In “Darwin’s Black Box” he says:
I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.
Has he changed his position since then?
Bill, you write: “No, Behe is really agnostic on common descent. He
sees evidence for and against common descent and pretty much has the
same position that Ann appears to.”
I seem to recall some folks pleading that Behe does not propose
Creation is a series of special creations, with God periodically
“poofing” a new “kind” or “species” into existence without any attempt
to guide evolution itself.
And yet this seems to be @agauger 's very position!
@jongarvey, could you tap @Eddie’s shoulder and ask him to weigh in?
Tell him something amazing has happened… tell him @gbrooks9 wants to
hear his opinion! 
1 Like
George
At 1hr and 23 minutes you can hear a discussion I had with him on common descent. He believes it explains the similarities but not the differences. I think Mike Ann and I are basically in the same place on this subject.
1 Like
I may have referenced it before, but @glipsnort has a great article over at BioLogos where he demonstrates that common descent and known mechanisms of natural mutagenesis explain the differences.
https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations
I have read this and this article was exactly what I was referring to. I have some issues with his analysis so discussing this would be interesting going forward.
Then let’s see the research.
If you have read it, why don’t you discuss the science here?
Joe you’ve been posting the same empty claims on science boards now for almost 2 decades. What makes you think your boasting will convince anyone with a real science education now?
Joe do you think it’s honest for you sneak back into Peaceful Science with the sock puppet “Frankie” after you were banned for posting obscenities against Dr. Swamidass?
As someone outside of the field, the entire nylonase back-and-forth over the years has gotten confusing to me. It has definitely become a hot-button issue—and one which a lot of anti-evolutionists like to talk about because they think it is another “failed” argument. Is there a good article which provides a “nylonase controversy scoreboard” so that someone like me can assess where the debate stands at this point?
That doesn’t change the fact that he seems to accept common descent. He doesn’t sound agnostic on it at all. It depends what you mean by common descent “explains” things, but I don’t think it’s controversial that common descent doesn’t “explain” derived states.
At 1:28:00 you mentioned a couple of papers on alternative splicing and expression timing between humans and chimps that you think indicate separate ancestry. Can you link those?
I think I understand what you are saying. If you define common descent in a certain (limited) way almost everyone accepts it.
He would be agnostic on the claim that all life’s diversity came about through common descent from a single ancestor which is a claim that is fading away in my opinion as guys like T it call a red herring.
The “Trick Shot” analogy sounds a lot like multiverse explanations: in some universe there is a trick shot resulting in design.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230612
This is paywalled but I can send you PDF if you do not have free access.
Shipiro’s paper will take an email search.
What definition is that?
What does it mean for diversity to “come about through common descent”? Common descent isn’t the “cause” of derived (diverse) traits. It’s the background to it.
1 Like
Sure. Yet with infinite multiverses and infinite possibilities God can spontaneously come into existence 
Dr. Harshman claims common descent explains the similarities. If this is what common descent explains then we all agree.
I am not sure what you mean here.
I originally asked whether Behe accepted common descent or not. That has nothing to do with what CD “explains”. You responded that he was “agnostic” on CD, and then started talking about what CD “explains”.
I have access. In the video you said something along the lines of “half of human alternative splicing is different in chimpanzees”, right?