No it doesn’t. Mutations and changes in frequency explain the differences. Common descent explains only the pattern of differences among species, not the differences themselves.
2 Likes
Point taken. Although, there is a case to be made, that perfect replication wouldn’t be quite what we would colloquially mean by descent. That it is possible to have either novel traits or traits expressed to extents not found in the parent(s) is in a sense what sets reproduction apart from, say, cloning. Though this is getting admittedly semantic (assuming I’m not grossly butchering terminology as it is). For clarity we may indeed be better off separating the specific mechanisms that produce variation from the overall process. Thank you.
False Bill:
Over the next few sections I’ll show some of the newest evidence from studies of DNA that convinces most scientists, including myself, that one leg of Darwin’s theory—common descent—is correct.
The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent—even the common descent of humans and chimps—although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial.
The work on the hemoglobin genes of humans and chimps was done several decades ago. More recent work on whole genomes of yeast species further shows the power of the idea of common descent.
– The Edge of Evolution
These statements are grossly inconsistent with merely “accept[ing] common descent for the purpose of argument”.
WHAT new evidence? Behe makes not the slightest mention of new evidence against common descent in the video I linked to. Given that the title of the video was “What do you think of the idea of common descent?”, I would think that such evidence would have been very relevant,
I don’t see how it can – but, as I was discussing neither “Darwin’s theory”, “random mutation” nor “natural selection”, but only (Behe’s claims about) common descent, I’m unsure why your comments were directed at me. 
They weren’t. They were added to yours, to point out Behe’s additional mendacity.
His model does acknowledge recombination and says it’s an area to explore. He is very open to exploring how you see evolution.
As should be obvious from his latest, he can’t and he won’t.
2 Likes
Of course. It was a rhetorical question.
2 Likes
What challenges of John’s do you think are important? Do you think starting with a population of genetic variation will dramatically change the model outcome?
Why not make one attempt at meeting any of them? Your feet are being held to the fire and all you do is make it look like you must be enjoying the smell.
4 Likes
That’s predictably nonresponsive. Your statement doesn’t work, as you shown no evidence that YOU understand the relevance of recombination. The challenge is:
May I take your response as an admission that Behe barely mentions recombination, and completely ignores epistasis and fixation?
It has a huge effect on whether “the model outcome” has anything to do with reality. It’s just a silly straw man.
Populations with zero existing variation (clonal) are not viable, with few exceptions that survive with enormous help from us (inbred mouse strains).
3 Likes
If you’re a creationist, ID-proponent, and a lurker, please unlurk and tell me you’ve been following Bill’s exchanges for years. You don’t have to tell me whether you think he’s got a point at all. All I want to know is: Is there even anyone who reads this crap other than Bill and those who argue with him?
3 Likes
The showing how recombination is relevant to evolutionary transitions is up to you. I have seen some arguments but none that show it is a relevant player in evolution.
You are right. Behe’s models do not include recombination. I have not yet seen a good argument why that is important.
I am interested in you supporting the claim that this will have a huge effect. How huge? The Lenski experiment does not show this.
I just read his latest, because I can’t look away, and he wrote this about recombination: “I have seen some arguments but none that show it is a relevant player in evolution.”
I laughed out loud, both at the weapons-grade banality of his typing and at my pitiful lack of self-control. Please share your recipe.
5 Likes
You can’t see that recombination is relevant to getting two different single-residue substitutions in the same protein? Behe’s big malaria deal?
I would say it’s up to Behe, but we all know that he’s never going to show up for a discussion here. Why do you think that is, Bill?
You “having seen” something or not is irrelevant; in my opinion, you are using that construction to avoid the evidence. We all know that you only see what you want to see.
Then is that a lie, or was your previous response a lie?
???
Both can’t be true.
3 Likes
So let me get this straight. Earlier you were questioning that genetics (i.e. the study of inheritance) should have to do with inheritance. Now you are questioning both that and what the genome, the thing creationists cling on to a description as “blueprint of the organism” of, has to do with the organism that develops upon it.
How on earth is anybody with even the dimmest grasp of biological matters to converse with someone so bereft of any – or, at any rate, so dedicated to present themselves as utterly incompetent in them – as yourself?
1 Like
What more do you think reproductive recombination does other than relocate genes or sometimes exons?
What more do you think is necessary for reproductive recombination to accomplish, other than affecting the differences between parent and offspring genomes in some way at all, in order that it be relevant for evolution? Literally what else but changes in the genomes of lineages throughout generations do you think is evolution?
2 Likes
I KNOW it does a lot more and I know it doesn’t generally do either of those things.
Your bizarre question shows that you clearly don’t understand basic high-school genetics. If you think you do and want to read something more advanced, read a few of these >500 papers. There are many others that deal with intragenic recombination that don’t mention it in the title/abstract.
Using Behe as your gateway to understanding basic genetics is a huge mistake.
1 Like
Imagine if ID proponents read basic textbooks in biochemistry and molecular biology, or took courses in genetics etc., instead of religious apologetics books.
The DI doesn’t output science education. It is apologetics. It is not there to educate anyone about the science of biology. They know nothing about biology. They have no real interest in understanding life. Biology to them is just the medium through which to try to blather about God. Nothing I’ve ever seen from any ID proponent has ever made me think they have any real interest in biology for it’s own sake. If it doesn’t have some sort of apologetic purpose they have no interest in it.
5 Likes