Darwinian Evolution on a Chip?
Well the RNA changed but only bald declaration sez it was Darwinian:
Darwinian Evolution on a Chip
It should also be noted that no new functionality arose:
The final evolved enzyme contained a set of 11 mutations that conferred a 90-fold improvement in substrate utilization, coinciding with the applied selective pressure.Darwinian evolution requires NEW functions to arise. It also requires the mutations to be chance events- random.
What's the point? Little faggot Kevin R McCarthy is spouting off that this experiment refutes Dr Behe somehow. Unfortunately for Kevin he qupote-mines Behe and then totally misrepresents the quote-mine:
The Darwinian magic works well only when intermediate steps are each better (“more fit”) than preceding steps, so that the mutant gene increases in number I the population as natural selection favors the offspring…Yet its usefulness quickly declines when intermediate steps are worse than earlier steps and is pretty much worthless if several required intervening steps aren’t improvements).
(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, pg. 112, (Free Press, 2007).What does Kevin translate that into:
Basically, Behe is saying that if something bad happens, then it’s more likely that the gene is forever broken than it could improve.
Really? Undfortunately for Kevin Behe does NOT say what Kevin sez. Basically what Behe is saying is the same thing that Darwin said- slight SUCCESSFUL steps.
OK back to the paper- they used "BILLIONs of RNA enzymes with RNA-joining activity", all with a fast reproduction and they used artificial selection and an artificial selection pressure. Oh and the RNAs did not reproduce themselves, the scientists employed PCR- standard and error-prone.
That leaves darwinian evolution out as it requires at least self-replication.
Is this paper an issue for ID? No. Does it refute anything Dr Behe said? No. Is Kevin R. McCarthy a lying little punk? Yes.