What would be nice is a sort of overview thread where all the known reviews of Behe’s book are posted, with a list of the different responses written on EN&V. That would make it easier to keep track of the progression in the discussion here too.
Wee have starting point here: Darwin Devolves: The End of Evolution?. I think we would benefit from doing this as a wiki page here: http://wiki.peacefulscience.org.
1 Like
Not necessarily.
http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Ad-Hominem-Arguments,933.aspx
And i think Bill meant ad hominid. 
I think we should be careful though to not be seen as questioning Mike Behe’s integrity. The idea is to create an environment here that would encourage him to participate.
No, that is not the case. He has communicated clearly that he has no intention in every participating on a forum. We respect this. We are not inviting him to or insisting that he engage on this forum.
We are inviting him to protect his reputation by publicly correcting his errors. We are inviting him into a real exchange about the science, in the format that would suit him best. He is welcome to propose how he thinks this should be done, and it need not be on the forum.
I very much doubt he could ever “feel comfortable” on a forum. It would subject his ideas to detailed scrutiny. This would not make him comfortable.
2 Likes
But that’s how science is done, albeit via publication rather than via a forum. Anyone who is uncomfortable about having their ideas scrutinised should stay out of the kitchen.
4 Likes
I have little good to say about Behe, but I will concede that he has never been shy about engaging with and responding to his critics. If forums are just not the venue in which he chooses to do that, that is his prerogative.
He has been very shy about engaging with me. Did you see this? Behe, Axe, and Swamidass: Invitation to "Debate" Received!
1 Like
Maybe he is getting a bit more cautious over time. 
Actually I think it is theatre. He makes many responses, but his very selective in avoiding the strongest critiques and critics.
Such as Lenski?
Hi TJ
Can you provide links to the articles you are keeping on Darwin Devolves.
Thanks
ME! ME! ME! It’s all about ME!
(Um, sorry about that…)
Oh yeah, I have a tendency to forget T-urf13 too.
For me, it’s all about WINNING!
“Professor Lenski is perhaps the most qualified scientist in the world to analyze the arguments of my book.” - Michael Behe
Let me show you how weird Behe’s response is in the article link you provide us:
Premise 1: “… selection will quickly spread any beneficial mutation, even if the mutation degrades an organism’s genetic patrimony…”
Premise 2: “Thus it will grab on to any mutation that helps at the moment, without regard to the long-term fate of the species, and comparatively quickly increase the numbers of that mutation over the generations until it is fixed in the population (that is, until all members of a species have it).”
Premise 3: “When that happens, the original unmutated version of the gene is gone. Thus any further potentially beneficial changes to come along must work with a degraded foundation.”
First of all … Behe’s objections only seem to make sense (from my perspective, not from John’s perspective) if he is disputing the topic with an Atheist or Agnostic.
'%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
But setting that aside for now, let’s “rehearse” the three premises with the subject matter of Land Mammals to Marine Mammals: notably, whales.
Premise 1: “… selection will quickly spread any beneficial mutation, even if the mutation degrades an organism’s genetic patrimony…”
In the case of whales, a proto-whale population, which until recently had four limbs used for negotiating land-based obstacles and prey, had a mutation spread throughout the group where the front limbs were now thoroughly “webbed up” between the digits. And the process will be repeated when a new mutation arrives, turning the webbed digits into something much more like a flipper!
Premise 2: “Thus it will grab on to any mutation that helps at the moment, without regard to the long-term fate of the species, and comparatively quickly increase the numbers of that mutation over the generations until it is fixed in the population (that is, until all members of a species have it).”
The entire population of this particular group of proto-whales only has recessive genes for the original front limbs. Only whales that receive both recessive/degraded genes will have the “old school” forward limbs. And eventually even the “recessive/degraded” genes will be gone from the proto-whale population in question
Premise 3: “When that happens, the original unmutated version of the gene is gone. Thus any further potentially beneficial changes to come along must work with a degraded foundation.”
When that happens, should the proto-whales ever try to seek food on land, or escape predators by seeking shelter on land, will suffer the degrading of their forward limbs.
Right, Dr. Behe! Perfect. That’s exactly what happened. Just like you describe. And it happened to multiple different groups of proto-whales. All the proto-whales that didn’t shed their non-degraded genetic legacy of terrestrial limbs eventually went extinct.
The only kinds of whales left in all the oceans of the Earth are whales without working limbs in front or in the rear! Absolutely correct.
And so … we must conclude that Whales are DEVOLVED or DEGRADED Mammals, yes?
Prof. Behe is trying to show that something is wrong with Evolution because it means gene codes specialized for Terrestrial Living have become DAMAGED by the change to specializing for Marine Living!
Tragic, yes? NO! Not tragic. This is how Evolution works. It’s how Evolution has to work if populations are going to survive the constant chain of climate and ecological changes that the Earth is constantly prone to! This is a poor argument if the CHANGE in question is what makes the life form BETTER in the HERE and NOW!
Similarly, calling a land-adapted tetrapod a DEVOLVED FISH (because it now has degraded gills that are barely visible and degraded FINS that look like … ( eeek… ickkk… hands!) is something I would expect to have heard from the Bible Study group I attended as a teen, at the local Nazarene Church!
1 Like
I agree – more or less – with the first two of those premises. I would quibble a bit, because how quickly the mutation spreads will depend on how beneficial it is. And the environment could change again so that it is no longer beneficial – before the mutated gene is fixed.
But, okay, that’s a quibble. The general picture seems about right.
However, I disagree with premise 3. Note that I am not a biologist, so I could be wrong about that. But it seems to me that unmutated gene could finish up in the junk DNA, where it is then protected from selection. And, at some time later, it could re-emerge after being transposed to a coding region of the DNA. That is to say, I see junk DNA as potentially being a kind of long term memory that can counter what premise 3 asserts.
On your general point – yes, I agree. If it turns out that we are all devolved (and degraded) bacteria, then we should be celebrating devolution and degradation. Or, to say it differently, Behe’s argument seems absurd.
1 Like