Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mid-morning mug: Are Darwinists running out of insults and profanity?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently, biochemist Michael Behe published an article in Quarterly Review of Biology, titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” arguing that “the most common adaptive changes seen … are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function.”

So, not only must the long, slow process of Darwinian evolution create every exotic form of life in the blink of a geological eye, but it must do so by losing or modifying what a life form already has.

This, apparently, got evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s recent attention:

Anyway, Behe reviews the last four decades of work on experimental evolution in bacteria and viruses (phage), and finds that nearly all the adaptive mutations in these studies fall into classes 1 and 3. We see very few “gain of FCT” mutations. Although this is not my field, the review seems pretty thorough to me, and the conclusions, as far as they apply to lab studies of adaptation in viruses and bacteria, seem sound.

It looks as though Coyne must now actually take Behe’s argument seriously.

Of course, he should have a long time ago, but for years Darwinists were happy to let trolls lob insults and profanity. Somewhat the way a deadbeat curses the bank officer who knows he hasn’t got the goods.

Comments
AHHHH...now I remember, it is not Neil, it is Larry who holds these wonderouns positions. Sorry Neil. Profound apologies. - - - - - So Larry... give me the references please. Tell me where I make "wistful assertions of magic realms".Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Larry, truly an amazing post. Do you really think its a difficult physical case to make that living things die? Perhaps you see it as a difficult philosophical case to make that living things die? Really. Larry. Do things die? And... WTF is this about:
You like to pooh-pooh those who are unimpressed with wistful assertions of magic realms where people go after dying, those who are not convinced by fuzzy NDE claims and such, but where is your positive case?
I am ready to be embarrassed. Please provide a reference for anything whatsosever you just attributed to me. I want to read up on my "wistful assertions of magic realms". Thanks.Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Though Coyne seems to innocently forget that practically all of the evidence in the Edge of Evolution was based for 'organisms in the wild', and though Coyne feels it is unjustified to extrapolate the consistent evidence we witness for Genetic Entropy in the 'short term', to long term principles for life on earth, Coyne also seemed to innocently forget another more direct extrapolation that can be taken from comparative population sizes for what we have directly witnessed in the short term: Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 further note: These following videos are very good, for they use the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists themselves, for population genetics, to show that the evolution of whales, and even of humans, is impossible even by using their own mathematical methods of predicting change: Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203bornagain77
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
BiPed (11), I don't want to de-rail the discussion here, but I would genuinely like to have you lay out the case supporting "the death of a living thing" as "an ultimate reality for that living thing." If you are not using "ultimate reality" in a figurative sense, then you are making what I think is a difficult physical and philosophical case. If, in other words, you are suggesting that death exists as a dimension that is both after this here reality of our lives and separate from it, then you need to explain what the case is for this reality and to answer the main objections to the case. You like to pooh-pooh those who are unimpressed with wistful assertions of magic realms where people go after dying, those who are not convinced by fuzzy NDE claims and such, but where is your positive case? As I said, I don't want to de-rail this discussion here, but since you brought up the topic of "ultimate realities," I want to invite you to post here or here. I look forward to reading your response.LarTanner
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Dr. Behe's entire paper is now available online: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_new_paper_in_qua041601.htmlbornagain77
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Neil, you philosophical genuis you, did you ever figure out if the death of living thing is an ultimate reality for that living thing? Or, do you still consider it (as you say of all ultimate realities) a mere fantasy? :)Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Thanks BA!Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Neil- It seems disingenuous to say it was distorted. It's a different interpretation.Phaedros
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Jerry Coyne has responded, with Discovery Institute already distorting Behe’s new paper.Neil Rickert
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
UB, 7 pages to it, here is the last page http://behe.uncommondescent.com/page/7/bornagain77
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
UB there are several pages to Behe's blog, i.e. it is not just one page you have to select, I believe, previous, on the bottom of the page.bornagain77
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
BA, I had reviewed the UD Behe material...but it certainly seemed there was far more that was once available on Amazon. Perhaps I am mistaken...Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
UB all Behe's amazon blog is now available here on UD: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/ specifically Lenski here: http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/10/new-work-by-richard-lenski/ ENV has a take on Coyne's article here http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/behes_challenge_a_conversation041471.htmlbornagain77
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
OT sort of... Behe's rebuttals regarding Lenski which were housed on his Amazon blog are now gone....are they available anywhere else?Upright BiPed
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
I am not sure why anyone takes Coyne seriously. He is nothing more than an evangelical athiest charlatan.jon specter
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Wow, what a concession! Elsewhere in his article, Coyne makes the following point:
And in many cases the origin of new genes via duplication or swapping of bits is untraceable because the genes originated so long ago and have diverged so greatly in sequence that their origin is obscure.
If the origin of new genes is "untraceable" and "obscure," why does he say we know it happened?QuiteID
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
Coyne, though he agrees that Dr. Behe's conclusions are correct as to what the experimental evidence over the past 40 years has revealed about the sheer poverty of evidence for 'vertical' evolution, Coyne tries to allude to horizontal gene transfer 'in the wild', and to vast eons of time, to say that new Functional Coded ElemenTs (FCTs) can arise by natural means. In fact he states that he 'knows' this is true. Yet Behe in the Edge Of Evolution relies almost exclusively on the evidence 'from the wild' to make his point clear that no such evidence exists: Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible ...unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ...ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html Again I would like to emphasize, I’m not arguing Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems, the data on malaria, and the other examples, are a observation that it does not. In science observation beats theory all the time. So Professor (Richard) Dawkins can speculate about what he thinks Darwinian processes could do, but in nature Darwinian processes have not been shown to do anything in particular. Michael Behe - 46 minute mark of video lecture on 'The Edge of Evolution' for C-SPAN https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-lecture-recommend/comment-page-1/#comment-361037 These following articles reveal some of the many elaborate ploys, including horizontal gene transfer, that evolutionists have used in the past to try to deceive the public into thinking evolutionary processes can easily generate functional information: Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information - Casey Luskin - March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251 further note: Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene? "our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)." http://www.creationsafaris.com/epoi_c10.htm --------------- What is extremely ironic in all this is that Darwinists are the ones who are forever trying to extrapolate micro-evolutionary events to explain the origination of novel species on earth (macro-evolution), in fact it is taught as 'dogma' in grade school that micro-evolution is clear proof of macro-evolution, yet when it is clearly shown that all micro-evolutionary events, if they are to be extrapolated at all, should properly be extrapolated to solidify the principle of Genetic Entropy, then all of the sudden what was such a 'easy' extrapolation for them in the first place all of the sudden becomes a 'gnat they struggle mightily to strain'. Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086bornagain77
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply