Posted: 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.