Behe's fourth installment on review of book

Behe;s fourth installment on book review

Ironically, by Behe’s criteria of dismissing Evolution in Lenski’s experiment, he has made a case against devolution in polar bears. No gain in FCT (according to Behe) in Lenski’s experiment, so it wasn’t an example of meaningful evolution. Therefore, no loss of FCT in polar bear, so it is not an example of meaningful devolution. Behe vs. Behe.



From the article:

Behe has given the game away with this quote. No longer is irreducible complexity a case where multiple parts are needed for a specific function. Now, irreducible complexity is an adaptation that no one knows specifically how it evolved. IC is simply a God of the Gaps.


Another section from the article:

This is a case of moving the goal posts, or to reword it to fit my preferred analogy, a 1,000 foot homerun. How does this analogy work? Behe is saying that you have to hit a baseball 1,000 feet in order to get a home run. However, everyone already knows that you only have to hit the ball over the wall in fair territory. Cricket fans are encouraged to modify the analogy for their wonderful sport.

The basic fact is that we don’t need to meet Behe’s requirements in order to evolve adaptations. Modifying existing binding sites gets evolution to where it needs to be.