Behe Meets the Peaceful Science Forum

My point was that his quantitative analysis of the ratio of mutation types relies almost exclusively on experiments conducted in labs.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

In Behe QRB Table 1, only 8 “wild” mutations were examined, of which half are not loss-of-function. This dataset is vastly too small to support any broader conclusions.

Behe QRB Tables 2, 3, and 4 all examine the ratio of mutations in laboratory experiments.

And that’s it! That is the entirety of the data on which Behe relies to speculate that the ratio observed in the wild would (supposedly) overwhelmingly favor loss-of-function mutations rather than gain-of-function.

Anyone who has taken an entry level probability and statistics course can recognize that Behe’s conclusions are invalid.

Extensive examples have been discussed in this very forum. I notice that you have not participated in any of those threads, so I post links to them below so you can read the research papers that are linked in the threads. You will find that your diligence in reading the threads and the papers cited will be rewarded by the revelation of a fascinating body of research that you have never seen before. Enjoy!

Chris

3 Likes