Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne responds to Behe

William Dembski
July 4, 2007
Darwinism, Evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Coyne contra Behe in The New Republic; Behe contra Coyne at Amazon; and now Coyne contra Behe at TalkReason. The following comment by Coyne caught my eye:

Both Richard Dawkins (in his review of The Edge of Evolution in The New York Times) and myself have noted Behe’s remarkable reluctance to submit his claims to peer-reviewed scientific journals. If Behe’s theory is so world-shaking, and so indubitably correct, why doesn’t he submit it to some scientific journals? (The reason is obvious, of course: his theory is flat wrong.)

Let me suggest another reason: Coyne is wrong and doesn’t want Behe upsetting his applecart.

Comments
Hasn't it been proven that the variation we see through breeding is not solely because of random mutations but also because of front-loading? Is there any research that implies front-loading I can check?Innerbling
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
why doesn’t he submit it to some scientific journals? (The reason is obvious, of course:
because the journals are run by peer-reviewers like Coyne, Dawkins, Miller, and Carroll, running the journals. DUH!scordova
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
What is often submitted as evidence for evolution could just as easily be evidence of design. This is a sign of implicit question-begging on the part of the evolutionist.Mathetes
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
ups, bad english. My german is better...;-)Markus Rammerstorfer
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
@Atom: If one looks close at what is happening during breeding and how organims shaped by breeders stand against their "wild" counterparts you get arguments aginst Darwinism but not for it.Markus Rammerstorfer
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
"First, as both Dawkins and I point out, if random mutations can't build complexity, how can they possibly have been so effective in artificial selection of plants and animals? Virtually anything you want to select in an animal or plant can be selected: as Darwin said, "Breeders habitually speak of an animal's organization as something quite plastic, which they can model almost as they please."" Umm... it was effective because that information was front-loaded. His comments go deeper than assuming random mutation as a creative force. He just can't even imagine an alternative. Selection, even the intelligent version, and mutation are just too tightly wound together in his head.geoffrobinson
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Markus, I agree 100%. My brother breeds dogs and he is always complaining of how hard it is to get a dog with the traits he wants and is applying HIGH selective pressure to get. Mendelian genetics throws a monkey wrench into breeders plans, even when selection is operating at basically 100%. He also knows that if the dam and sire don't have the traits, it is pretty much assured the offspring won't develop them de novo. Hence why people are willing to pay such high prices for proven bloodlines. (If dog/animal form was so plastic, why not just pick any weak runt and start "molding" away?) Darwinism's substitution of imagination as evidence is really tiring.Atom
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
By the way: Changing a proud wolf into a sick little dog is no example for the evolution of "complexity". The forms created by breeders are not of higher complexity or richer in a genetic sense. The opposite is true. Bad for Darwinists like Dawkins or Coyne if they have to rely on Breeders experiences. Especially in the light of knowledge we have now...Markus Rammerstorfer
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
"First, as both Dawkins and I point out, if random mutations can't build complexity, how can they possibly have been so effective in artificial selection of plants and animals? Virtually anything you want to select in an animal or plant can be selected: as Darwin said, "Breeders habitually speak of an animal's organization as something quite plastic, which they can model almost as they please." The phenotype of organisms may be significantly changed by breeders (as its true for dogs) but not because of the innovative capacity of blind mutations and undirected natural selection but by different expression of already existing traits, loss of functions and complexity, simple alteration in genetic regulatory systems (as its true with size changes of dogs) and very clever choices of high-intelligent agents. These agents also know that the plasticity of organisms is limited: At a certain point the organismal form becomes instable, infertile, too weak not even protectable by the most skilled breeders. You can't select forever...Markus Rammerstorfer
July 4, 2007
July
07
Jul
4
04
2007
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply