Yes they have. Their position, stated repeatedly, is that he was culling just the “relevant data” that shows the damaging mutations in question and there was nothing misleading or inappropriate in doing that. To be honest, I don’t think even THEY believe that. I think what we’re seeing in the flurry of highly redundant posts is damage control.
3 Likes
I don’t read ENV so I missed all that, thanks.
This is perhaps right in @swamidass wheelhouse, but a very recent paper compared various methods of predicting ‘pathogenicity’ and found a range of effectiveness. PolyPhen-2 is median. I don’t know whether DI is selling PPH2 as some kind of gold standard, but this paper seems to show that there are much better tools.
4 Likes
Thanks, @sfmatheson, the linked article represents some valuable information in assessing Behe’s “first rule”. It would be interesting to see the same polar bear APOB data run through some of these other programs.
1 Like
You would think Dr. Behe would have done that before making such a universal “rule”
3 Likes
Seems like a good idea to me, too 
1 Like
That would be Behe’s original sin. He never questioned the accuracy or dependability of PolyPhen predictions, and then based a sweeping criticism against a massive consensus based on a very shaky premise. In the Bible, I believe this is called “building your house on sand”.
5 Likes