15 June 2007
Jerry Coyne — The Herman Munster of Evolutionary Theory
William Dembski
I’ve thought for some time that Jerry Coyne looks like Herman Munster, the lovable oafish Frankenstein’s monster on the 1960s sitcom The Munsters. But given Coyne’s review of Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution in The New Republic (go here for the review), the convergence between the two is closer still. If this is the best that a University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist can muster, then the Darwinists are in bad shape indeed. Here is the key passage from his review:
Wrong. If it looks impossible, this is only because of Behe’s bizarre and unrealistic assumption that for a protein-protein interaction to evolve, all mutations must occur simultaneously, because the step-by-step path is not adaptive. Yet Behe furnishes no proof, no convincing argument, that interactions cannot evolve gradually. In fact, interactions between proteins, like any complex interaction, were certainly built up step by mutational step, with each change producing an interaction scrutinized by selection and retained if it enhanced an organism’s fitness. This process could have begun with weak protein-protein associations that were beneficial to the organism. These were then strengthened gradually, involving more and more amino acids to make the interaction stronger and more specific. At the end, you get what we see today: many proteins interacting strongly and specifically. What seems improbable in a single leap becomes much more likely when it evolves gradually, step by step.
A simple example shows this difference. Suppose a complex adaptation involves twenty parts, represented by twenty dice, each one showing a six. The adaptation is fueled by random mutation, represented by throwing the dice. Behe’s way of getting this adaptation requires you to roll all twenty dice simultaneously, waiting until they all come up six (that is, all successful mutations must happen together). The probability of getting this outcome is very low; in fact, if you tossed the dice once per second, it would take about a hundred million years to get the right outcome. But now let us build the adaptation step by step, as evolutionary theory dictates. You start by rolling the first die, and keep rolling it until a six comes up. When it does, you keep that die (a successful first step in the adaptation) and move on to the next one. You toss the second die until it comes up six (the second step), and so on until all twenty dice show a six. On average, this would take about a hundred and twenty rolls, or a total of two minutes at one roll per second. This sequential way of getting twenty sixes is infinitely faster than Behe’s method. And this is the way natural selection and mutation really work, not by the ludicrous scenario presented by Behe.
Coyne is arguing from personal credulity: Because he knows in advance that Darwin got it right, Behe must be wrong about simultaneous mutations being required for certain types of evolutionary change. Coyne’s understanding of evolution is simplicity itself: Neo-Darwinian evolution occurs gradually and is true. Therefore mutations must occur sequentially and cumulatively (otherwise gradualism would be violated), with each step in the sequence of mutations conferring a selective advantage (otherwise Darwin’s idea of natural selection would not be the greatest idea ever conceived).
But the evidence for attaining via sequential mutations the types of systems Behe considers is nil. The Darwinists have no step-by-step detailed testable scenarios for evolutionary processes attaining such systems. Stepwise mutational pathways to such systems for now exist only in Coyne’s imagination and that of his fellow Darwinists. Conversely, Behe does provide convincing evidence for why certain biological systems require simultaneous coordinated mutations to evolve. Despite all the bluster in Coyne’s review, he, like Sean Carroll, is blowing smoke.
By the way, Coyne’s dice example could easily have been lifted from my work. Here is essentially the same example, for coin tossing, from my book The Design Inference (p. 46):
Opposing chance to design requires we be clear what chance processes could be operating to produce the event in question. Suppose, for instance, I have before me a hundred pennies all of which have landed heads. What is the probability of getting all one hundred pennies to exhibit heads? This probability depends on the chance process controlling the pennies. If, for instance, the chance process flips each penny individually and waits until it lands heads, after two hundred flips there will be an even chance that all the pennies exhibit heads (and after a thousand flips it will be almost certain that all the pennies exhibit heads). If, on the other hand, the chance process operates by flipping all the pennies simultaneously, and does not stop until all the pennies simultaneously exhibit heads, it will require about 10^30 such simultaneous flips for there to be an even chance that all the pennies exhibit heads. But suppose we know there were no more than two hundred occasions for flipping the pennies, and that all the pennies exhibit heads. If the pennies were flipped individually, the probability that all of them exhibit heads is 1/2. On the other hand, if the pennies were flipped simultaneously, the probability that all of them exhibit heads is less than one in 10^27.
Here is a variation on this theme from the same book (p. 58):
According to Dawkins (1987, p. 49), “Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom.†The difference between cumulative selection and what Dawkins calls single-step selection can be illustrated with a coin tossing example. Suppose you want to know whether by tossing a hundred pennies you can ever expect to observe a hundred heads simultaneously. In the single-step selection scenario you put the pennies in a box, shake the box, and see if all the pennies simultaneously exhibit heads. If not, you keep repeating the process until all the pennies simultaneously exhibit heads. In the cumulative selection scenario, on the other hand, you shake the box as before, but every time you look inside the box, you remove the pennies that exhibit heads. You stop when all the pennies have been removed and are exhibiting heads. . . . Now it’s clear that with the single-step selection scenario you will never observe all the pennies exhibiting headsâ€â€the odds are too much against it. On the other hand, it’s equally clear that with the cumulative selection scenario you’ll see all the pennies exhibiting heads very quickly.
Note here that single-step selection takes advantage of simultaneous mutations; cumulative selection takes advantage of stepwise mutations. Behe has the stronger argument that evolution driven by genetic change requires simultaneous coordinated mutations. Coyne, on the other hand, has the better chance of landing the role of Herman in any remake of The Munsters.
Print This Post
1
jerry
06/15/2007
2:05 am
The sequential assumption is the basis for most of the Darwinists’ arguments. As such it should be the focus of the refutation of Darwinism, because without it they can not survive.
Coyne assumes that everything starts with weak effects and then builds to stronger effects once a weak one is established. The fit gets stronger as time goes on as additional mutations take effect and only stronger ones survive. This is the classic eye model used by Nilsson. It is also Dawkin’s Weasel computer simulation.
How many examples do they have if any that are real. The eye is certainly an extremely “just so” story with no evidence but their imagination. What other examples of pass progressions are documented if there are any at all and where are there examples today of the “better fits” slowly spreading through a population?
Are there any? Is there any pro Darwinist out there that can help us. Or is Coyne’s example like the dog that barked in the night?
2
DaveScot
06/15/2007
2:25 am
Coyne and his chance worshipping peers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock is gradualism and the hard place is Haldane’s Dilemma. As gradualism gets more gradual Haldane’s Dilemma gets more difficult to overcome - there’s a limit to the number of mutations that can become fixed. As gradualism gets less gradual then the improbability of simultaneous beneficial mutations becomes more difficult to overcome. A truly classic example of being stuck between a rock and a hard place!
3
idnet.com.au
06/15/2007
2:33 am
Protein to protein interactions occur in all useful proteins, just as sewing occurs in most useful garments. By themselves p2p interactions are nothing more than weak glue. In order for protein interactions to be at all useful, they need to be at particular sites on particular proteins. These proteins must be in turn organised into productive groups with purpose.
A replica of the Eiffel Tower made of popsicle sticks has many glued points, but a pile of popsicle sticks, each with a few random dobs of glue on them will never make an Eiffel Tower replica.
I am baffled by the fact that NDEs are happy if they can find a few p2p interactions that may be possible by RM and NS and they think they can build IC.
4
idnet.com.au
06/15/2007
2:59 am
I just heard Michael Ruse live on Sydney Aust radio. He is here for a conference. He derided ID as a reaction to the Enlightenment and Modernity.
5
kairos
06/15/2007
5:33 am
But wasn’t Ruse a fair adversary of ID? Did he became angry?
6
mike1962
06/15/2007
7:53 am
“In fact, interactions between proteins, like any complex interaction, were certainly built up step by mutational step”
He’s certain. OK, well, then that settles it. Time to go eat lunch.
7
GilDodgen
06/15/2007
8:53 am
It kills me how these guys always present the obviously hyper-speculative as irrefutable fact: “These were then strengthened gradually…” and “…interactions between proteins… were certainly built up step by mutational step…” and “…this is the way natural selection and mutation really work…”
Coyne’s dice example assumes that all biological systems, every single one of them, are such that one six is better than no sixes, two sixes are better than one six, etc. But what if a biological system is like a combination lock with six numbers, and a sequence of 20 specific numbers is required to open the lock? The useful function of the lock is that it opens. Getting one of the 20 numbers right doesn’t make the lock open a little bit, and getting two of the 20 numbers right doesn’t make the lock open a little bit more. In fact, getting 19 of the 20 numbers right doesn’t make the lock function any better than getting none right.
Coyne’s example requires that not even a single biological system be like the combination lock. Yet we now know that these systems are machinery (incredibly sophisticated and tightly functionally integrated machinery), and machines are like combination locks. The more we learn about the machinery of life, the truth is that in all probability almost no (statistically speaking) biological systems are amenable to being generated by Coyne’s dice tossing.
8
SCheesman
06/15/2007
9:01 am
I think a better analogy for a working protein is a key to unlock a door. You can’t gradually evolve a key, one tumbler at a time, and depend on the improved “door-opening ability” as a guide to finding the right key. Certainly there may be a large number of keys that with a little jiggling might open the door, but in that case each tooth is very nearly the optimum size. Dr. Coyne’s coin-flipping analogy is embarrassing.
9
SteveB
06/15/2007
9:32 am
Coyne’s example, while it sounds simple on the surface, actually involves some fairly specific specifications. While I’m sure I’ve left some things out, they would minimally include:
1. Obtain a die. Die must have 6 (or perhaps more) sides.
2. Obtain a mechanism for rolling the die (or wait until something else rolls it or it rolls itself).
3. Obtain a mechanism for evaluating the value of the die when it is rolled.
4. Obtain a mechanism/location for keeping the die when the desired outcome is obtained.
5. Determine that a six is what is wanted.
6. Roll the die.
7. Evaluate the outcome.
8. If desired outcome is obtained, keep the die.
9. Ensure that all retained dice are kept from any further rolling.
10. Repeat steps 1-9 until 20 such dice have been retained.
11. Optional: Stop the rolling and retention processes.
12. Determine a mechanism for assembling the dice into a coherent, functional whole. Presumably, the assembly could be done piecemeal while the die rolling is going on, but the assembly mechanism would have to exist either way.
13. Assemble the dice.
14. Successfully integrate the completed adaptation into the larger organism.
15. Do it all with no intent or plan, no intelligence, while completely blind, and entirely unaware that a “complex adaptation involving 20 parts†is being built.
Coyne and I have something in common: we’re both incredulous.
-sb
10
Barrett1
06/15/2007
9:44 am
SCheesman, could you elaborate just a bit on this?
11
jpark320
06/15/2007
10:37 am
I’m glad they never elaborate on the specific pathways these things take.
Actually I did see one and it was a joke a best, looked like someone desperately putting a puzzle together forcing the TTSS to form a flagellum.
It is truly sad to see what these ppl think are “transitional” forms:
1) TTSS for Flagella?
2) Double Jointed jaws for ear bones?
Please…
12
jpark320
06/15/2007
10:50 am
@bdelloid
I think what ppl are trying to say is not only is the definitive path difficult to point out - there is absolutely nothing, nada, showing any sort of resemblance to a pathway. This should be most troublesome, but most Darwinist take it purely on faith, that contrary to the evidence there all these specific pathways happened.
Unless you take the TTSS –> flagella as an example, but hopefully you don’t and if you do you should know that 1/2 the ppl think the flagella preceded the TTSS . If anyone calls this sort of stuff evidence (instead of mythmaking) please forgive us for not accepting w/ a
Also, Dr. Dembski just slightly mentioned this at the end of his blog
That the pathways necessary to form a flagella (or an eye) would req. simultaneous mutations in a single step. Have you seen the proposed pathways??? Surely not every single step can be a simple mutation! Indeed even Darwinists have tried to wiggle around it w/ Evo-Devo or genetic duplication to get around it ie Though not every single step of the pathway is improbable (say getting a “6″ on a dice roll), there are many steps in the proposed pathway that are (that require 20 “6’s” in one roll).
13
jerry
06/15/2007
11:02 am
bdelloid,
I think Coyne, Carroll or any other Darwinist would have more respect if they delineated actual paths as opposed to hypothetical paths that may have existed.
It is like the challenge that is posed to anyone who holds the Darwinist approach to change, please provide the empirical evidence. Where is the evidence to back the hypothesis of cumulative selection. So far no one, from Darwin to Dawkins has been able to meet the challenge and provide evidence. Certainly not any of the Darwinist that visit this site. It is always rhetoric. Why not? Doesn’t that bother you and others that support gradualism?
14
angryoldfatman
06/15/2007
11:14 am
Listen up people, Herman Munster has spoken and has shown us the way.
Behe has hypothesized that protein sequences do not arise gradually, but he is wrong because Darwinism is true, therefore these sequences arose gradually, therefore Darwinism is true, therefore these sequences arose gradually, therefore Darwinism is true, and therefore Behe is wrong.
15
scordova
06/15/2007
11:20 am
A point often missed, and a point which Behe is helping to highlight is the fact that cumulative selective advantage does not necessarily imply cumulative steps toward irreducible complexity.
An army (like the confederates resisting Sherman’s advance in the Americal Civil war) can blow up it’s own bridges to try to impede an invasion of its lands. Blowing up more bridges has a cumulative effect. It may even confer advantage! This destructive activity however does not explain cumulative construction of bridges.
The issue is not whether cumulative selection exists, but whether it can funciton as a designer substitute, a builder of bridges, not a destroyer of them.
16
Borne
06/15/2007
1:31 pm
This one is just too funny! Herman Munster and Coyne! Hilarious because true. Except that Herman was a more likable character.
“blowing smoke” ? If I recall correctly, Herman blew smoke out of his ears when he got real mad.
————-
Darwinists perpetually make the same errors of logic - very few exceptions. And those exceptions usually end up on the ID side sooner or later.
Why?
Concurrent coordinated processing systems, as observed in DNA/RNA, do not occur without intelligence. It’ll never happen by random mutations + selection. Check HERE for a primer on concurrent processes (computers).
Our computers, for ex., simulate concurrent processes by allotting CPU time slices to processes in such a way that multi-tasking appears to be real. It is the illusion of parallelism - unless you have multiple CPUs or something like that.
Multi-tasking OS’ required a lot of hard serious research and effort to develop back when they first started coming out (early 60’s).
The biological systems of information we know of like DNA/RNA are real concurrent processing systems - something like a human factory or business flow algorithm implementation.
The idea that non-thinking nature, without any guidance or intelligence, could haphazardly (rm+ns) produce - by blind accumulation - a fully functional, highly complex, interdependent multi-tasking system is ludicrous.
For example, you can put all the parts of an old hand operated meat grinder (for example) in a box and shake it up for all eternity and you will never get a completely assembled, functional meat grinder.
It won’t happen by itself. It requires an outside intelligent force working with a goal in mind, to accomplish.
Same applies to things like nano machines (247 found in yeast DNA alone)
Also, the exception processing algorithms in DNA alone are proof that intelligence was involved since, by very definition, error trapping and correction mechanisms intrinsically require previous knowledge of what “non error” is. Think about that for a minute.
No system can discover errors within itself without having been designed under preplanned rules of what the “correct” states and output values should be like and how to dispose of or correct an erroneous state.
ONLY intelligently designed systems with predefined states, state measuring and error trapping algorithms and mechanisms can do that.
17
ericB
06/15/2007
6:35 pm
When reciting the hand waving standard story of evolution takes the place of a persuasive analysis, it is not hard to see why Darwinists are insistent that Darwinism is taught dogmatically in the schools, without opportunity for serious scrutiny.
This is what happens when alternate perspectives are excluded. In a choir of “yes” men, reciting the just-so-story is considered sufficiently compelling. The only allowed option begins to be treated as though it were the only possible option.
18
tribune7
06/15/2007
6:41 pm
He really said that about Ann Coulter? What an ass.
19
William Dembski
06/15/2007
7:05 pm
bdelloid is no longer with us.
20
Atom
06/15/2007
7:08 pm
?
21
Aquila
06/15/2007
10:58 pm
To make the dice throwing experiment a little more realistic, try this:
1. Scatter the 20 dice over the turf of a football stadium.
2. Blindfold Coyne.
3. Handcuff him.
4. Now have him do the experiment.
22
With enemies like Coyne, who needs friends? | Uncommon Descent
06/16/2007
9:52 pm
[...] Entries With enemies like Coyne, who needs friends? Darwinism Is Rocket Science! (2) ICON-RIDS: Non-Religious ID Scientists and Scholars (6) Evolution Theory Fails? “It can’t be true!” (11) Digital Counters Discovered Controlling Gene Expression (16) Nelson D. Taylor loses civil suit against Finch Foods’ Mutation Paste (2) Startling West Virginia discovery by Dr. Markus A. Raze provides overwhelming evidence about the origin of man. “Turbulent times in the world of phylogeny” (21) Jerry Coyne — The Herman Munster of Evolutionary Theory (21) Is this the best the Darwinist All-Stars can offer? (23) more » · feed » [...]
23
Larry Fafarman
06/18/2007
4:10 am
Coyne assumes that a single big beneficial mutation can be achieved by an accumulation of a set of many steps of smaller nonbeneficial mutations. But this assumes that each nonbeneficial mutation will occur in individuals that have already accumulated many of the nonbeneficial mutations, and that is unlikely because (1) the population of individuals that have accumulated many of the nonbeneficial mutations is likely to be small because an incomplete set of these mutations does not confer any advantage in natural selection and (2) mutations are rare events. Furthermore, it is possible that one of the nonbeneficial mutations or an incomplete set of the nonbeneficial mutations could produce a trait that is deleterious to the organism.
24
rabbite_uk
06/18/2007
7:21 pm
Darwinists seem to believe they can press the “Hold” button on a biological fruit machine until three 7s come up, but this is becoming more and more unlikely as we continue to learn about the complexities of the cell and biological life.
25
Dave Wisker
06/20/2007
9:10 pm
Davescot,
I’m not so sure Haldane’s Dilemma is as much of a barrier as it has been portrayed. This area may not be the appropriate place for an extended discussion of the topic, so I’ll hit only one salient point here. Haldane’s two papers on the subject dealt with the substitution of beneficial mutations. He recognized (and specifically pointed out) that his estimate did not apply to neutral substitutions. In addition, situations where a mutation might be initially neutral and drift to high frequency, then become beneficial when the environment changes do not apply either, because his formula for the cost depends on the initial frequency of the mutation at the time it became selected for.
Considering the amount of non-adaptive change genomes may experience (see Michael Lynch’s excellent new book The Origins of Genomic Architecture for discussion of this), I don’t think Haldane’s estimate is truly much of a brake on evolution.
26
Chicago Reader complains about my comparing Jerry Coyne to Herman Munster | Uncommon Descent
07/31/2007
1:14 pm
[...] The Chicago Reader, a publication I used to read when living in Chicago, reports on my recent blog post at UD about Jerry Coyne, comparing him to Herman Munster (for the comparison, go here): Meanwhile, in what seems like an odd move, creationists have chosen to play on Coyne’s home court by claiming to be scientists themselves, and presenting “intelligent design†as an alternative scientific hypothesis to Darwinian evolution (though its advocates put forth no testable predictions). Last year in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pennsylvania federal judge John E. Jones III ruled against that claim after a lengthy trial, but the efforts continue. Coyne’s latest New Republic article (June 18) takes on the new book by intelligent-design advocate Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. “IDers never produce their own ‘scientific’ explanation of life,†Coyne concludes. “They just carp about evolution. And as evolutionists explain one thing after another, IDers simply ignore these successes and move on to the ever-dwindling set of unsolved problems in which they continue to see the hand of God.†IDer William Dembski’s response at his blog uncommondescent.com followed this pattern precisely, but also offered his readers specific evidence: that Coyne bears a passing resemblance to Herman Munster! [...]
27
Boston Globe says ID proponents "may well be right" | Uncommon Descent
08/09/2007
5:13 pm
[...] Lehrman here is acting like a used-car salesman, not an objective reporter. She might do well to be cognizant of the words of the chief spokesman for evolutionary theory, Jerry “Herman Munster” Coyne. Herman, I mean, Jerry said here, In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. [...]