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

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

#1  Postby Wortfish » Mar 19, 2019 12:52 pm

Jerry Coyne has reviewed Mike Behe's latest book, "Darwin Devolves", in the Washington Post (content below):

The notion of “intelligent design” arose after opponents of evolution repeatedly failed on First Amendment grounds to get Bible-based creationism taught in the public schools. Their solution: Take God out of the mix and replace him with an unspecified “intelligent designer.” They added some irrelevant mathematics and fancy biochemical jargon, and lo: intelligent design, which scientists have dubbed “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”

But the tuxedo is fraying, for intelligent design has been rejected not just by biologists but also by judges who recognize it as poorly disguised religion. Nevertheless, its advocates persist. Among the most vocal is Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University whose previous books, despite withering criticism from scientists, have sold well in a country where 76 percent of us think God had some role in human evolution.

Behe does not rely on the Bible as a science textbook. Rather, he admits that evolution occurs by natural selection sifting new mutations and that all species are related via common ancestors. Where he parts company with other biologists is in his claim that the important mutations producing new types of organisms are not random accidents but are deliberately installed by a designer with a plan. A pious Catholic, Behe sees the designer as the Christian God but concedes that there could be other mutation-makers. These designed mutations solve what he sees as a problem for natural selection: the origin of some complex biochemical features. Such features appear to defy Darwinian explanation because, claims Behe, they can’t function until all the parts are in place. (Unguided natural selection requires that every step in the evolution of a complex feature must enhance an organism’s fitness.) Ergo, these “irreducibly complex” systems must have been forged by a designer who made simultaneous changes in several genes.

Scientists, however, were quick to spot the obvious errors in this argument. First, they pointed out numerous scenarios in which a system fitting Behe’s definition of “irreducible complexity” could evolve in a step-by-step manner (one is the hormone pathway studied by my Chicago colleague Joe Thornton). They then adduced clear evidence from many complex biochemical systems that these scenarios had actually occurred. Indeed, the uniform experience of scientists who work on these systems is that they embody an absurd, Rube Goldberg-like complexity that makes no sense as the handiwork of an engineer but makes perfect sense as a product of a long and unguided historical process.

Further, Behe’s rationale for designed mutations is circular. He claims that biochemical pathways are designed rather than evolved because they’re based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” But which arrangements are those designed with a purpose? They’re simply the pathways that Behe sees as too complex to have evolved. This is a classic example of begging the question: assuming what you’re supposed to prove (purposefulness). Yet the history of science is replete with natural phenomena like electricity and infectious disease that were once imputed to God simply because we didn’t understand them. The lesson that Behe and his intelligent-design supporters should learn is that in the face of scientific ignorance, it’s more productive to keep working than to punt to God as the solution.

Perhaps Behe’s most ludicrous claim is this: Evolution within the lowest levels of biological classification — genera and species — might be purely Darwinian, but the origin of higher-level groups — families, orders and so on — requires designed mutations. Yet as every biologist knows, groupings above the level of species are purely subjective. That is, whether you call a group a family or a genus is arbitrary, depending on the tastes of the scientists who work on that group. For example, a given difference in a trait like color or size might help define a new family of birds but only a new genus of frogs (ornithologists tend to be “splitters” while herpetologists are often “lumpers”). This arbitrariness means there’s no reason to suppose that the bird mutations are designed while the frog ones are natural and random. To make things worse, Behe gives not a single example of a family-level mutation that he thinks required the help of a creator.

Behe’s third attack on evolution is that, even at lower levels, it’s “self-limiting.” That is, two features of evolution — its reliance on random mutations and on natural selection — make the process eventually wind down, preventing further change and requiring the designer to step in. Both of these claims are wrong.

Mutation supposedly acts as a brake on evolution because, argues Behe, most genes that fuel adaptation have been irreparably broken and inactivated by mutations (a gene that doesn’t do anything can still be better than one making an unneeded product). And a dead gene, because it tends to degrade further, can’t easily be reactivated. Evolution, then, must eventually grind to a halt.

Behe selectively gives a handful of examples in which mutations have produced broken genes that are nevertheless useful, but he simply ignores the large number of adaptive mutations that do not inactivate genes. These include duplications, in which a gene is accidentally copied twice, with the copies diverging in useful ways (this is how primates acquired our three-color vision, as well as different forms of hemoglobin); changes not in gene function but in how and when a gene is turned on and off, like mutations producing lactose tolerance in milk-drinking human populations; the repurposing of ancient genes acquired from viruses (one source of the mammalian placenta); “chimeric genes” cobbled together from odd bits of DNA (e.g., genes producing antifreeze proteins in fish blood ); and simple changes in DNA sequence that alter proteins without breaking them (tolerance of low oxygen levels in high-flying geese). As long as a substantial number of genetic mutations don’t break genes, which seems to be the case, evolution can work just fine.

Behe also argues that evolution is self-limiting because natural selection “adjust[s] a biological system to its current function” and thus “works to block the system from taking up a significantly different function.” But environments change and current functions become outmoded, prompting new evolution. And new adaptations can fortuitously create new niches: Think of how feathers, which probably evolved to conserve body heat in dinosaurs, opened up the possibility of flight — leading to all the diverse birds on Earth.

Like his creationist kin, Behe devotes his time not to giving evidence for intelligent design but to attacking evolutionary biology. As Herbert Spencer said, “Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.” But Behe’s theory, promulgated by the Discovery Institute, Seattle’s intelligent-design organization, does demand support. Who, exactly, is the designer, and what evidence is there that this designer makes nonrandom mutations? Is the designer an immaterial god, in which case we need to know how this god violates the laws of physics by causing mutations, or is the designer material, like a space alien, in which case we must understand the physical methods whereby aliens change our DNA?

And what is an example of a designed mutation? (Behe is silent here.) Since humans are placed in the same family as other great apes (Hominidae), Behe’s theory predicts that we arose without a designer’s intervention. But here he backpedals, asserting that there are “excellent reasons to suspect those differences [between humans and other apes] are well beyond Darwinian processes.” Sadly, he doesn’t give these reasons, but I’d guess they stem from the Christian belief that Homo sapiens is a special creation of God. Such ad hoc claims, derived from religion, explain why intelligent design has been deemed by the courts as “a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

In 1998, the Discovery Institute drafted the “Wedge Document,” a secret plan (leaked in 1999) to spread Christianity in America by teaching intelligent design and fighting materialism. One of the plan’s 20-year goals was “to see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.” Well, now it’s 20 years on, and despite the efforts of Behe and other neo-creationists, intelligent design has been discredited as science and outed as disguised religion. It’s no surprise, then, that “Darwin Devolves” was published by HarperOne, the religious, spiritual and self-help division of HarperCollins.


Behe has responded to Coyne's unflattering review: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/bulle ... rry-coyne/
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

#2  Postby newolder » Mar 19, 2019 1:22 pm

Your source:
Coyne, "Like his creationist kin, Behe devotes his time not to giving evidence for intelligent design but to attacking evolutionary biology."

Gee, Coyne must have missed Chapter 10 in Darwin Devolves, “A Terrible Thing to Waste,” as well as Chapters 8 and 9 in Darwin’s Black Box (“Intelligent Design” and “Questions About Design”) and Chapter 11 in The Edge of Evolution (“All the World’s a Stage”). I explain at length in those chapters and elsewhere that the work of a mind — design — is evinced precisely by the purposeful arrangement of parts, such as is found in abundance in life. For pretty much the entirety of recorded history until Darwin almost everyone thought life was designed exactly for that reason — the arrangement of parts for a purpose — as I discuss in the Preface to the book. Contrary to Coyne, it is Darwin’s audacious assertion — that complex interactive functional structures could be produced by random variation and natural selection — that has gone unsupported by pertinent evidence. Coyne’s unwillingness or inability to grasp the argument for design does not mean the argument hasn’t been made.

Behe's "argument" for intelligent design is evidence of an argument, not evidence of intelligent design. Evidence of intelligent design remains void. This is not surprising.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6032
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

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

#3  Postby Fenrir » Mar 19, 2019 1:25 pm

"Responded to" might be too strong a phrase there.

Perhaps "flailed at" would better suit.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3278
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

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

#4  Postby Keep It Real » Mar 19, 2019 3:05 pm

But the tuxedo is fraying, for intelligent design has been rejected not just by biologists but also by judges who recognize it as poorly disguised religion. Nevertheless, its advocates persist. Among the most vocal is Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University whose previous books, despite withering criticism from scientists, have sold well in a country where 76 percent of us think God had some role in human evolution.


If it pays well to flog a dead horse, some might well keep flogging, despite the rotting filthy stench of the decaying corpse.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell play people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell
User avatar
Keep It Real
 
Posts: 7994
Age: 38
Male

England (eng)
Print view this post

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

#5  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 19, 2019 3:52 pm

newolder wrote:Your source:
Coyne, "Like his creationist kin, Behe devotes his time not to giving evidence for intelligent design but to attacking evolutionary biology."

Gee, Coyne must have missed Chapter 10 in Darwin Devolves, “A Terrible Thing to Waste,” as well as Chapters 8 and 9 in Darwin’s Black Box (“Intelligent Design” and “Questions About Design”) and Chapter 11 in The Edge of Evolution (“All the World’s a Stage”). I explain at length in those chapters and elsewhere that the work of a mind — design — is evinced precisely by the purposeful arrangement of parts, such as is found in abundance in life. For pretty much the entirety of recorded history until Darwin almost everyone thought life was designed exactly for that reason — the arrangement of parts for a purpose — as I discuss in the Preface to the book. Contrary to Coyne, it is Darwin’s audacious assertion — that complex interactive functional structures could be produced by random variation and natural selection — that has gone unsupported by pertinent evidence. Coyne’s unwillingness or inability to grasp the argument for design does not mean the argument hasn’t been made.

Behe's "argument" for intelligent design is evidence of an argument, not evidence of intelligent design. Evidence of intelligent design remains void. This is not surprising.


Hermann Joseph Müller destroyed Behe's pseudo-argument six decades before Behe was born.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 21982
Age: 57
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#6  Postby Animavore » Mar 19, 2019 4:15 pm

What's the name of the fallacy he's using when he says that people believed for millennia in design and purpose in life, as if that lends credibility to the argument?

I've forgotten it.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 42511
Age: 40
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

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

#7  Postby newolder » Mar 19, 2019 4:27 pm

Calilasseia wrote:...

Hermann Joseph Müller destroyed Behe's pseudo-argument six decades before Behe was born.

My attempt at "Whack-a-Mole" is puny in comparison to such sledgehammery.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6032
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#8  Postby LucidFlight » Mar 19, 2019 4:50 pm

Animavore wrote:What's the name of the fallacy he's using when he says that people believed for millennia in design and purpose in life, as if that lends credibility to the argument?

I've forgotten it.


Argumentum ad populum magnus tempus. :ask:
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10419
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#9  Postby Rumraket » Mar 19, 2019 10:03 pm

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.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13078
Age: 38

Print view this post

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

#10  Postby romansh » Mar 19, 2019 10:50 pm

https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/News/evolution.html
Behe's colleagues:
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2675

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

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

#11  Postby Fenrir » Mar 19, 2019 10:54 pm

I can hardly wait for Wortfish's next drive-by content-free comment on this exciting and important topic.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3278
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

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

#12  Postby laklak » Mar 20, 2019 2:21 am


<snip>A pious Catholic, Behe sees the designer as the Christian God but concedes that there could be other mutation-makers.
Attachments
awiens.jpg
awiens.jpg (50.3 KiB) Viewed 409 times
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19252
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

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

#13  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 13, 2019 2:22 am

Good idea — let’s link the author to a scorned group right at the start and smear his motives.


But they ARE his (your) motives, and he IS (you are) a member of that scorned group. Incidentally, the reason that group is scorned is because they pretend to be doing science while failing abysmally at it.

But we’ll call him a “creationist” anyway, to milk that epithet for all it’s worth.


But he IS (you are) a creationist. The cap doesn't just fit; it's proudly worn.

I spent half of Chapter 8 on Thornton’s work, discussing why it shows deep and unexpected problems for Darwinian evolution. Coyne not only doesn’t summarize my argument, he doesn’t even tell readers I make one.


But only peers are valid for peer review.

Wow, the great theologian Jerry Coyne has determined that God wouldn’t have done it that way — no need for actual evidence that Darwin’s mechanism can do the job. We all anxiously await the unveiling of Coyne’s superior designs for a clotting cascade and a flagellum.


An evidence-free assertion can be dismissed without evidence. When that evidence-free assertion is logically flawed, then logic alone is sufficient to critique its credibility.

If one wishes to invoke a necessary designer due to allegedly designed quantities, then the lack of those designed quantities, or worse, observations which are in direct contradiction to any designed quantity is perfectly adequate as a rebuttal.

So Coyne can’t think of a purpose for an eye? Or for the leg gears of the planthopper? Or for the supercharged flagellum of the magnetotatic bacterium MO-1? That’s funny — the authors of the science papers on those systems that I cite in the book seem to have had no trouble identifying their purpose.


Not purpose: function.

Coyne being an actual expert in his field understands what terminology is relevant to the topic matter and isn't obliged to employ woolly language used by those lacking relevant expertise.

Coyne can certainly tell the function of an eye, a leg, etc.


Can Coyne tell the difference between a plant and an animal? Between a bird and a fish? A cat and a dog? Sure, as I discuss in the book, a classification system is a human invention and so it inevitably has uncertainties, ambiguities, and mistakes. But implying that biological classification reflects nothing real is disingenuous at best.


Biological classification is a means of simplifying a continuity by creating false but useful discrete characteristics. Obviously Behe leaps to absurd extremes to pretend it's nonsensical, but then how do you tell one bird from another, one fish from another, one cat from another, one dog from another? How do you tell a continuous evolution of form apart - by creating wholly synthetic breaks in the continuity. This biological classification is useful in the same way a map is useful to imagine terrain, but one cannot seriously claim that the map constrains the terrain.

I wrote a section in Chapter 8 titled “Evolution by Gene Duplication Revisited” in which I explain why duplication and diversification by Darwinian processes may account for some things but not for others. I specifically explain why I changed my mind about sophisticated hemoglobin, which would require much more modification starting from a simple myoglobin-like gene than would mere duplication of opsin (color-vision) genes. Coyne doesn’t even let readers know I discuss it.


He's not obliged to, and his omission could just as easily be seen as the principle of charity.

It never ceases to amaze me that Darwinists like Coyne are unable to separate the question of what happened from the question of how it happened. Okay, flightless dinosaurs had feathers and birds can now fly. So what exactly is the evidence that it happened by a Darwinian process? What is the evidence that a Darwinian process could even, say, differentiate owls and crows from a common ancestor? I argue at length in the book that unintelligent processes aren’t remotely up to those tasks. Without any substantive counter-argument, Coyne simply responds like a kid on a playground: “Yes they can too do that!”


It similarly never ceases to amaze me that Creationists can continue to pretend that the mechanism of evolution is undefined or unknown. The how it happened is through genetic mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, and statistical changes in alleles across generations of a population. This has been established beyond credible doubt, so denying that it exists indicates only that you lack credibility as a serious scientist.

Gee, Coyne must have missed Chapter 10 in Darwin Devolves, “A Terrible Thing to Waste,” as well as Chapters 8 and 9 in Darwin’s Black Box (“Intelligent Design” and “Questions About Design”) and Chapter 11 in The Edge of Evolution (“All the World’s a Stage”). I explain at length in those chapters and elsewhere that the work of a mind — design — is evinced precisely by the purposeful arrangement of parts, such as is found in abundance in life. For pretty much the entirety of recorded history until Darwin almost everyone thought life was designed exactly for that reason — the arrangement of parts for a purpose — as I discuss in the Preface to the book. Contrary to Coyne, it is Darwin’s audacious assertion — that complex interactive functional structures could be produced by random variation and natural selection — that has gone unsupported by pertinent evidence. Coyne’s unwillingness or inability to grasp the argument for design does not mean the argument hasn’t been made.


And as has been shown innumerable times, the argument made by Creationists is purely one from ignorance. How do they know a trait is evidence of intent? Because of the 'purposeful' arrangement of parts... that's just question-begging. Is there an obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in the vagus nerve? No, there's not. So how does a Creationist explain that? They don't. They cherrypick the ones they think they can get away with, but never actually provide any metric of purposefulness, or intent, or design - no rubric that could be tested. They assume designedness as they argue for it. Scientists don't need to address this anymore - it's been defeated in the marketplace of ideas. Get a new argument, or do the legwork necessary in constructing a rubric, then come back to the table. Otherwise, dismissed.

Actually, they stem from our personal awareness that we can reason, speak, think abstractly, and so on — in other words, that we have minds — which arguably is the most profound attribute in the world. By the way, I also wrote in the book that there are good reasons to doubt that giraffes could arise from a shorter-necked relative like the okapi, even though they are in the same biological family. For some reason Coyne doesn’t ascribe my skepticism there to Christian belief.


Minds considering themselves the most profound things in the world... how droll.

Writing that there are reasons to doubt that a giraffe could arise from a shorter-necked animal runs foul of the problem of ignoring all those rather inconvenient intermediary fossils in the lineage of giraffes, for example Samotherium, Palaeotragus, Bohlinia, sivalensis etc. It is not Coyne or anyone else's fault that you are obliged to ignore empirical evidence to forward poorly conceived hypothetical arguments. If you want to be taken seriously in science, acknowledge all available evidence rather than ignoring anything inconvenient to your presuppositions.

Yes, the horrible threat of a group trying to persuade people of its ideas by writing books and articles has so far been countered by brave folks like Jerry Coyne, who use the kind of overwhelming evidence and impeccable logic showcased in his book review.


No, the horrible threat of having religious fundamentalists overturn through political shenanigans the most effective tool of garnering knowledge that humanity has alighted upon.

Coyne is quite the prominent evolutionary biologist, and has been antagonistic to intelligent design arguments for decades.


As are all evolutionary biologists because intelligent design is bullshit and bullshit should be tossed out rather than continuously be resurrected by anti-science religious apologists.

If Darwin’s theory were actually the powerful idea it’s claimed to be, Coyne should have been able to counter design easily, simply by summarizing its arguments and showing how Darwin deals with them.


Why would Darwin be expected to have foreseen religious nonsense fabricated a century after his death?

Darwin's theory is not just a powerful idea, it is the cornerstone of all modern Biology, including ALL sub-disciplines in that field. It is Biology's unifying theory, and it provably, unquestionably works. It's not just a good explanation of all the evidence; it's the only explanation of all the evidence... whereas, intelligent design has been shown time and time again to be nothing more than religion desperate to garner the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise as anyone with half a clue realizes that the evidence of the last century or so absolutely buries the claims religionists make that fall into the domain of empirical knowledge.

We'll wait for you to catch up.
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: 22987
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#14  Postby WayOfTheDodo » Apr 13, 2019 3:34 pm

What the hell? Is Behe still going on about this?
User avatar
WayOfTheDodo
 
Name: Raphus Cucullatus
Posts: 1956

Mauritius (mu)
Print view this post

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

#15  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 13, 2019 3:38 pm

Manufactured controversies aimed at the gullible are how he makes a living. That he can't cut it with his peers is all grist for the mill with said gullibles.
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: 22987
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#16  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 13, 2019 8:29 pm

Incidentally, this thread should really be titled: Behe's review of Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism
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: 22987
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#17  Postby Svartalf » Apr 13, 2019 10:23 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
newolder wrote:Your source:
Coyne, "Like his creationist kin, Behe devotes his time not to giving evidence for intelligent design but to attacking evolutionary biology."

Gee, Coyne must have missed Chapter 10 in Darwin Devolves, “A Terrible Thing to Waste,” as well as Chapters 8 and 9 in Darwin’s Black Box (“Intelligent Design” and “Questions About Design”) and Chapter 11 in The Edge of Evolution (“All the World’s a Stage”). I explain at length in those chapters and elsewhere that the work of a mind — design — is evinced precisely by the purposeful arrangement of parts, such as is found in abundance in life. For pretty much the entirety of recorded history until Darwin almost everyone thought life was designed exactly for that reason — the arrangement of parts for a purpose — as I discuss in the Preface to the book. Contrary to Coyne, it is Darwin’s audacious assertion — that complex interactive functional structures could be produced by random variation and natural selection — that has gone unsupported by pertinent evidence. Coyne’s unwillingness or inability to grasp the argument for design does not mean the argument hasn’t been made.

Behe's "argument" for intelligent design is evidence of an argument, not evidence of intelligent design. Evidence of intelligent design remains void. This is not surprising.


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?
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 836
Age: 49
Male

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

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

#18  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 13, 2019 10:46 pm

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
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: 22987
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#19  Postby Wortfish » Apr 14, 2019 11:46 pm

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. Also, compensation is a type of selection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8944162
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

#20  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 14, 2019 11:53 pm

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


:ask:

It categorically isn't.

Behe's focus is on undermining and attacking materialistic science and replacing it ultimately with Christianity.
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: 22987
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest