Posted: Dec 23, 2010 3:32 pm
sam_j wrote:As I read it, Behe was careful to distinguish between the molecular function and the phenotypic function. The phenotype might have a function, but Behe was restricting his paper to only molecular function, which might not seem to apply at the level of a whole limb (as there may be a number of molecular functions affecting a limb). I don't know a whole lot about genetics in detail so the following illustration may not be a good one, but in terms of what Behe was discussing, if a mutation occurred that prevented an inhibitor from activating due to a point mutation, preventing restriction of size of a limb part for example then Behe would consider that a loss of function mutation, even if the change in size allowed a new morphological function, e.g. allowing a fin to be used for propulsion along the bottom, or to be impressive to attract a mate, as well as a previous function of steering while swimming.
Well, that's just the point, isn't it? I fail to see how this helps the creationist cause. If he is trying to argue that evolution won't work without God, because only God can produce "FTC's" or whatever Behe wants to call them, it entirely undercuts his position to remind everyone that non-"FTC" mutations can still produce beneficial changes.