ENV: Behe about Chloroquine Resistance

[Patrick]

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/science-review-offers-false-accusations-about-chloroquine-resistance/

[T.j_Runyon]

All their energy is going towards a 750 word review instead of their own lab work. Geez. Just be patient and let Behe publish his response. I mean I know they are trying to influence search results and to flood their supporters with responses but geez.

[T_aquaticus]

@nlents here is the next one:

https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/science-review-offers-false-accusations-about-chloroquine-resistance/

It is interesting to see how wildly the goal posts are moving about the field. ENV seems to be ceding the point that evolutionary mechanisms can produce new beneficial function, but now they have a new criteria: extravagance.

In his new book Behe doesn’t even enter the debate over whether sequential or simultaneous mutations are needed to build chloroquine resistance — i.e., whether “neither” mutation “is beneficial without the other.” His main point there is that EES mechanisms didn’t do anything helpful, and that what Darwinian mechanisms did build wasn’t anything extravagant.
[ibid.]

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

In his new book Behe doesn’t even enter the debate over whether sequential or simultaneous mutations are needed to build chloroquine resistance — i.e., whether “neither” mutation “is beneficial without the other.” His main point there is that EES mechanisms didn’t do anything helpful, and that what Darwinian mechanisms did build wasn’t anything extravagant.

Yup, and that is precisely the point we are saying is unfounded, and (frankly) refuted. The fact that many words have been marshaled in its defense does not rescue it from refutation.

He is literally arguing here (as he does in the book) that the only engine of evolution is just the Darwinian mechanism, and this is the only mechanism he has to address. Thought they misattribute these non-Darwinian mechanisms to EES (they were around long before EES), here they are repeating this refuted point again.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Lents et al. make it sound like Behe resurrects this topic in his new book, when that’s not at all the case.

In fact, in Darwin Devolves , Behe spends less than one half of one paragraph on it .

LOL. Behe “doesn’t resurrect the topic”, except that he does, it just takes “less than one half of one paragraph”.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Darwinian evolution didn’t create something extravagantly new in malaria-causing parasites to make them resistant to chloroquine.

What’s “extravagantly new”? Is that a scientific term?

Behe is just making the reasonable observation that “none of the mechanisms of EES [Extended Evolutionary Synthesis] proponents were anywhere to be seen” in helping this feature to evolve, because “a couple of classical random point mutations in the gene for a single protein plus run-of-the-mill Darwinian natural selection” were sufficient.

So score one for classic “Darwinism”, and a big 0 to the “EES” people? Okay.

[T.j_Runyon]

When Darwin’s Doubt came out Meyer made no mention of the small shelly fauna. ENV was quick to point out he did. In a small footnote. So in Darwin’s Doubt a small footnote was enough to address the SSF but in Darwin Devolves a paragraph isn’t enough to be considered resurrecting the argument…

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Behe “doesn’t resurrect the topic”, except that he does, it just takes “less than one half of one paragraph”

Just importantly, his analysis DEPENDS on being right on that argument. This is our point. He raises it as if it is a settled issue. It is not. He used this to dismiss everything other than Darwinism as unhelpful.