# Part 2 of Behe's response to his Lehigh colleagues

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/part-2-of-behes-response-to-his-lehigh-colleagues/5531>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Design, Article\
**Created:** [March 26, 2019, 3:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/part-2-of-behes-response-to-his-lehigh-colleagues/5531 "2019-03-26T03:07:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 57

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/part-2-of-behes-response-to-his-lehigh-colleagues/5531/57 "2019-03-27T01:34:34Z")

</div>

> [@CLAVDIVS](#):
>
> really don’t understand the main argument of _Darwin Devolves_ .
> 
> If, overall, natural processes ‘degrade’ the genome, then all life should now be extinct.

[As I have explained elsewhere](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-on-genes-subject-to-positive-selection/5414/45), and sorry to [keep repeating myself](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-how-dna-science-undermines-evolution-3-1-19/5000/59) it’s not to toot my own horn here, but it needs reiteration, that conclusion doesn’t actually follow.

> What I’m not getting is: How does Behe eliminate the possibility that overall natural processes do not degrade the genome? Can he really extrapolate from a handful of recent examples to all life over deep time?

Of course not, but even if he could, his conclusion wouldn’t follow.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/part-2-of-behes-response-to-his-lehigh-colleagues/5531)._