creationist is simply flawed. Two, three, ten, one hundred, etc. mutations do not have to occour all at once. One mutation happens, stabilzes in the population, then another one happens, etc. This way the individuals needed for two CCCs to happen, if you consider Behe's numbers to be accurate, are not 10^40 cells, but 2X10^20. Which can clearly be observed in Plasmodium falciparum, as it took two decades to get to cloroquine resistance, and another two decades to et cloroquine and SP resistant cells. Your method of measuring the population needed for this result is false, it can be observed in nature.Gyalogtankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16951292618994737282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60056058923472551982010-10-07T08:49:57.543-04:002010-10-07T08:49:57.543-04:00"Actually, it's a mathematical point"..."Actually, it's a mathematical point"<br /><br />No, it's not.<br /><br />They don't evolve simultaneously *to* stick together. There wasn't a plan with this endgame in mind.<br /><br />They don't need to evolve simultaneously, they just have to be around at the time.<br /><br />Sharks eat people. They have mouths that fit neatly around humans, teeth that can bite through them. Strident new atheists who worship Darwin in basement covens insist, against the word of the Lord, that sharks evolved 420 million years ago. They have a silly myth that human also evolved, but can't even agree when - but let's say 200,000 years ago. <br /><br />But if that was the case, then surely all the sharks would have starved to death hundreds of millions of years ago?<br /><br />... and that's what this protein argument is, it's just talking about things that Spielberg didn't make a movie about, so it's harder to picture. <br /><br />Anyway if evolution was true, why wouldn't sharks have evolved into people by now, because that's the ultimate purpose of evolution? They've had hundreds of millions of years, and haven't even evolved legs! <br /><br />For more explanation about sharks:<br /><br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/sharks.aspAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com