Darwin Devolves: The End of Evolution?

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

Yet the rest of the review summarizes and cites evidence which, the authors claim, tests (and refutes) Behe’s arguments. So design cannot be tested, except when we test it.

Um, the claims of Behe’s that are refuted in the review relate to the notion that adaptive evolution occurs only by “breaking” proteins. Not “that new functions only arise through ‘purposeful design’ of new genetic information”.

[T.j_Runyon]

I’m not a fancy philosopher, but it seems to me that refuting an argument in favor of X doesn’t actually test X, just the argument used for X.

Yep. @pnelson missed the mark on that one. I’m not even sure it’s an argument in favor of ID. Does an argument against known evolutionary processes equal evidence for design? I think not.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Gotta agree with Mike on this one: the review largely ignores his main thesis in Darwin Devolves , but revisits old controversies. I expect his full reply, coming in a few days, will hammer that.

We did hit on irreducible complexity and edge of evolution a lot. That is because Mike did not accurately present the status of those arguments, and his devolution case depends on both these two arguments being correct.

As for the new argument, he rules out anything but Darwinian processes being useful from the get go. He makes several important omissions. We point out several examples that counter his case, but there are more. The strange thing is that he seems to think Lenskis experiment is a good demonstration of his law, but Lenski’s experiment does not extrapolate to macroevolution. It’s designed to test other things.

[T_aquaticus]

This is, actually, demonstrably false. Either he knows this and is taunting us (fun!), or just did not do his homework. I’m not sure which one.

There is also a bit of psychological projection going on. Behe seems to be describing himself:

" It’s the equivalent of a reviewer being rendered speechless, but soldiering on because he’s been assigned to write 700 words — gotta say something ."

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

the review largely ignores his main thesis in Darwin Devolves ,

Then I don’t think you understand either his argument or our rebuttals. My other essays on this book will have more space and maybe help you see our point more clearly.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

The strange thing is that he seems to think Lenskis experiment is a good demonstration of his law, but Lenski’s experiment does not extrapolate to macroevolution. It’s designed to test other things.

Yes, exactly. His complete and total misunderstanding of the LTEE is shocking. He expects to see things (innovation, creativity) that the experiment is precisely designed NOT to generate. It’s a nearly perfect recipe for streamlining, efficiency, and rapid growth, and those are the adaptations that emerge.

[pnelson (Paul A Nelson)]

Hi Nathan,

I look forward to your longer analyses. Science reviews don’t give the space one needs.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I look forward to your longer analyses. Science reviews don’t give the space one needs.

There are several articles in the works @pnelson. Nathan has one coming out on his blog, and next week his longer in a magazine comes out. I am planning an article here at PS too. It is possible that Lenski might explain more too.

From my point of view, however, I think Dennis Venema explains it aptly:

Early Science Review of Darwin Devolves — A Panic Attack?

Author: erosion is really, really common. We see it all over the place. Here are hundreds of known examples. Mountains can’t be natural.

Reviewer: the author doesn’t address what we know about all the many, many geological processes that cause rock uplift.

Author: the reviewers don’t even address my main argument!

If that is the tack Behe wants to go, he is more than welcome to do so. It would be another example of not engaging with legitimate critique.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

I’ve lost count and this may be mentioned elsewhere, but there is yet another response from EN this morning:

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/cited-to-attack-darwin-devolves-study-devolves-on-close-inspection/

To quote:

The review is a hit piece, but it’s so insubstantial that Behe must feel like he’s just been bludgeoned by a stick of cotton candy leavened with fairy dust. (The fairy dust here are the oft-recycled Darwinian fairy tales — e.g., whale evolution.)

I propose a new term to describe this strategy of panic-induced spam - “spamic”.

[T.j_Runyon]

Boy, they are losing it.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@NLENTS check this out.

https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/

Notably, they leave out our responses. Perhaps we should create our own page, to give a more complete picture?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

He was the DI’s only real hope in their quest to be taken seriously. This really doesn’t help the cause.

The ID folks clung to him… even though he never once discusses Adam and Eve as special creations!

@swamidass is more public with miraculous Adam and Eve than Behe ever was.

[NLENTS (Nathan H. Lents)]

Notably, they leave out our responses

Which ones? My polar bear article is there. My post about “devolution” isn’t, but that’s more recent and they haven’t responded to it. They may not and that’s fine. I think they’ll only post links to either positive reviews or negative ones that they actually respond to and I don’t see a problem with that. It’s a promotional page for the book, so it’s normal to be selective in which reviews you want to direct people to. I have pages for both of my books and I don’t include links to the negative reviews. (Each book got one negative review from a serious place - I’m not counting the DI, but I DID choose to link to those because why not? I don’t consider those serious. But that was my choice. I didn’t feel obligated to.)