Creation Myths with Dr. Michael Behe on "The Edge of Evolution"

[dsterncardinale]

@Art

In other words, I would argue that Behe’s attempts to re-direct towards the molecular strongly implies that, by his own admission and reasoning, essentially all of the variety (physiological, morphological, ecological, etc.) we see in the biosphere arose via processes (“Darwinian” for short, but including the gamut of so-called undirected mechanisms) falls well within his proclaimed edge of evolution.

In the spirit of UEFA Euro 2020 tournament, I am inclined to view this as an own goal.

Exactly - that’s the other interpretation, and similar to calling stuff like that “just microevolution”, the obvious follow-up is “okay, if it’s trivial to evolve <gestures at everything we’ve directly observed evolving>”, then there’s little if anything that “cannot evolve” and the best case scenario for creationists is to go “origins or bust” by bringing it back to “well where did that stuff come from initially?”. Which, fine, that’s a debate one can have, but it’s a different conversation.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@dsterncardinale

I don’t know the specific answer to this question, but if I understand the argument correctly, if the answer is yes, and those mutations exceed the speed limit established in “Edge”, then they are the product of design.

If the answer is yes then they are beyond the limited mechanism of “Darwinian” blind and unguided process such as SNP’s that mutationally occur during reproduction if they are indeed blind and unguided.

The detection of design is different and based on a purposefully arranged set of parts. This means the parts perform a function. Also, we can assign a reason for that function.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@dsterncardinale

both of these were very enjoyable, and, I think, productive conversations.

Yes. I thought the dog landed some really solid points.

[T_aquaticus]

@dsterncardinale

But that’s not the case. What I now understand, based on yesterday’s conversation, is that if we observe any of those things evolving, that does not mean the standard for design is invalid. It just means those events that we directly witnessed are the result of design. What processes? What mechanism? Not Behe’s problem. It’s enough to be able to say “this is the product of design” and leave it at that.

The problems with this approach are, I think, glaringly obvious.

Behe has said just the opposite in the past. He is willing to change his mind, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. However . . .

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
–Michael Behe
cribbed from post at Uncommon Descent in 2006 Michael Behe On Falsification | Uncommon Descent

Nailing jello to a wall comes to mind.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The detection of design is different and based on a purposefully arranged set of parts. This means the parts perform a function.

So even if we observe these functions evolving right in front of us you would deem them to be intelligently designed?

[dsterncardinale]

Based on my conversation yesterday, I now think the answer to that question is “yes”.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

This is hilarious, because Behe’s statement about the flagellum quoted above implies the answer is no.

The overall impression one gets from all this is “It’s intelligently designed if I think it is” and the conditions can be changed on the spot.

[T_aquaticus]

I think we should call this the “Edge of Incoherence”.

If I am understanding the situation correctly, Behe thinks new or improved function is beyond the edge of evolution. If this isn’t the case, then why argue so strongly against possible improved function in polar bear APOB genes? Instead, evolution can only proceed by “breaking” function that already exists in the ancestral genome.

Behe also thinks that nothing in human evolution went beyond the edge of evolution. This would mean that all of the exceptional human adaptations we see are the product of breaking the genes in our less intelligent and less bipedal (maybe) ancestors. Again, if this isn’t the case then why argue so strongly for a lack of increased function in polar bear APOB.

Behe, if you are out there, are humans just broken apes?

[CrisprCAS9]

@T_aquaticus

Behe, if you are out there, are humans just broken apes?

Clearly things have been downhill since endosymbiosis. Eukaryotes were a mistake, return to archaea.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Art

It seems to me that Behe has given away the store, so to speak. He as much as said that the evolution of placentas in lizards, and of new photosynthetic organelles in animals, are not beyond the edge of evolution (and, I am assuming, Darwinian mechanisms). It isn’t hard to conclude that, based on examples such as these, all of the variety we seen in life is probably also not beyond the edge of evolution. Which seems to me to dispatch ID to the fringes of biology.

You misunderstood him here for he explicitly said that the information for the appearance of placentas in lizards was most probably not produced by a Darwinian mechanism. IOW, contrary to what you said, he strongly disputes the claim that the appearance of placentas in lizards is within the edge of evolution.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Faizal_Ali

Can you give me a specific example of what “Mike” believes actually happened that was “beyond the edge of evolution”?

Easy. All IC biological systems such as the bacterial flagellum or ATP synthase.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

You misunderstood him here for he explicitly said that the information for the appearance of placentas in lizards was most probably not produced by a Darwinian mechanism.

Which he said without even being aware of the research on the subject beyond what Dan said in the video.

So why should be believe what he says?

Also, he uses a very strange definition of “Darwinian” which means not caused by an intelligent designer. Can you explain how the actions of a designer are evident in the evolution of the placenta?

[CrisprCAS9]

@Giltil

All IC biological systems such as the bacterial flagellum or ATP synthase.

IC is either defined to the exclusion of evolution, in which case no viable examples have ever been presented, or defined such that it doesn’t exclude evolution, in which case it is irrelevant.

[dsterncardinale]

@Giltil

You misunderstood him here for he explicitly said that the information for the appearance of placentas in lizards was most probably not produced by a Darwinian mechanism. IOW, contrary to what you said, he strongly disputes the claim that the appearance of placentas in lizards is within the edge of evolution.

The problems here are twofold: One, the constant equivocation on what “Darwinian” means. Processes like horizontal gene transfer absolutely played a role in the evolution of placentas, and are 100% non-Darwinian, but Behe insists on sometimes using “Darwinian” incorrectly to mean “any evolutionary process” and sometimes more specifically (and correctly) to mean “mutation, variation, and natural selection”. So yeah, the evolution of placentas is non-Darwinian. But not in way Behe means.

Second, there’s no basis for the claim that, if placentas did in fact evolve without any “design”, then that process didn’t involve anything new new, and, frankly, it’s silly to even suggest that. The list of unique interactions and regulatory requirements for proper in utero development is loooooooooong. So the options are either 1) placentas evolved through evolutionary processes (Darwinian and non-Darwinian, correctly defined), or 2) design is an ongoing process, and placentas are an example of something that is the result of ongoing design. There are no other options here.

 

@Giltil

@Faizal_Ali

Can you give me a specific example of what “Mike” believes actually happened that was “beyond the edge of evolution”?

Easy. All IC biological systems such as the bacterial flagellum or ATP synthase.

Uh-huh. And what of the IC systems who’s evolution has been directly observed? The line gets mighty squishy, and the criteria get might fuzzy, once we bring those into it, as was evident in my first conversation with Behe.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Faizal_Ali

So why should be believe what he says?

Because the production of a placenta from scratch required a lot of functional information that cannot be produced by unguided, blind evolutionary mechanisms.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

Because the production of a placenta from scratch required a lot of functional information that cannot be produced by unguided, blind evolutionary mechanisms.

Why should we believe your assertions or Behe’s assertions?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Because the production of a placenta from scratch required a lot of functional information that cannot be produced by unguided, blind evolutionary mechanisms.

How did you establish that?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@dsterncardinale

Second, there’s no basis for the claim that, if placentas did in fact evolve without any “design”, then that process didn’t involve anything new new, and, frankly, it’s silly to even suggest that. The list of unique interactions and regulatory requirements for proper in utero development is loooooooooong. So the options are either 1) placentas evolved through evolutionary processes (Darwinian and non-Darwinian, correctly defined), or 2) design is an ongoing process, and placentas are an example of something that is the result of ongoing design. There are no other options here.

While the YEC guys may have an issue with these assumptions I think Mike might agree for arguments sake.

Do you think we can use design as the null or alternative hypothesis to test if the lizards evolved a placenta by known Darwinian and non Darwinian evolutionary processes?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

Do you think we can use design as the null or alternative hypothesis

If you actually have a design hypothesis that says things should be a certain way, then you can compare the predictions of the hypothesis to data, sure. What does the design hypothesis for the placenta look like and what does it mechanistically predict?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

Because the production of a placenta from scratch required a lot of functional information that cannot be produced by unguided, blind evolutionary mechanisms.

No one is saying these placenta’s arose “from scratch”. Behe’s claims pertain to things evolving from things that previously exist thru mutations and other evolutionary processes (which he erroneously labels “Darwinian”). That’s what happened with these placentas. His attempt to dismiss these empirical observations with a mere handwave before he has even looked at the evidence is very revealing, I think, of his scientific attitude.

BTW, if he insists on misusing the term “Darwinism” after he has been corrected about this so many times, he really has no right to whine when people call him a creationist. Especially since that is what he is.