# Behe: How DNA Science Undermines Evolution, 3/1/19

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Theology\
**Created:** [March 2, 2019, 6:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000 "2019-03-02T18:37:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 2:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/62 "2019-03-05T14:46:59Z")

</div>

Here’s another quote from Behe’s new book:

> Nonetheless, by definition neutral theory has nothing at all to say about how _sophisticated functional_ cellular systems arose.

It certainly sounds like he’s dismissing the importance of neutral theory to me…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/63 "2019-03-05T15:34:30Z")

</div>

Split this topic on March 5, 2019, 3:34pm UTC

A post was split to a new topic: [Polyphen, Ratchets, and Recombination](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/polyphen-ratchets-and-recombination/5088)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 3:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/64 "2019-03-05T15:57:44Z")

</div>

> [@evograd](#):
>
> Here’s another quote from Behe’s new book:
> 
> > Nonetheless, by definition neutral theory has nothing at all to say about how _sophisticated functional_ cellular systems arose.
> 
> It certainly sounds like he’s dismissing the importance of neutral theory to me…

That quote is of course total nonsense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/65 "2019-03-05T16:34:58Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> That quote is of course total nonsense.

It’s curious to me how Behe can simultaneously talk about neutral mutations facilitating future adaptations and then say something like that quote.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/66 "2019-03-05T16:40:54Z")

</div>

> [@evograd](#):
>
> It certainly sounds like he’s dismissing the importance of neutral theory to me…

He is simply saying neutral theory does not account for complex adaptions. If you read the book he cites contributions of neutral theory.

His focus on ID is targeted at the origin of complex cellular function.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/67 "2019-03-05T16:43:03Z")

</div>

@colewd the point is that he is wrong about that. Neutral theory is required to account for complex features. By taking it off the table he is constructing a strawman. That is our point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/68 "2019-03-05T16:44:11Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Neutral theory is required to account for comes features

What features?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a5b964/32.png) [@Mung](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mung)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/69 "2019-03-05T16:46:18Z")

</div>

> [@evograd](#):
>
> It certainly sounds like he’s dismissing the importance of neutral theory to me…

He’s dismissing the importance of neutral theory to what?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a5b964/32.png) [@Mung](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mung)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/70 "2019-03-05T16:47:46Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Neutral theory is required to account for comes features.

Neutral theory is required to account for some features of what?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/71 "2019-03-05T16:49:42Z")

</div>

> [@Mung](#):
>
> He’s dismissing the importance of neutral theory to what?

To understanding the evolution of complex functional systems.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/72 "2019-03-05T16:53:00Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> If you read the book he cites contributions of neutral theory.

I know he mentions molecular clocks and using neutral evolution as a null hypothesis for protein evolution, but my point (as was mentioned earlier) is that Behe clearly doesn’t consider neutral theory to be relevant in a discussion about how complex functional systems actually arose.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/73 "2019-03-05T16:54:29Z")

</div>

> [@evograd](#):
>
> I know he mentions molecular clocks and using neutral evolution as a null hypothesis for protein evolution, but my point (as was mentioned earlier) is that Behe clearly doesn’t consider neutral theory to be relevant in a discussion about how complex functional systems actually arose.

You got it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/74 "2019-03-05T16:59:43Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> What features?

One of the most well known examples is the proliferation of homeobox genes through duplications that would have initially been neutral:

> [@](#):
>
> The [vertebrate](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/vertebrate) body plan is characterized by an increased complexity relative to that of all other [chordates](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/chordata) and large-scale [gene amplifications](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/gene-amplification)have been associated with key morphological innovations leading to their remarkable evolutionary success. Here, we use compound full _Hox_ clusters deletions to investigate how _Hox_ genes duplications may have contributed to the emergence of vertebrate-specific innovations. We show that the combined deletion of _HoxA_ and _HoxB_ leads to an atavistic heart phenotype, suggesting that the ancestral _HoxA_ / _B_ cluster was co-opted to help in diversifying the complex organ in vertebrates. Other phenotypic effects observed seem to illustrate the resurgence of ancestral (plesiomorphic) features. This indicates that the duplications of _Hox_ clusters were associated with the recruitment or formation of novel cis-regulatory controls, which were key to the evolution of many vertebrate features and hence to the evolutionary radiation of this group.  
> [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160613001334](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160613001334)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a5b964/32.png) [@Mung](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mung)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/75 "2019-03-05T17:00:51Z")

</div>

> [@evograd](#):
>
> To understanding the evolution of complex functional systems.

In Behe’s words:

> **the basic, functional, sophisticated molecular machinery of life.**

So it’s not that neutral evolution is not important, nor that it is irrelevant to understanding how evolution progresses, but that it is not important in a very particular respect. Its ability to explain complex adaptations.

So qualifications are needed, and that is what I have been saying.

Now Behe argues that in the case of neutral evolution it is in principle incapable because adaptations are by definition selectable, where neutral mutation are by definition not. In other words, Behe offers an argument and it seems to me the thing to do would be to address his argument rather than just dismissing it as irrelevant. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/76 "2019-03-05T17:03:19Z")

</div>

> [@Mung](#):
>
> So it’s not that neutral evolution is not important, nor that it is irrelevant to understanding how evolution progresses, but that it is not important in a very particular respect. Its ability to explain complex adaptations.

Why wouldn’t neutral evolution contribute to complex adaptations?

> [@Mung](#):
>
> Now Behe argues that in the case of neutral evolution it is in principle incapable because adaptations are by definition selectable, where neutral mutation are by definition not.

Beneficial adaptations that require prior neutral adaptations are selectable. Increases in complexity can also be due to neutral mutations, such as the duplication of Hox genes or any genes for that matter.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/77 "2019-03-05T17:06:18Z")

</div>

> [@Mung](#):
>
> that it is not important in a very particular respect. Its ability to explain complex adaptations.

That’s what I said Behe thinks, also directly quoting Behe.

> [@Mung](#):
>
> Now Behe argues that in the case of neutral evolution it is in principle incapable because adaptations are by definition selectable, where neutral mutation are by definition not.

Exactly, and I think this is just fundamentally flawed. A “neutral mutation” is not a fixed identity. Long story short, neutral mutations can become adaptive down the line, so understanding the spread of these “potential adaptive mutations” is critically important. I think that “constructive neutral evolution” has been brought up here recently, and I also think that it’s a pretty glaring oversight that Behe doesn’t mention this by name, or even reference people like Arlin Soltzfus.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/78 "2019-03-05T17:09:40Z")

</div>

> [@evograd](#):
>
> I think that “constructive neutral evolution” has been brought up here recently, and I also think that it’s a pretty glaring oversight that Behe doesn’t mention this by name, or even reference people like Arlin Soltzfus.

Can you expand on why you think this is important?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![evograd](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/evograd/32/1233_2.png) [@evograd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/evograd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/79 "2019-03-05T17:14:53Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Can you expand on why you think this is important?

Why I think it’s important that Behe dismisses the importance of **neutral theory to the evolution of complex functional systems** without mentioning a fairly well-known model for the contribution of **neutral theory to the evolution of complex functional systems**?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/80 "2019-03-05T17:17:29Z")

</div>

> [@Mung](#):
>
> Now Behe argues that in the case of neutral evolution it is in principle incapable because adaptations are by definition selectable, where neutral mutation are by definition not.

And in this he misrepresents theory.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/81 "2019-03-05T17:17:35Z")

</div>

> [@evograd](#):
>
> Why I think it’s important that Behe dismisses the importance of **neutral theory to the evolution of complex functional systems** without mentioning a fairly well-known model for the contribution of **neutral theory to the evolution of complex functional systems**?

Can you cite a paper that you think best articulates this hypothesis?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000.md?page=5)