No, he means that he agrees that universal common descent is an undeniable fact, and he focuses on design within that framework. This is the most ridiculous conversation possible.
Nelson is a young-earth creationist. Their agreement is simply that God was responsible for everything, though they disagree on when and how that happened. Are you a young-earth creationist now?
This is not what he thinks at all. He knows common descent is not a fact. He simply does not discount it as a competing explanation for certain relationships like chimps and humans.
This is not what Paul thinks at all. Both Mike and Paul share a lot of common ground. The main the difference is the battles they choose to fight.
Accusing Behe of misrepresenting his own ideas is a serious charge. Do you mean the meaning of the imputation you mean to mean?
YEC, flat earth, aliens built the pyramids for navigation, water has memory - these ideas are so deluded that anyone who holds to them is no longer entitled to be taken seriously on anything.
Then they are no longer called mutations, they are called variants. Correct terminology aids in understanding, which is why you mangle terminology beyond all recognition.
Now, show me even a single instance in all of Beheās writing in which he acknowledges any current existence of heritable variation. One sign of that would be using the term āallele frequency.ā Has Behe ever done so, anywhere?
Keep in mind that Darwin never knew about mutations and only observed existing variation, while Behe rants about āDarwinism.ā
Neither you nor Behe understand the basics of how evolution works, which is the main reason why you object to it.
Please stop telling us what other people think.
I have had more than one discussion with Mike on the subject. One of his comments is he concedes common descent for arguments sake because it is a tricky subject to navigate. He avoids the subject to focus on the design argument.
Paul is able to discuss evidence given the prior of old earth assumptions.
None of us understand how evolution works. There is lots of speculations but no tested hypothesis how very different animals are reproductively connected if indeed they are.
So heās deliberately dishonest. Glad we cleared that up.
More dishonesty.
I understand advanced genetics and basic population genetics. Neither you nor Behe do, based on your writings.
Thatās a dishonest statement. Evolutionary biology incorporates a large package of rigorously tested theories and hypotheses.
How can you talk about fixation if you think itās merely an untested hypothesis?
Do you know of one, Bill?
Show me where Behe uses the terms fixed, fix, or fixation in his many books; if you find one or more, show the accompanying math that shows that Behe understands the concept of fixation.
That genes are whatās passed on between parent and offspring is not a speculation, nor untested. That DNA is specifically whar carries them over is also not a speculation, nor untested. That less than all of a given DNA sequence is perfectly replicated or recombined in every offspring organism is also not a speculation, nor untested. That the effect DNA copying errors in reproductive cells has an influence on the errorsā persistence in the lineage is also not a speculation, nor untested.
So, with all that in mind, what, exactly, is one of those ālotsā of speculations? What, exactly, is an untested hypothesis on the subject taken seriously enough to ever even reach lay folk like you or I? Is there anything you can actually point to, that could serve to make what you just said look like something less than an absolutely shameless bold-faced lie?
Bill canāt articulate any of that, but somehow he knows what other people think from his interpretations of their incoherent articulations.
Oh, and @colewd, please also quote the times that Behe refers to recombination in any of his books, as that is a critical mechanism for combining multiple single-residue substitutions. Or epistasis, for that matter.
Sure, buy why play pretend with someone who is not thinking clearly?
He is one of the most clear thinking and articulate person I have ever met. His attachment to a young earth is probably driven by affiliation more than belief. When I interface with him he is very focused on evidence which has nothing to do with a young earth.
With all due respect, it would seem rather clearly to me at least so far, that you are ill-equipped to defend most any point you attribute to him adequately, anyhow. So, if anything, this arrangement is underminding both of your causes. I suggest, instead of playing his unofficial ambassador, let him come on here and make his case by himself. That way we can all collectively quit distracting ourselves with this he-said-they-said nonsense and address the actual topic with genuine arguments. Additionally, though there is every chance Paul might not fare any better than you did, heāll scarcely do much worse, now, will he.
With all due respect the guys who donāt see the world clearly are those who support universal common descent. I see no viable arguments for the universal common descent claim.
If you think the nested hierarchy is strong evidence you may disagree.
To attribute the diversity of life from a single origin through reproduction you need to explain the differences not just the similarities. To assert the pattern of the differences is only explained by common descent is simply a product of limiting your explanation to naturalistic causes.
The explanation for diversity of life lives on the edge of science and philosophy/theology. Only using methodological naturalism will lead to a misleading result.
This is the second time in this conversation you has attributed disingenuous motivation to DI fellows. Who are we to take at their word?
Prove it.
Skill issue.
I do think that the nested hierarchy is strong evidence, considering it is (a) reproducibly, consistently retrievable from the data, (b) positively indicative of common descent, and (c) exclusively concordant with common descent. However, I do not disagree with your statement of you not seeing viable arguments for the UCD claim. Minutia of whatās going on in your mind is outside the scope of this discussion, and, indeed, my interests.
Correct. And that is accomplished adequately, and with staggeringly accurate predictive power, by modern evolutionary theory, and matched in that regard by zero alternatives.
Eh. Maybe. However, it does make consistently accurate predictions within its scope. It works. As a scientist, thatās all I could possibly want from any theory.
I disagree, and Iāll be glad to explain (again) why, but Iāll hold off on that until after you made an attempt at substantiating this claim. Why, in your opinion, should philosophy or theology have anything to contribute in a discussion respecting the natural phenomenon of life diversifying?
Eh. Maybe. As long as it is a misleading result that keeps consistently yielding accurate predictions, that is fine by me. Thatās what theories explaining natural phenomena should seek to accomplish.
What would it take to be fine by you, I wonder, though. What, in your view, makes for an acceptable theory of some observable phenomenon, generally speaking?
Why are you entertaining this moron? We have half a decadeās worth of evidence that it is a waste of time. Take the hint.
It would be pretty big news if Paul Nelson is no longer a young-earth creationist. Because I kinda like Paul, I would be really happy to learn that he has taken a step away from religious madness. But as recently as 2012, he was publishing specifically in defense of YECism.
Itās far more likely that Bill is making stuff up, with the added caveat that he clearly doesnāt understand anything he writes about.
So Wikipedia is grossly wrong when it says:
Youāre claiming that he isnāt a YEC? Letās see you back that up.
Not true. He has made several explicit statements affirming common descent.
The important point is that what you canāt see is no guide to what isnāt there.
Itās not just Wikipedia. That claim traces back to an NCSE review, which in turn traces back to Beheās own writing:
The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. Itās hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ā Edge of Evolution, p71-2
So, is Behe lying in this book about what he really thinks?
This is a notable moment at PS in my opinion. Leaving aside the advice from one of the last remaining adults in the room (thatās you, @Rumraket) here is why I think this.
Bill Cole has publicly* asserted that Mike Behe does not accept common descent. He first stated that Behe āconcedes common descent for arguments sakeā and then confirmed that Behe āknows common descent is not a fact.ā
I know of no credible critic of Beheās who has even suggested this. Behe has explicitly disclaimed the kind of creationism that denies common descent (see the rest of this thread). As poor as his scientific reputation is now, it would be vastly worse if he denied common descent. And perhaps more importantly, his ideas/suggestions about design often depend on common descent. (Imagine gibbering about ādevolutionā if you donāt think that lineages are related.)
Now, if it were true that Behe believed that lineages are poofed into existence by Dog, it would be strategically important to keep that carefully hidden. And yet here we are with public ārevelationsā about what he believes. I donāt know Behe and wonāt do this favor for him, but someone should probably tell him that Bill is singing.
Bill Cole is an ignoramus who types stuff he doesnāt understand and lies with casual grace. So perhaps we should assume that his claims about Behe, like essentially everything else he splatters onto the forum, are falsehoods. If that is the explanation here, then maybe @moderators should consider some kind of badge or icon to alert readers that Bill isā¦ who he is.
*As you probably know, the āSide Conversationā section of PS is not really public; you have to be logged in to see it and you wonāt discover it using Google. [This isnāt completely accurate; see followups below for minor corrections.] Because of that, and because it is possible/likely that Bill will delete or edit his posts, I have screenshots Iām glad to share with anyone.