Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

Intelligent design v Devolution

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#21  Postby Rumraket » Apr 15, 2019 12:09 am

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Coyne is right and Behe is wrong. There's like 20 different debunkings of Behe online now all over the place. One of the big problems with Behe's thesis is that it basically ignores constructive neutral evolution as an explanation for increased molecular complexity. Behe exclusively focuses on adaptive+"constructive" or "degenerative" molecular evolution, but most constructive molecular evolution is actually neutral and compensatory. This deceptively makes it appear as if natural selection is impotent(or unimportant) in explaining complex adaptations (such as eyes, organs, limb shape changes, and so on), but that is false, because Behe does not focus at the phenotypic level. It's a very clever sleight of hand.

That allows Behe to speciously argue that since adaptive molecular evolution is often times "degenerative", as excessive duplicate genes (of which many acquire new promoters) often times are lost or decrease in function, this leads to the misapprehension that functional complexity as a whole should decrease under evolution. But if most genes are duplicated several times and diverge, that easily counteracts the degenerative effects of adaptive molecular evolution.


Behe's focus is about Darwinian mechanism, natural selection, and not about neutral evolutionary mechanisms.

I know, and that's one of the problems with his idea as I explain.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13053
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#22  Postby Wortfish » Apr 15, 2019 12:26 am

Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Coyne is right and Behe is wrong. There's like 20 different debunkings of Behe online now all over the place. One of the big problems with Behe's thesis is that it basically ignores constructive neutral evolution as an explanation for increased molecular complexity. Behe exclusively focuses on adaptive+"constructive" or "degenerative" molecular evolution, but most constructive molecular evolution is actually neutral and compensatory. This deceptively makes it appear as if natural selection is impotent(or unimportant) in explaining complex adaptations (such as eyes, organs, limb shape changes, and so on), but that is false, because Behe does not focus at the phenotypic level. It's a very clever sleight of hand.

That allows Behe to speciously argue that since adaptive molecular evolution is often times "degenerative", as excessive duplicate genes (of which many acquire new promoters) often times are lost or decrease in function, this leads to the misapprehension that functional complexity as a whole should decrease under evolution. But if most genes are duplicated several times and diverge, that easily counteracts the degenerative effects of adaptive molecular evolution.


Behe's focus is about Darwinian mechanism, natural selection, and not about neutral evolutionary mechanisms.

I know, and that's one of the problems with his idea as I explain.


Yeah, but most evolutionary biologists would admit that drift and molecular drive are insufficient to explain adaptation.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 860

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#23  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 15, 2019 12:31 am

Wortfish wrote:
Yeah, but most evolutionary biologists would admit that drift and molecular drive are insufficient to explain adaptation.



Citation, please.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 22051
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#24  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 15, 2019 9:53 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Yeah, but most evolutionary biologists would admit that drift and molecular drive are insufficient to explain adaptation.



Citation, please.

W. Ortfish, 'Rectum' from Gastrointestinal tract, Wortfish's pants: underwear, 15-04-2019
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29638
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#25  Postby Svartalf » Apr 15, 2019 2:06 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Hermann Joseph Müller destroyed Behe's pseudo-argument six decades before Behe was born.


is this the Müller who invented the Mullerian type of camouflage for butterflies?


The former is Hermann Joseph Muller, the latter is Fritz Müller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Joseph_Muller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_M%C3%BCller

thanks for correcting me, I've been listening to radio programs about butterfly mimicry of late, and picked up MÜller's name there, but missed the first name.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 392
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#26  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 15, 2019 10:02 pm

Svartalf wrote:
thanks for correcting me, I've been listening to radio programs about butterfly mimicry of late, and picked up MÜller's name there, but missed the first name.


They're both incredible biologists who made significant discoveries, both of which are connected to Darwin's theories, and both of which cause trouble for Creationists attempting to deny evolution.

Any which way, it's all good! I learned of Muller through Cali maaaany years ago (the Mullerian 2 step destroys I.D.), and while I knew of Fritz Müller from my undergraduate course, it was actually a Creationist first on RDF and then here who instigated me to learn a lot more about him and his work on mimicry.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 22051
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#27  Postby Wortfish » Apr 16, 2019 12:07 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Yeah, but most evolutionary biologists would admit that drift and molecular drive are insufficient to explain adaptation.



Citation, please.

Go read any book authored by Richard Dawkins.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 860

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#28  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 16, 2019 12:41 am

Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Wortfish wrote:

Yeah, but most evolutionary biologists would admit that drift and molecular drive are insufficient to explain adaptation.



Citation, please.


Go read any book authored by Richard Dawkins.



That's not a citation.

Can you cite something, or not? If not, do feel free to modify your claim to align with what can be honestly drawn from facts.

Also, even were I to assume that Richard Dawkins 'would admit' what you said. Richard Dawkins is not 'most evolutionary biologists' being just a single person.

Your claim entails a number of suspect components.

First and foremost: where is the poll or survey you've seen to make assertions about the proportions of evolutionary biologists who do subscribe to the position that "drift and molecular drive are insufficient to explain adaptation"?

Please cite it.

If you can't cite it, then perhaps you'd like to explain why it is you made such a confident proclamation when you can't show it to be true.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 22051
Age: 42
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest