You are correct in noting that Muller's discussion is not directed towards the behavior of proteins at a molecular level. He is not talking about the type of complexity I describe on page 216 in The Design Matrix. In fact, we know that Muller's description of evolution did not lead scientists to anticipate this type of complexity (see p. 13). Muller is talking about the whole organism as the "machine" (which, as seen from pp. 101-103 of TDM, is not relevant). What he is essentially describing is a whole organism as an interlocking mass of complexity such that lethals should have been "among the commonest forms of mutants" and "we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be "semi-lethal" or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life." In other words, a non-telic view of evolution would lead us to expect that organisms should be a Rube Goldberg machine, a hodgepodge of factors tightly connected through a long history of co-evolutionary selection. What Muller and early views of evolution did not expect was what we found "“ that life is more rational than this; than life is built around the design principle of modularity (see pp. 167-169).

Doug: When he refers to complicated machinery and 'whole machinery', what do you think he is referencing, Zach?

The concept of interlocking complexity would apply to many such evolutionary systems, but Muller is referring to how genes influence the development of specific morphological and physiological traits.

A simple example is where we have a mechanism P which is sufficient unto itself, but to which Q has been added as a catalyst enhancing the reaction. P might then evolve to a greater level of efficiency, but one that requires Q. This is a typical example of how specialization leads to interlocking complexity.

From this, Muller argues that most (non-neutral) mutations should be detrimental. They disturb the finely-tuned complex.

Thanks.

Where's TP?
We're doing science!!

I was really only referencing my posts. After I read through the topic and the reply posts again mine just seemed to tangent off in a direction that could serve to sidetrack the discussion.

You can memory hole my comments. We're not talking about IC and have been bring the conversation in that direction…. sorry.

… Most present day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system" that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters are factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally become necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; …

When he refers to complicated machinery and 'whole machinery', what do you think he is referencing, Zach? Proteins that come together to form a functioning complex that carries out a particular task? Held together by covalent bonds and non-covalent forces, matching because of complementary surfaces?

Included in the studies were calculations concerned with both the «spontaneous» and the radiation-induced mutation frequencies, and of the consequences of selection. Estimates were made of the effects of changes in mutation frequency, on the one hand, and of selection pressure, on the other hand, on the load. It was shown that eugenic policies are needed to avoid genetic degeneration in man as well as to bring about the genetic enhancement called for by his advances in technology and in other aspects of his culture. It was pointed out that modern reproductive technologies, such as germ-cell banks, and liberalized mores now make possible the exercise of voluntary germinal choice in human reproduction, and that this procedure affords the practical solution necessary to enable cultural evolution to promote the biological evolution of man instead of perverting it.

An increase in the genetic load is problematic for a paradigm of increasing complexity. This given a complete complement of genetic repair mechanisms. An evolutionary process, devoid of such repair mechanisms, is fertile ground for evidence of front loading in my view.