Part 2 of Polar Bear Seminar

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@swamidass

ENV, I’m still waking up. I’ll post a full (re) explanation in a moment of how we know for a fact the authors did not conclude “damaging.”

Alright @discovery_institute, here is my answer (again): Is Polar Bear ApoB Damaged?.

Please stop misrepresenting these poor authors. The evidence is so trivially against the claim that they agree with you, it is best to just apologize and stop.

@Art

EN says here:

Second, Behe’s critics are making a big deal about his not showing the data in the table where mutations were predicted to be “benign” — but benign or neutral mutations don’t challenge his thesis .

Constructive neutral evolution demonstrates that Behe’s argument fails because he neglects that neutral mutations are often constructive. This is one of the important facts we can see on display in the ENCODE data.

I encourage ENV to look at some of the first responses to Behe’s work, which were spot on:

@swamidass

Author: erosion is really, really common. We see it all over the place. Here are hundreds of known examples. Mountains can’t be natural.

Reviewer: the author doesn’t address what we know about all the many, many geological processes that cause rock uplift.

Author: the reviewers don’t even address my main argument!