Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: Behe Debates the Limits of Darwinian Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Connecting with an earlier post at UD, Michael Behe speaks to the limits of naturalism and when a “designing intelligence” is needed.

A new ID the Future episode wraps up a debate over evolution and intelligent design between Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe and Benedictine College theologian Michael Ramage. Both Behe and Ramage are Catholic, and they carry on their conversation in the context of Catholic thinking about nature and creation, in particular the work of Thomas Aquinas and contemporary Thomist philosophers. Ramage seeks to integrate his Thomistic/personalist framework with modern evolutionary theory’s commitment to macroevolution and common descent. Behe doesn’t discount the possibility of common descent but he lays out a case that any evolution beyond the level of genus — for instance, the separate families containing cats and dogs — cannot be achieved through mindless Darwinian mechanisms and, instead, would require the contributions of a designing intelligence. Behe summarizes both the negative evidence against the Darwinian mechanism of change and the positive evidence in nature for intelligent design. This debate was hosted by Pat Flynn on his Philosophy for the People podcast. Download the episode or listen to it here.

Evolution News
Comments
I’m sure it does, but these are just generic claims. So, please point me to something that speaks as directly (as possible) to something I can sink my teeth into.
Hmm. It's the consilience between what fossil evidence exists and what sorts of animals existed and how some modern animals are very similar in form to those ancient fossil animals. We can look at molecular evidence, the nested hierarchy of visual pigments, the embryology of eye development across species and molecular phylogenetics to confirm the homologies in genetic sequences. If you dismiss all that, then I can't see I can help you.Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
AF, "modern descendants of ancient groups exist" "genetic evidence exists" "Embryological evidence exists" I'm sure it does, but these are just generic claims. So, please point me to something that speaks as directly (as possible) to something I can sink my teeth into. Because I really don't want to waste my time if you really don't have any solid evidence to present and you are just relying on mental exercises. Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Well, of course, direct evidence from fossil organisms is sparse. But modern descendants of ancient groups exist, molecular and genetic evidence exists. Embryological evidence exists. Are you dismissing all that?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
AF, Firstly, most all of the important evidence doesn't exist: "Firstly, the most important advances in the organization of what would eventually become the vertebrate eye occurred over 500 million years ago (Mya), prior to the evolution of hard body parts (like a bony skeleton), and as a result, many such advances in the arrangement of the vertebrate eye occurred in animals that are either not preserved, or else are very poorly represented in the fossil record." Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Perhaps we can whet appetites with the abstract! In his considerations of “organs of extreme perfection,” Charles Darwin described the evidence that would be necessary to support the evolutionary origin of the eye, namely, demonstration of the existence of “numerous gradations” from the most primitive eye to the most perfect one, where each such tiny change had provided a survival advantage (however slight) to the organism possessing the subtly altered form. In this paper, we discuss evidence indicating that the vertebrate eye did indeed evolve through numerous subtle changes. The great majority of the gradual transitions that did occur have not been preserved to the present time, either in the fossil record or in extant species; yet clear evidence of their occurrence remains. We discuss the remarkable “eye” of the hagfish, which has features intermediate between a simple light detector and an image-forming camera-like eye and which may represent a step in the evolution of our eye that can now be studied by modern methods. We also describe the important clues to the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye that can be found by studying the embryological development of our own eye, by examining the molecular genetic record preserved in our own genes and in the genes of other vertebrates, and through consideration of the imperfections (or evolutionary “scars”) in the construction of our eye. Taking these findings together, it is possible to discuss in some detail how the vertebrate eye evolved.Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
We could start with what is already published. So I get a better idea of what you consider evidence. I suspect it is going to be an insurmountably high bar but let's see. Prof. Trevor Lamb covered this in some detail in 2008 The Origin of the Vertebrate EyeAlan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
"What about the vertebrate eye?" AF, Sure. Do you have an evidentiary path to provide to us? Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
How about an evidentiary path of successive microevolutions that resulted something cumulative?
So you don't suggest anything specific? What about the vertebrate eye? No macroevolution involved there.Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
"Specific evidence that macroevolution is not more than cumulative microevolution over time? Is that what you want from me? From someone who doesn’t consider macroevolution a thing in itself but a summary of microevolutionary processes?" OK AF, How about an evidentiary path of successive microevolutions that resulted in something cumulative? Andrew P.S. ooooh the wheel in the sky...asauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
I asked for a specific evidentiary path where this is the case
Specific evidence that macroevolution is not more than cumulative microevolution over time? Is that what you want from me? From someone who doesn't consider macroevolution a thing in itself but a summary of microevolutionary processes?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
I asked for a specific evidentiary path where this is the case
Specific evidence that macroevolution is not more than cumulative microevolution over time? Is that what you want from me? From someone who hAlan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
I asked for a specific evidentiary path where this is the case
Specific evidence that macroevolution is not more than cumulative microevolution over time? Is that what you want from me? From someone who hAlan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
AF, Comment #20 that you didn't respond to but reacted to... And round and round and round and round we go... again... Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Your personal bacterium? No. ?
And I have plenty of E. coli to offer. I was thinking of a bacterium in one of Lenski"s flasks and its history.
Something related to what I’ve been asking for and not getting? Yes.
I don't pay much attention to your comments, nor am I a mindreader. What is it you've been asking for and not getting?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Andrew at 26, I think you'll be seeing more of that in the future. :)relatd
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
AF at 21, Tonight on The Niche with Alan Fox, Alan will explain how it's IMPOSSIBLE to fit a camshaft from the 1963 Alfa Romeo into the 1962 model. He will then explain how it's perfectly reasonable that a new protein can appear out of thin air in a complex biological organism like a human being.relatd
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
AF at 18, Pffft! More time. Tonight on Alan Fox, the Magician, Alan will show viewers how new features form over a million years. Of course, you will have to wait a million years to (allegedly) see this happen.relatd
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
"Do you want to hear anything about my bacterium?" AF, Your personal bacterium? No. ;) Something related to what I've been asking for and not getting? Yes. Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
So, as I thought, there is no ID explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Right, Andy? Do you want to hear anything about my bacterium?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
"And what about contrasting it with an ID explanation for something biological?" AF is channeling JVL. Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
"What about an E. coli bacterium?" AF, What about it? Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
And what about contrasting it with an ID explanation for something biological?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
How about just one individual?
What about an E. coli bacterium?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
"Of course, I can’t provide a blow-by-blow account of every descent to every individual" How about just one individual? I'm right again. Sigh. How do I do it? ;) Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
I asked for a specific evidentiary path where this is the case, and none could be provided. And I predict won’t be provided.
All of them. The relatedness of all extant and extinct species form an overarching hierarchy from the last universal common ancestor. Of course, I can't provide a blow-by-blow account of every descent to every individual, though the related biochemistry and morphology shines through it all like a beacon. Where are Behe's limits? Why are ID proponents failing to demonstrate them. Why are Behe's examples (polar bears, hydroquinone resistance etc) rotinely exposed as wrong?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
"Macroevolution is nothing more than accumulation of successive microevulotions." Wrong, I asked for a specific evidentiary path where this is the case, and none could be provided. And I predict won't be provided. Again. Andrewasauber
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
There are no additional factors involved, just more time
Time to change words. From supercilious to specious. Of course all is nonsense whichever it is. Ironic thing - they all know it’s nonsense.jerry
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Macroevolution is nothing more than accumulation of successive microevulotions. There are no additional factors involved, just more timeAlan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
show how Jerry, likely unwittingly, has also conceded the game
Jerry admits to micro evolution. Wow! I didn’t know that ChuckDarwin and Darwin were only in the micro evolution game. Both are definitely not in the Evolution debate. Learn something new every day. I said supercilious in #1. Prediction has come true.jerry
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
For all intents and purposes, proteins appear out of nowhere and “Know” exactly what to do.
This is nonsense. Where do you get this stuff?Alan Fox
September 1, 2022
September
09
Sep
1
01
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply