Evidence for the integrity of the Discovery Institute

[Tim]

@Marty

As for the table of Polar Bear genes, first you should provide a link for some context and explanation of the point. It’s just data. Second, if Behe’s responses don’t cut it for you, then no one else’s will.

It took me less than a minute to track down that table’s original context:

Lents and Hunt: Behe And The Polar Bear's Fat

[Image result for polar bear fat] Great article by @art and @NLENTS https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867414004887 Behe writes: But what precisely did the changes in polar bear APOB do to it compared to that of other mammals? When the same gene is mutated in humans and mice, studies show it frequently leads to high levels of cholesterol and heart disease. The scientists who studied the polar bear’s genome detected multiple mutations in APOB. Since few experiments can be done with grumpy polar bears, they analyzed the changes by computer. They determined that the mutations were very likely to be damaging -that is, likely to degrade or destroy the function of the protein the gene codes for. And there’s more. If we come back to APOB, the polar bear gene that Behe spends the most time discussing, we find that the authors of the study have a very different interpretation of the data than Behe does. Quoting the paper again [emphasis added]: Substantial wor…

The “point” should be blatantly obvious even without this context – Behe was methodically and dishonestly going through the table and eliminating sufficient rows and columns to get rid of all “benign” entries.

“It’s just” manipulated data – clear evidence of dishonesty.

“Behe’s responses” seem to never “cut it” with the scientific community – why do you think I should view them more positively?

@Marty

Here’s a review from someone who gets Behe’s points (Wow… better than I had anticipated! )

This review is simply evidence for the old adage:

You can fool some people all of the time.

Given, as @misterme987 points out, the reviewer has no substantive scientific background, it is certainly not evidence of the merits of Behe’s position.

It is however some of the gushiest ignorant fanboy gushing I’ve seen for quite a while.