Hi Tim
The model is a current version of evolutionary theory (population genetics) along with selection. His paper which was written with David Snokes was critiqued by Michael Lynch who is a well respected population geneticist. Mike is simply testing the model against observation of gene sequences.
He would agree with you the model is very limited and does not explain the origin of animal populations. It does explain change in gene frequencies in those populations based on genetic drift and natural selection.
The value of ID is helping understand limits to scientific inquiry.
In his response, Behe essentially admitted that his model was based on unrealistic assumptions that have no bearing on how evolution actually occurs:
Our model posited necessary intermediate mutations to be deleterious in the unduplicated gene; Lynch’s model assumes them to be neutral: “all 20 amino acids are equally substitutable in the intermediate neutral state”. All of his objections to our work stem from this difference.
Behe likely felt secure in his belief that his followers would not understand what this actually meant for his claims, and would simply take the fact that Behe’s response had been published as sufficient reason to believe he had raised legitimate objections to Lynch’s paper. @colewd’s writings here confirm that Behe would have been correct to assume this. I suspect Behe knows exactly how intelligent his followers are,
You can hardly be surprised at generating confusion when you mislabel a scientific theory as a mere model. The former is “an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method” (per Wikipedia),
It would appear to be misleading to describe the Theory of Evolution as being “mostly based on population genetics”, as it encompasses far more than that.
Talking about “evolutionary theory … along with selection” would appear to be redundant as the Theory of Evolution has always included Natural Selection.
Yes, and he summarised his critique of their work as:
It is shown here that the conclusions of this prior work are an artifact of unwarranted biological assumptions, inappropriate mathematical modeling, and faulty logic.[1]
This (from, as you say, “a well respected population geneticist”) "would I think be prima facie evidence that Behe & Snoke’s paper should be accorded no probative value at all.
The “model” I was referring to was Behe’s (& Snoke’s) own “inappropriate” one.
No, the “value of ID” is helping religious apologists cast unmerited doubt on one of the most thoroughly tested and verified scientific theories around.
But yes, ID does attempt to limit scientific inquiry, probably because that inquiry keeps shrinking the gaps into which ID is attempting to shoehorn their God ‘Designer’ into.
Does the “Darwinian mechanism” entail that all necessary intermediates between one gene and another that has evolved from it are deleterious? If your answer is “Yes”, please support this answer.
It is not at all clear what you mean by this “the Darwinian mechanism” you keep spamming this thread with (five times now by my count). What an oddly vague and idiosyncratic label. Do you mean Natural Selection (the main mechanism in Darwin’s original thesis).
Given that the Theory of Evolution has extended beyond purely Darwinian mechanisms for several decades, attempting to “articulating [their] limits” would appear to be a moot point.
“Behe’s argument (in edge and Darwin devolves)” has been repeatedly debunked by the scientific community. Therefore I see no reason to accord it any value.
And it has likewise been pointed out to you many times that “labeling” is not an argument! (And that labels are a necessary and ubiquitous component of any debate.)
But you remain deaf to that, just as you remain deaf to anybody pointing out any other flaws of your (many) slip-shod arguments.
This accusation is particularly risible when it comes from somebody who could be considered ‘the King of Bad Labels’ (mislabeling a scientific theory as a mere “model”, the idiosyncratic label “the Darwinian mechanism”, labeling the Theory of Evolution as being “mostly based on population genetics”), etc.
The pot would appear to be calling the kettle black.
But the most risible of all is your mislabeling ID as having “value” in “helping understand limits to scientific inquiry”.
This is not really Bill’s fault, except to the extent that he is mindlessly parroting something that Behe says, just as Behe likely hopes people like Bill will do.
I mean random mutation and natural selection. This is what his argument is focused against. Natural selection helps fix changes in populations due to a reproductive advantage.
That is incorrect. In the article you discussed above, Behe admitted to making up his own special rule that all necessary intermediate steps between one gene and another gene that evolved from it are deleterious. It appears likely that he simply made this rule up so his model would not work.
This rule is not part of the “Darwinian model”, nor is entailed by a model based on random mutation and natural selection.
I find it curious that you refuse to address this problem. Curious, but not surprising. I would be surprised, however, if you even understand what I am writing here.
The phrase may actually originate to Phillip E. Johnson, who (at least as far back as 1997) referred to:
… the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection …[1]
Of course that’s two mechanisms not one, only one of which is truly “Darwinian”, and (as I’ve already noted above) they haven’t been the entirety of the Theory of Evolution for several decades.
That’s what you get for letting a lawyer set your purportedly-scientific agenda.
But given that evolution isn’t just “random mutation and natural selection”, Behe’s argument is a strawman.
Done. But given that it is blatantly obvious that (i) the only arguments you find “convincing” are the ones generated by the ID movement, and (ii) the scientific community finds those arguments thoroughly unconvincing, I fail to see what probative value you finding an argument convincing or not holds.
For all the value that statement has, you might as well have stuck your fingers in your ears and said “la la la I can’t hear you.”
This is a debate between the Michaels on the quantity of deleterious mutations. Does this make a big difference to the ultimate conclusion? Which Michael is right and why do you favor his conclusion? Does either position change the ultimate conclusion?
And where does he make clear that his argument is not an argument against the current Theory of Evolution, but merely an antiquated version of it?
This at best would appear to be an Equivocation Fallacy (or perhaps just an old-fashioned bait & switch), whereby Behe is arguing against an superseded and antiquated version of the ToE, but presenting it as though it is an argument against the current version.
Why is his book titled Edge of Evolution, not Edge of Random Mutation and Natural Selection, or better yet Edge of something-Evolution-hasn’t-been-in-several-decades?
Addendum: it is also hard to see how an argument that is purporting to be “limits” to something “scientific inquiry” hasn’t been for several decades has any “value” whatsoever.
Michael Behe answers that question, himself, in the passage I quoted above.
Thanks for confirming what @John_Harshman said above. You have no clue what Behe is even saying. You just mindlessly assert he is right because he agrees with your religious opinions.
It may move the edge of evolution depending on which side of the discussion you agree with but does it eliminate it? We are talking about a few mutations getting fixed in this discussion. How does this explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum built with thousands of amino acids?
The “you don’t understand” defense is not very persuasive.
Michael’s (Lynch) retort, if correct, only moves the “edge of evolution” it does not eliminate it as the discussion is about a limited amount of biological change.
