Part 2 of Behe's response to his Lehigh colleagues

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

So does Behe assume these differences are due to naturally occurring processes of mutation or not? Could you give a clear answer?

No, he offers a hypothesis based on the data he has looked at. Lenski does not have sequence data. Why are you doubling down here?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

No, he offers a hypothesis based on the data he has looked at.

So if evolution is not responsible for the mutations that separate polar bears from brown bears, why does Behe use these mutations as examples of evolution damaging genes?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

No, he offers a hypothesis based on the data he has looked at.

Why did he cherry pick his data and not look at all the data which contradicts his claims?

Bill is great at regurgitating ID claims, not so hot on defending them.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

So if evolution is not responsible for the mutations that separate polar bears from brown bears,

This is not his claim.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

If the proposed mechanism could not make a complex sequence it would be falsified

What is IDC’s proposed mechanism for producing complex sequences? Merely saying “it was designed!” isn’t a mechanism.

How about answering the question Bill?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

This is not his claim.

Then what is Behe’s claim with respect to the genetic differences between the ApoB gene in polar bears and brown bears? Out with it, man.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Then what is Behe’s claim with respect to the genetic differences between the ApoB gene in polar bears and brown bears? Out with it, man.

Have you read his book? This is all pretty straight forward.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Have you read his book? This is all pretty straight forward.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Behe thinks the genetic differences between polar bears and brown bears are due to evolution. Do you disagree?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Have you read his book? This is all pretty straight forward.

LOL! Good old Bill. Plenty of excuses, never a straight answer.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

It seems pretty obvious to me that Behe thinks the genetic differences between polar bears and brown bears are due to evolution. Do you disagree?

Here is the paper that is referenced in his book.Redirecting

Have you read the paper? I am not sure what due to evolution means? If you mean it is genetic variation from reproduction then I agree.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

This is not his claim.

And that was not @T_aquaticus claim which you quoted. You selectively cut off the last half of his question to make it appear as if he wrote something he did not.

Kind of like what Behe did with the bear data.

You ID Creationists certainly do think alike.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Have you read the paper? I am not sure what due to evolution means? If you mean it is genetic variation from reproduction then I agree.

By evolution, I mean the standard mechanisms of random mutations, selection, neutral drift, speciation, and the like. I have stated this multiple times now.

I will repeat.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Behe thinks the genetic differences between polar bears and brown bears are due to evolution. Do you disagree?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

It seems pretty obvious to me that Behe thinks the genetic differences between polar bears and brown bears are due to evolution. Do you disagree?

I agree.

[Faizal_Ali]

With all the practice you just had pulling teeth, you must be qualified as a dentist by now.

[T_aquaticus]

Now that we have agreement on what Behe is assuming, let’s go back to this:

Cases where [Lenski] has not established random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism. He is using circular reasoning by assuming it was the cause.

Wouldn’t you say that Behe is using the very same assumptions Lenski is using?

[Faizal_Ali]

Still have your pliers handy?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Wouldn’t you say that Behe is using the very same assumptions Lenski is using?

T why are you trying to spin this? He is looking at genetic data and Lenski is not. The data Behe is looking at shows strong genetic homology except where there is very strong adaptive pressure.

Lenski is making an assumption without data to support his claim. This is clear circular reasoning and is particularly glaring as he is arguing against a claim of limited evolution due to breaking and blunting genes.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

T why are you trying to spin this? He is looking at genetic data and Lenski is not.

Why does that matter?

@colewd

Lenski is making an assumption without data to support his claim.

There isn’t homology between vertebrate genomes? Let’s see what else you said:

On the other hand Lenski’s assumption was pure speculation. You made a false equivalence and I really don’t understand why you would do this. There are obvious differences between looking at current data and a speculation about a historic event in the remote past.

Behe is looking at current data and speculating about historic events, is he not?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

Why does that matter?

This very telling statement. The dat[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:184, topic:5531”]
Why does that matter?
[/quote]

Are you really asking why empirical data matters?

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Are you really asking why empirical data matters?

No. I dare you to quote where I asked if empirical data matters.

The empirical data Lenski is pointing to is the fossil record and current biodiversity of vertebrates. I am asking why genetic data would make a difference with respect to the conclusion that Lenski drew. I am asking how genetic data makes a difference in the assumptions Behe and Lenski are both using.