Ywes yes, all fascinating reading- but these somments by laypeople do nothign to undermine edge of evolution as the critics have claimed it has been. Critics claim Behe’s book falls apart because they claim Behe states that two or more mutations CAN NOT arise to facillitate one change- that is a lie, Behe NEVER said anyhtign of hte sort- Here is what Behe actually said
““But I certainly do not say that multipleamino acid replacements “can’t happen”. A centerpiece of The Edge of Evolution is that it can and did happen.”
Let’s stick to hte issue- You claimed Behe’s book was ‘made obsolete’ and htis ismply is not true. It’s a false claim, and you also said ‘two laB experiments “have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.” Yeah? And htis makes Behe’s book obsolete how again? Fact is it doesn’t- as mentioned, Behe NEVER said it NEVER happens in nature- He said it is very unlikely, and the probabilities are quite low that it does- Yuo throw ‘two lab experiments’ up as though this somehow refutes the claim that it is rare?
You sir must have a degree in downplaying. These lab experiments only go to show that YES, indeed, these multiple mutaitons ARE idneed rare, and it ALSO goes to show that Heck- Metainfo is indeed instrumental in allowing or dissallowing certain MICROEvolutionary changes. The experiments you are referrign to show simply that Ecoli did infact have the ability to live on Citrates in the wild, and that mutaitons activated the wild sequences already present- Big deal? This refutes Behe’s book and ‘makes it obsolete’ How again?
Stick to what is actually said in the link you provided. Behe’s probability calculations are based on the necessity of two necessary mutations occurring simultaneously.
Actual laboratory experiments have seen two and even three “necessary” mutations occurring in sequence, with earlier mutations conferring little or no benefit.
But the specific example cited in Behe’s book, that of malaria acquiring resistance to chloroquine is simple factually inaccurate.
All Behe does is propose some structure as being irreducible, and when it is shown to be reducible, he backpedals. Not a strong position.
It’s greatest weakness as a line of argument is that we now have the tools and technology to test it.
As I say, the pregame show is over, Get some popcorn.