Why does he have to do that? He still has his legions of adoring fans who will buy his books. Do you think he really cares about engaging with people who actually understand evolution? How much fame glory and riches are there in that?
3 Likes
In the Lutheran tradition we teach that the 8th Commandment would have us put the best construction on people’s actions. It seems to me that this is assuming the worst of a brother in Christ. Agree or disagree with his science (I’m in no place to judge his science), but no need to call into question his integrity and character.
3 Likes
This may be a bit overkill, but I found this interesting review paper:
Long story short, a mutation in one genetic background may be deleterious, but is not deleterious in a different genetic background. Neutral mutations can prevent future mutations from being deleterious.
2 Likes
Although I’ve spent most of the book discussing it, Darwin’s isn’t the only theory of evolution on offer these days—“neo” or not. As detailed in Chapters 4 and 5, a substantial number of scientists, discontented with the current state of affairs, have weighed in with potential supplements or alternatives, from the neutral theory championed by Michael Lynch, to the complexity theory investigated by Stuart Kauffman, to the inclusive inheritance and niche construction theories proposed by proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis, to the natural genetic engineering theory put forth by James Shapiro.
Behe, Michael J… Darwin Devolves (p. 251). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.
Yup you are out of context quoting him. Great job.
So I have to quote the entire book?
Just stop misrepresenting him to win a cheap point. He is pretty clear that he brings up all these things (such as neutral theory) just to say that they aren’t important going forward. Yes he mentions many important mechanism in evolution, just to conclude they aren’t really that important. It works great to argue “he has been misrepresented” but it still means his argument is tilting against windmills.
4 Likes
They are not important to what? The answer to that question is relevant. For example, he explicitly states that neutral theory is an important advance in our understanding of evolution.
So if someone were to claim that Mike Behe denies the importance of neutral evolution that statement would need to be qualified.
And if someone were to claim that Mike Behe thinks neutral evolution is irrelevant to understanding how evolution progresses that would be downright false.
1 Like
Well, neither he nor anyone else is my “brother in Christ.” However, I can’t help but remark on how you have just violated that commandment yourself, in your reaponse to my comment.
2 Likes
Exactly as we have qualified it. He brings it up merely to dismiss it. Then he goes on to tilt against the windmill. Classic Behe :). Very entertaining.
3 Likes
This is a very good point that’s worth repeating. The effects of genetic background are strong even among individuals from the same species. When experimental biologists want to isolate the effects of particular genetic variants they tend to first inbreed their organisms heavily in order to produce a uniform genetic background (or as close to uniform as possible) that they can use for experimental manipulation. Without doing this, even the normal amount of genetic variation present within populations of the same species can seriously confound efforts to understand how the genotype influences phenotype.
To me, this suggests that epistasis is pervasive.
3 Likes
Another statement that needs to be qualified.
For example:
The proposed role of neutral theory in the increase of genome size is fascinating, clever, and innovative and may even be correct.
And:
Although you might not think so, neutral evolution at the protein and DNA levels can give scientists who study it a lot of information.
That hardly sounds dismissive.
It’s as if everything is black or white for you, but surely there are some things that Behe writes about neutral theory and neutral evolution that you can agree with.
As far as your disagreement, what do you see as their role in adaptive evolution?
1 Like
No, it would be the correct conclusion to draw from his writings. He things adaptations requiring more than a certain number of mutations is beyond the “Edge of Evolution.” He reaches this conclusion by ignoring neutral evolution. If he thought it was relevant, he would have included it in his considerations of the question. But then he would have no book to write, because he would have to conclude that evolution is true.
2 Likes
It’s a lot like how, when facing criticism that his calculations in “Edge” presumed the required mutations must occur simultaneously, he gave lip service to the possibility that they could also occur sequentially - then when right on using the calculations that presumed simultaneity. This despite Ken Miller and others pointing this out in clear and detailed explanations. Can you explain why he still does not understand this point, which requires nothing more than a high school level understanding of mathematics?
3 Likes
Also by misquoting White! 
I actually sent White an email asking his opinion of Behe’s use of his research. His reaction was brief and to the point: “Sounds nuts!”. But even more revealing was the fact that he had never even heard of Behe, never mind his book. Wouldn’t you think Behe would have tried to contact him to confirm how White determined the 10^-20 figure that is such a crucial aspect of Behe’s argument? White never actually spells it out (Understandlably since it is not a crucial figure for his research.)
2 Likes
Mung tried to pull the same nonsense spin over on the skeptical zone as he’s doing here. He’s trying to somehow pretend Behe considers all the facts and isn’t actually antievolution, but he can only do that by avoiding Behe’s whole goddamn point with his book, that evolution is insufficient to produce the diversity and complexity of life, and requires some sort of outside help from his intelligent designer.
So Mung, you’re reading the book? Behe must bring up his 2010 publication where he defines his “loss”, “modification”, and “gain” of FCT categories. Can you elaborate on the context in which he does this?
3 Likes
They provide the basis for potentially taking on new functions, and constructive neutral evolution.
Adaptive evolution doesn’t have to always or even mostly be complexity-generating. The complexity generation is actually mostly through adaptive “degeneration” of expanding numbers of genetic elements, such as gene duplications. That’s the whole point here. Behe looks at life, sees all this complexy and all these functions, and concludes that because most molecular evolution is “degenerative” of functions, this means evolution can not have created all these functions and all this complexity we see, it must have had outside help. That’s his point.
But is that actually true? Does that logically follow from the observation that most molecular evolution is “degenerative”? Or is it possible that we can get new functions and more complexity through a process that adaptively “breaks” or “degrades” many more genes than it “creates” or “enhances”?
There’s nothing logically problematic about that. So yes, we can. Like this:
Red rectangles highlight what is being duplicated and passed on.
This is “adaptive devolution” of increased complexity, and new functions, by mostly “degrading” and mostly “breaking” genes. Because these extra genes are costly to express, their death is adaptive, and so is the eventual deletion of them. And because the still functional ones accumulate deleterious mutations because these are more frequent than beneficial ones, their duplication is also some times adaptive(more expressed genes compensates for each individual gene being weaker). Eventually a previously dead gene locus (effectively having become non-coding DNA) evolves into a de novo protein coding gene. So one new function is evolved and enhanced, while all the rest degrades and breaks. The net result is more complexity and more functions than there was to begin with. And it happened almost exclusively through neutral and adaptive degeneration.
4 Likes
The fact that Behe mentions neutral theory alongside the EEC and “natural genetic engineering” is telling, even without context. To him, it’s apparently some kind of fringe idea.
3 Likes
Why didn’t you quote the next couple of sentences?
Although I’ve spent most of the book discussing it, Darwin’s isn’t the only theory of evolution on offer these days—“neo” or not. As detailed in Chapters 4 and 5, a substantial number of scientists, discontented with the current state of affairs, have weighed in with potential supplements or alternatives, from the neutral theory championed by Michael Lynch, to the complexity theory investigated by Stuart Kauffman, to the inclusive inheritance and niche construction theories proposed by proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis, to the natural genetic engineering theory put forth by James Shapiro. Can one of them pick up the ball that Darwin fumbled?
The answer is a flat no. Of course, each of the proffered alternatives points to one or a few classes of phenomena that it has a reasonable shot of accounting for, at least in part. But none of them have the resources to explain the basic, functional, sophisticated molecular machinery of life.
As @swamidass said - Behe brings it up only to dismiss it.
6 Likes