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…
A post was split to a new topic: Polyphen, Ratchets, and Recombination
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.
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.
@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.
What features?
He’s dismissing the importance of neutral theory to what?
Neutral theory is required to account for some features of what?
To understanding the evolution of complex functional systems.
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.
One of the most well known examples is the proliferation of homeobox genes through duplications that would have initially been neutral:
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. 
Why wouldn’t neutral evolution contribute to complex adaptations?
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.
That’s what I said Behe thinks, also directly quoting Behe.
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.
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?
And in this he misrepresents theory.
Can you cite a paper that you think best articulates this hypothesis?