Behe vindicated, again!

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

But in the long run, these helpful degradative mutations are certainly a bad thing for they « will make a species evolutionary brittle and more prone to extinction».

That would be true if there was no compensating mechanism. But there is. Gene duplication.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Ah, Giltil. Well, if we’re going to talk about honesty, I think it’s probably necessary to revisit what your standard for honesty is. You may recall the thread where I raised this astonishing quote by Douglas Axe, describing the consensus of current evolutionary biologists in these terms:

“The current stance is that evolution was so successful that it perfected life to the point where modern forms no longer evolve, making the whole process even further removed from the category of observable phenomena.”

You regarded that as an honest statement by Axe of the state of the views of biologists. You continued to regard it as such while biologist after biologist informed you that this was barking mad. It is, in fact, barking mad, but, in the grossest abuse of the patience and tolerance of others, you went on for some time, insisting that this was a perfectly honest and, indeed, unremarkable observation by Axe.

As this discussion you refer to took place quite some time ago, I don’t remember much of what I said there. What I do remember is that I defended the idea that evolution today was, if not at a standstill, at least considerably slowed down compared to what had happened in the past. And to support this thesis, I invoked Pierre Paul Grasse, one of the most eminent zoologists of the 20th century, who supported precisely this thesis. In other words, as far as I can remember, I defended the idea expressed by Axe that evolution was not far from being at a standstill, but I did not defend the idea that all biologists shared this idea. If it happens that I did, then I was wrong, but not dishonest for in that case it would mean that I really thought it was the case. If it happens that I didn’t, then you were wrong and you owe me an apology for accusing me of dishonesty.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

Degradative mutations, indeed a form of genetic entropy, are not necessarily a bad thing in the short term for the evidence are piling up that they are the cause of most adaptations. But in the long run, these helpful degradative mutations are certainly a bad thing for they « will make a species evolutionary brittle and more prone to extinction

So the pejorative sense was indeed intentional. This is argument by label. Genetic entropy is a false hypothesis that relies on misinterpreting evidence. That most adaptations result from “degradative mutations” is not in evidence. That they would make a species “brittle” is not in evidence. The evidence instead says that genes are gained and lost throughout evolution, and adaptations can result from all manner of changes of which deletion or inactivation of genes is only one.

@Giltil

Why pretend that Behe pretends that it’s the only thing we see?

Because that’s what you’ve been saying? OK, not quite “only”, just “most”. But neither is true.

@Giltil

I invoked Pierre Paul Grasse, one of the most eminent zoologists of the 20th century, who supported precisely this thesis.

See how much work “eminent” is doing in that sentence? More argument by label.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

I’m not at all sure why you think I have accused you of dishonesty. Dishonesty is only one possible explanation for your behavior, and I haven’t ventured an opinion as to what the most likely explanation is. What I am saying is that you are no judge of honesty, because you defended Axe’s obviously dishonest, obviously indefensible statement. Your invocation of Pierre-Paul Grasse to show the state of the consensus of modern biologists was so irrelevant, bizarre and off-the-wall that it was hard to know what to make of it other that you were grasping for anything you could possibly hold on to. If your notion of “honesty” is so broad as to be capable of including that statement by Axe, then your notion of “honesty” is so much at odds with ordinary notions of honesty that it would be useless to have a conversation about honesty with you.

That thread genuinely impressed me. I see a great deal in creationism that is bizarre and hard to explain by resort to ordinary principles of psychology, and still, that really impressed me.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

I defended the idea expressed by Axe that evolution was not far from being at a standstill, but I did not defend the idea that all biologists shared this idea

No biologist shares the idea expressed by Axe that “The current stance is that evolution was so successful that it perfected life to the point where modern forms no longer evolve”.

I don’t think there is a single biologist on Earth who agrees with that.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

As far as I know, Behe is the first to have reviewed in such a systematic way the typology of molecular changes underlying adaptations observed in 4 decades of evolutionary experiments with microbes.

How many reviews of experimental microbial evolution have YOU read, Gil?

And presumably by “systematic,” you mean “ignoring all of the evidence Behe doesn’t like”? That could be described as a system, I guess…

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Your invocation of Pierre-Paul Grasse to show the state of the consensus of modern biologists was so irrelevant, bizarre and off-the-wall that it was hard to know what to make of it other that you were grasping for anything you could possibly hold on to

I am not invoking Pierre-Paul Grasse to show the state of the consensus of modern biologists. I am invoking him to show that my belief that evolution is now mostly at a standstill was hold by an eminent zoologist. That’s all. Once again, you’ve misrepresented what I said. Please stop.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@T_aquaticus

Do you think the differences between humans and other apes is all due to destructive evolution?

No

@T_aquaticus

If not, then wouldn’t the constructive differences be counter-examples to Behe’s claims?

Behe doesn’t deny that constructive differences exist. He simply think that a lot of them were not caused by some blind evolutionary mechanism such as RV+NS but by design.

[John_Harshman]

@Giltil

I invoked Pierre Paul Grasse, one of the most eminent zoologists of the 20th century, who supported precisely this thesis.

Now I’m curious. Can you find a quote of Grasse making that claim? It’s hard to believe that any biologist would ever have said such a thing.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

I am not invoking Pierre-Paul Grasse to show the state of the consensus of modern biologists. I am invoking him to show that my belief that evolution is now mostly at a standstill was hold by an eminent zoologist. That’s all.

You’re moving the goalpost:

@Giltil

Pierre P Grasse, one of the most eminent zoologists of his time, insisted on this very fact that creative evolution clearly appears to have come to an end.

Clearly!!!

@Giltil

Once again, you’ve misrepresented what I said. Please stop.

Clearly, you’re misrepresenting what you said. Please stop.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Giltil

I am not invoking Pierre-Paul Grasse to show the state of the consensus of modern biologists. I am invoking him to show that my belief that evolution is now mostly at a standstill was hold by an eminent zoologist. That’s all. Once again, you’ve misrepresented what I said. Please stop.

ME stop? You’re misrepresenting your own statements. You know, all of this is in the original thread. People can read it. It’s atrocious, but strangely fascinating.

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/env-behe-and-swamidass-debate-evolution-and-intelligent-design-at-texas-a-m/

If you don’t want rubbish that flows from your own mouth to be the subject of discussion, you probably shouldn’t let it flow in the first place. If you want to be regarded as a person with some kind of credibility in discussing evolutionary biology, likewise. I encourage anyone who would like a laugh to have a look at that thread and at the silly things you said there.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Mercer

@Giltil

As far as I know, Behe is the first to have reviewed in such a systematic way the typology of molecular changes underlying adaptations observed in 4 decades of evolutionary experiments with microbes.

How many reviews of experimental microbial evolution have YOU read, Gil?

And presumably by “systematic,” you mean “ignoring all of the evidence Behe doesn’t like”? That could be described as a system, I guess…

I stand by my claim. It seems that you disagree with me. Very well. So I guess you can cite at least some reviews predating 2010 that provided a typology of mutations causing adaptation in lab experiments on microbes and that noted that most of these helpful adaptive mutations were degradative mutations. I am waiting for your list….

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

Behe doesn’t deny that constructive differences exist. He simply think that a lot of them were not caused by some blind evolutionary mechanism such as RV+NS but by design.

Heads Behe wins, tails I lose. Go figure.

So even when we can find the constructive evolutionary changes, they don’t count because Behe just refuses to believe evolution can produce them. This would also mean that even if we saw these changes occur right in front of us Behe would also reject them as evidence against his beliefs. What we are left with is an unfalsifiable belief.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Behe doesn’t deny that constructive differences exist. He simply think that a lot of them were not caused by some blind evolutionary mechanism such as RV+NS but by design.

So Behe is fine with inferring that “devolution” occurred naturally by comparisons of the genomes of different species (with a rooted phylogeny), but he would reject that gains in genes/functions occurred naturally if we can show that with a phylogeny too? Do I have that correct?

[John_Harshman]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

You know, all of this is in the original thread. People can read it. It’s atrocious, but strangely fascinating.

Oh, my. That’s very bad. But at least he eventually posted the quote from Grasse that he’s relying on here. That sure didn’t hold up well.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Giltil

@John_Harshman

You make it sound like a bad thing that results in deterioration of the genome, a form of genetic entropy

Degradative mutations, indeed a form of genetic entropy, are not necessarily a bad thing in the short term for the evidence are piling up that they are the cause of most adaptations. But in the long run, these helpful degradative mutations are certainly a bad thing for they « will make a species evolutionary brittle and more prone to extinction».

I’m not sure we can apply terms good/bad in this context. It might be “bad” for a given species at a given time, and that species might go extinct. 99% of all known species are extinct, so I don’t think it is bad so much as it is normal. Those degradations are also creating new variability in the population, increasing the likelihood of adaptation to environmental changes, allowing some descendants of the original species to survive (sometimes). From the perspective of all like, it is “good” that life has this capacity to adapt, rather than maintaining fixed species forever.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@John_Harshman

That sure didn’t hold up well.

No, not terribly well. It sort of went from “I don’t see what’s the matter with what Axe said” to “I am sure I’ve heard that from somebody before, so isn’t that the consensus of modern biologists?” to “well, okay, there once was Grasse, who believed this, so it must be the consensus view” to “well, okay, Grasse didn’t actually believe this, but did think evolution had slowed down somewhat, and hardly anyone agreed with him.” It was sort of The Incredible Shrinking Creationist. Along the way, the thesis that Axe had accurately stated the consensus view of modern evolutionary biologists did not get the merciful and swift death which would have put it out of its misery, but instead coughed, raged and sputtered out, leaving little pieces of itself beside the road to make the occasional traveler wonder what the hell had happened here.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

By the way, on the “Behe eviscerated, again!” topic which originated this thread, I note that Science this week has an article and paper concerning loss of vocal fold membranes in humans, which are present in other primates, as an important stage in facilitating human language. There’s even a bit, in the article (haven’t gotten to the paper yet) of discussion to the effect that this loss of this feature makes the human larynx less complex than that in those other primates. How many hours should one expect to elapse before there’s a laughable EN&V piece on this?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

@Mercer

How many reviews of experimental microbial evolution have YOU read, Gil?

And presumably by “systematic,” you mean “ignoring all of the evidence Behe doesn’t like”? That could be described as a system, I guess…

I stand by my claim.

Indeedy.

@Giltil

It seems that you disagree with me. Very well.

Then what comes after does not flow from “very well…”

@Giltil

So I guess you can cite at least some reviews predating 2010 that provided a typology of mutations causing adaptation in lab experiments on microbes and that noted that most of these helpful adaptive mutations were degradative mutations.

Your claim, your evidentiary burden. You just made that up, didn’t you?

[Faizal_Ali]

Someone around here was recently suggesting that creationists are reluctant to post here because their arguments don’t receive a fair hearing and instead atheists (sic) just pile on them for no reason other than tribal loyalty.

I wonder if such a person would consider this an example of this phenomenon.