The words “devolve” or “devolution” are not used in a scientific context. Behe means it as the opposite of evolution, which doesn’t make much sense in biology.
Behe’s favorite example of supposedly Irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum. However, the bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible which is crucial to the health of Behe’s beloved “theory.” Some bacterial flagella function without the proteins Behe says are required. Like L- and P-rings for just one example. Irreducible complexity does not exist in nature. The examples given by Behe and other religious crackpots don’t represent irreducible complexity, but are easily explained by the existence of simpler precursors. Behe’s flagellum example failed because it has been proven that it is just a repurposed poison injector. The theory of facilitated variation debunks irreducible complexity.
The bacterial flagellum is now just a “possible” example of irreducible complexity. He made the standard rookie creationist mistake of making testable predictions. They were refuted, and he learned his lesson about making specific claims.
Behe holds modern evolutionary theory to an impossible standard, declaring it “insufficient” if we cannot pinpoint every point mutation, every intermediate genetic step, in what order, and in which ancient organisms. Meanwhile, Behe’s own theory is held to no standard whatsoever, enjoying a vaulted default status as any gaps in knowledge are simply filled by the designer. Fortunately, his reasoning failed to convince a federal district court in Dover, PA which blocked the school board’s attempt to insert mention of ID into science textbooks. It is worth noting that the lead witness on behalf of the plaintiffs was Kenneth Miller, a devout Catholic who has been often featured in the pages of this magazine for his tireless and erudite defense of the proper teaching of evolutionary science. As Judge John E. Jones III found; ID cannot be scientifically tested. Darwin Devolves continues this pseudoscientific tradition.
That is an assertion with no evidence to back it up
Sure it does. Examples abound:
It is nonsense to suggest that mutations causing adaptations which improve an organism’s fitness will make it “prone to extinction.” Exactly how do you think that would work?
I suppose it is just possible that Behe is so utterly stupid and misinformed that he actually believes the argument he is making. I am trying to be charitable, however, and give him the benefit of the doubt on this.
The farthest I think one can reasonably go is to think that Behe is so convinced of his silly conclusions that he thinks it’s okay to lie about the data to help people get to those conclusions, with the data which actually support those conclusions presumably to be supplied at a later date.
Yes, that is my suspicion as well. He sincerely believes it is true that Jesus played some direct role in the creation of man, and that those who do not agree are believing a lie. So, in his mind, it is justifiable to tell lies in order to lead people to what he believe is the truth.
In the video interview with @dsterncardinale, Behe’s response to the example of the observed evolution of a placenta in a species of lizard was that, though he had no knowledge of the research whatsoever, he was very certain that if he did look at the example it would amount to nothing and would not change his views.
You’re are making a projection here for the truth is that your fight against ID is only based on rhetorical strategy, not on scientific critics.
Well, I don’t know. Either you don’t understand Denton argument, and you are looking bad, or you understand it but purposely misrepresent it, and you are looking worse.
To set the record straight, Denton doesn’t marvel at the fact that life adapted to the light emitted by the sun and passing through the atmosphere. Rather, he marvels at the fact that this light emitted by the sun and passing through the atmosphere is the only light that provides the correct energy levels for photochemistry, hence for photosynthesis, hence for complex beings like us. Note that Denton is not the only scientist to make the point. Here is what the Nobel laureate George Wald said: « there cannot be a planet on which photosynthesis or vision occurs in the far infrared or far ultraviolet, because these radiations are not appropriate to perform these functions. It is not the range of available radiation that sets the photobiological domain, but rather the availability of the proper range of wavelengths that decides whether living organisms can develop and light can act upon them in useful ways ». Do you understand the point? If not, I suggest that you pause and actually think about it more than five second. It may helps…
"I think I have now finally understood what “irreducibly complex” really means: a statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist.
—Björn Brembs, biologist
That’s meaningless unless you can also provide a reason to believe that Grasse would have retained that view in the face of the additional evidence that has accumulated in the decades since he died.
Are they really? Degradive mutations are certainly more numerous than constructive mutations, but unhelpful degradive mutations are more numerous than helpful degradive mutations.
I shouldn’t think it would help you to move from rhetoric to substance. Look at how that Douglas Axe discussion went: you seem to have been completely fooled by that absurd claim that biologists now think evolution has stopped, and even now you’re not acknowledging that bizarre error, but just moving on to greater heights.
More likely option 3: you haven’t understood the point at all.
While staring at the sun can be blinding, I think it’s amazing that you can stare right at this error, just as you did with Axe, and completely fail to see it. Yes, he makes the exact error you describe: equating known photochemistry on our planet with all possible photochemistry, and with all other possible exploitation of all possible wavelengths emitting from all possible stars on all possible planets, in the context of all possible biochemistries. That’s not remotely defensible.
As for Wald: assuming that Wald was right when he wrote those words in 1959 (!!? I thought the exhumation of Pierre-Paul Grasse, in defense of the claim that ideas which even he didn’t accept were somehow the scientific consensus, was a one-off!) it doesn’t really help you. If, arguendo, other wavelengths of energy generated by stars were not useful even in any alternative form of photosynthesis, or in any photochemical alternative to photosynthesis, under any possible alternative biochemistry (which, given that we cannot even generate our own planet’s biochemistry from first principles, is a very difficult conclusion to defend), it doesn’t follow that the energy which stars pump into planets could not be otherwise exploited by living organisms. If conditions allow life to develop, it will develop using such sources of energy as are available, and not those that are not. When conditions do not allow it, it won’t develop at all, and there’ll be nobody around to notice that it’s not very lively. That obvious and trivial fact – the fact that life evolves to exploit energy that’s available rather than energy that’s not – is the thing which Denton is marveling at.
Given that Grassé was an advocate of neo-Lamarckism and of vitalism, his opinions would seem to be well outside the biological mainstream, and so any opinion of his that (Darwinian) “evolution is now [or was] mostly at a standstill” should perhaps be taken with a heavy pinch of salt, lacking corroborating evidence.
Here is another quote from Wald taken from the same article than the first one: « Radiations below 300 millimicrons…are incompatible with the orderly existence of such large, highly organized molecules as proteins and nucleic acids. Both types of molecules consist of long chains of units bound together by primary valences (ordinary chemical bonds). Both types of molecules, however, are held in the delicate and specific configuration upon which their functions in the cell depend by the relatively weak forces of hydrogen-bonding and van der Waals attraction. These forces, though individually weak, are cumulative. They hold a molecule together in a specific arrangement, like zippers. Radiation of wavelengths shorter than 300 millimicrons unzips them, opening up long sections of attachment, and permitting the orderly arrangement to become random and chaotic. Hence such radiations denature proteins and depolymerize nucleic acids with disastrous consequences for the cell. For this reason about 300 millimicrons represents the lower limit of radiation capable of promoting photoreactions, yet compatible with life ».
For the other side of the electromagnetic spectrum, I don’t have a quote from Wald regarding the boundary beyond which no photochemistry would be possible, but here is what Denton say about this: « In the IR (infrared) and microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum (wavelengths greater than 0.80 microns), the photons are too weak—causing molecular vibrations and rotations but incapable of imparting to atoms and molecules sufficient energy to activate molecules for chemical reaction. »
Bottom line: the electromagnetic band providing the right energy level for photochemistry corresponds mostly to the visual band which occupies only a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum. And it happens that the Sun emits mostly in the visible band. I think the coincidence is remarkable.
The weak anthropic principle seems applicable here. Does Denton consider it? We have a variety of stars on the main sequence, with different spectral peaks. Is it a surprise that we find life around a star with a congenial peak? And of course there are no stars with peaks at extremely short or long wavelengths.
You’re right. The right formulation should have been as follow : the sun emits mostly in the visible and near IR band (see below).
But note that if visible light is a prerequisite for photochemistry, near IR « provides us with the right heat which keeps the surface waters from freezing solid, an essential element of fitness for carbon-life forms, instantiated as they are in an aqueous matrix ». IOW, it it a matter of fact that the radiation output of the Sun is exactly what is needed for complex being like us. As Denton put it, « that the Sun should emit radiation in the only infinitely small region of the EM of utility to life is a truly extraordinary coincidence! »
The composition of solar radiation is as follow: 6 – 7% ultraviolet light; around 42% visible light and 51% near infra-red .
