re: #957 Naso Tang

Any fool can come up with math to fit observations. To be sure, I don’t really understand the argument as presented here. It seems that you think that there have been x observations of mutation addressing a particular environmental pressure in a parasite. (Why one is not
enough, if it works, I am not sure.)

Ok, I’ll try to make it simple. Let’s say that in some fictitious organism, you observe that on the average there’s a 1/3 chance of a random DNA error in a specific location over a specified time, let’s say 10 minutes. You also observe that there’s a 1/4 chance of a random DNA error in another specific location over a specified time, again 10 minutes. You observe that both mutations together confer resistance to something and that 1/12 of those organisms have that resistance.

Having taken a math course in simple probability, you jump to the “wild” conclusion that this confirms the randomness and lack of interaction between these two mutations: 1/3 x 1/4 = 1/12. Naturally, it could be a coincidence. Yes, these two locations might indeed be connected in some complicated way that gives the same result. They could indeed be like the coins that appear under your pillow when you lost your baby teeth.

You do the same for another organism with different rates of reproduction and mutation at specific points. Both the math and the observations again work out the same way (maybe this time it’s 1/5 and 1/20 to yield 1/100). And again you jump to the same “wild” conclusion.

The two organisms interact with each other to proliferate these mutations.

Then you observe the odds for a third random mutation. The product of all these random changes are, let’s say 1/1000. But given the rate of reproduction of your organism and the amount of time you have, 10 minutes. You conclude that random mutation could produce one or two of the mutations, but not all three in the same organism due to the time limit of 10 minutes (i.e. you’re not counting on 100-sigma statistical miracles).

This is what Behe is saying, but with bigger numbers.

You write a book suggesting that random mutation could not be the primary driving force behind the third leg of evolution for these organisms beyond one or two changes, but that you do accept the other two legs of the theory of Evolution: Natural Selection and Common Descent.

You don’t mention any other possibilities to replace mutation, although some have been investigated intensively such as viral transmission, and that the genome of the platypus offers some tantalizing evidence for some other form of DNA transmission of large chunks of information. You also note that these mutations result in a loss of information, not something more complex.

Immediately, you are attacked that you haven’t explained everything, that you are spreading flake science to sell lots of books, that you are trying to topple DARWIN (the most brilliant scientist in human history, past present, and future), that this will lead to teaching Creationism in public schools.

But this is ok. Stonings and burnings are an integral and traditional part of the scientific method, as anyone who has ever participated in the process full well knows—every major breakthrough in science and medicine has been vigorously opposed by the political establishment in the scientific institutions of the time.

-sk