New book from Michael Behe on how today’s DNA findings “devolve” Darwin

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 3, 2018

Darwinism, Evolution, Genetics, Genomics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Michael Behe’s new book at Amazon: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution is due February 26, 2019. No cover image as yet.

From HarperOne:

The scientist who has been dubbed the “Father of Intelligent Design” and author of the groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box contends that recent scientific discoveries further disprove Darwinism and strengthen the case for an intelligent creator.

In his controversial bestseller Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, arguing that science itself has proven that intelligent design is a better explanation for the origin of life. In Darwin Devolves, Behe advances his argument, presenting new research that offers a startling reconsideration of how Darwin’s mechanism works, weakening the theory’s validity even more.

A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently. But evolution never creates something organically. Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.

In addition to disputing the methodology of Darwinism and how it conflicts with the concept of creation, Behe reveals that what makes Intelligent Design unique—and right—is that it acknowledges causation. Evolution proposes that organisms living today are descended with modification from organisms that lived in the distant past. But Intelligent Design goes a step further asking, what caused such astounding changes to take place? What is the reason or mechanism for evolution? For Behe, this is what makes Intelligent Design so important. More.

Devolution… at last, something Darwinism really explains!

How odd that genome mapper and theistic evolutionist Francis Collins should have helped kill Darwinism before he got most Christians to buy into it.

See also: Devolution: Getting back to the simple life.

Comments

Q, where has the origin of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information (beyond 500 - 1,000 bits) been actually observed by such mechanisms? That is, how has the origin of major body plans been accounted for, and the bridging of the seas of non-functioning gibberish that separate islands of function, starting with, say, AA sequence space and proteins, thus genetic coding of proteins, their synthesis and assembly into cells, tissues, organs, systems and novel integrated body plans? I suggest, the true answer is, nowhere. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

When ID proponents on this site use the term “Darwinism,” they are referring to Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution (“NDE”), the basic tenets of which are described in the New World Encyclopedia as follows:
At the heart of the modern synthesis is the view that evolution is gradual and can be explained by small genetic changes in populations over time, due to the impact of natural selection on the phenotypic variation among individuals in the populations (Mayr 1982; Futuyma 1986). According to the modern synthesis as originally established, genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (it is now known to be caused sometimes by mistakes in DNA replication and via genetic recombination—the crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis). This genetic variation leads to phenotypic changes among members of a population. Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of natural selection. Speciation, the creation of new species, is a gradual process that generally occurs when populations become more and more diversified as a result of having been isolated, such as via geographic barriers, and eventually the populations develop mechanisms of reproductive isolation. Over time, these small changes will lead to major changes in design or the creation of new taxa. A major conclusion of the modern synthesis is that the concept of populations can explain evolutionary changes in a way that is consistent with the observations of naturalists and the known genetic mechanisms (Mayr 1982). Though agreement is not universal on the parameters of the modern synthesis, many descriptions hold as basic (1) the primacy of natural selection as the creative agent of evolutionary change; (2) gradualism (accumulation of small genetic changes); and (3) the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes (changes within species) to macroevolutionary trends (changes about the species level, such as the origin of new designs and broad patterns in history). Evolutionary change is a shift of the frequency of genes in a population, and macroevolutionary trends come from gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. Note, for example, the words of two of the leading figures in evolutionary theory, Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould. “The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species.” (Mayr 1963) “The core of this synthetic theory restates the two most characteristic assertions of Darwin himself: first, that evolution is a two-stage process (random variation as raw material, natural selection as a directing force); secondly, that evolutionary change is generally slow, steady, gradual, and continuous. . . Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes to the most profound structural transitions in life.” (Gould 1980)
Which part/s of this are obviously and irrefutably wrong?Quaesitor_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

What bothers me the most about Darwinism is not that it is wrong (many theories turn out to be wrong) but that it is so obviously and irrefutably wrong. Why it is still considered a scientific theory is an enduring mystery. It is protected by powerful invisible forces for mysterious reasons. The waste of minds, money and time is incalculable. Our civilization is built on lies and deception.FourFaces_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Yep.DATCG_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

The concept of "devolve" has been around for a long time. The first use of it here I could find is
Some ID theorists grant that random mutation and non-random death (natural selection) can accomplish some biological change, like what has been called devolution and microevolution
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-catholic-church-and-two-and-one-half-understandings-of-id/#comment-62207jerry_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

#1 Nonlin, It may be bad language, but Behe is not advocating Natural Selection as a strong force, is he? In the following sentence he states it's not a creative force per say. Many, even Darwinist today recognize Natural Selection is a very weak force of Variation. I'll wait to read his book.
A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently.
Maybe he can replace "can help make" with "allows" as in variation. The very next sentence it states...
But evolution never creates something organically. Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.
This seems in line with deleterious effects happen for survival, but not for building up macro-evolutionary scales of new information. Much like his examples of malaria which are deleterious. Here's a quote from him on deleterious mutations and malaria. Even though survivors survive, it's a deleterious condition of the gene with well known bad outcomes for the carrier - Sickle Cell disease.
“Random mutations much more easily debilitate genes than improve them, and that this is true even of the helpful mutations. Let me emphasize, our experience with malaria’s effects on humans (arguably our most highly studied genetic system) shows that most helpful mutations degrade genes. What’s more, as a group the mutations are incoherent, meaning that they are not adding up to some new system. They are just small changes - mostly degradative - in pre-existing, unrelated genes. The take-home lesson is that this is certainly not the kind of process we would expect to build the astonishingly elegant machinery of the cell. If random mutation plus selective pressure substantially trashes the human genome, why should we think that it would be a constructive force in the long term? There is no reason to think so.”
Least, that's what I take away from it. But I do know he's an evolutionist(edit: snipped out "not Darwinian" because I'm not entirely sure of his position).DATCG_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Why do ID proponents accept without questioning Darwin's baseless concept of "natural selection"?!? Summary: 1. Natural Selection concept fails since phenotype does not determine survival which is also tautological with “best adapted” 2. “Blind, mindless, purposeless, natural, and process” qualifiers fail 3. Phenotype is an unstable infinite set (hence unknowable and theoretical) 4. Fitness concept is redundant since never defined independently of survival 5. “Selection” is Survival 6. The only selection is Intelligent Selection - always done by an Intelligent Selector 7. Selection is limited to a narrow set of adaptations – one cannot selected what is not there 8. Selection and Mutations lack creativity, therefore cannot explain body designs 9. We do not observe “divergence of character” but ‘limited variations around a mean’ 10. Extinct organism were not flawed and their features were not “selected away” 11. Intelligent Selection should replace Natural Selection but only if we ever transmutate organisms 12. Humans do not apply Natural Selection because it doesn’t work 13. Designs must cross an inevitable optimization gap making evolution impossible "Natural selection" proponents must answer these simple questions - pick any biologic entity including populations and give the 80/20 Pareto without too much accuracy or precision : 1. What is that biologic entity's phenotype? 2. What is its environment? 3. What is its fitness function? 4. What is the relationship between its phenotype, environment, fitness, and survival/reproductive success? The five ridiculous claims of “natural selection” 1. “Design by multiple choice” is ridiculous 2. “Multiple choice from ALL random answers” is ridiculous 3. “Designing without trying” is ridiculous 4. “Self design” is ridiculous 5. “Design by incremental optimization” is ridiculousNonlin.org_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Behe is very wrong:
A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently.
There is in fact no "natural selection" mechanism at all. http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/ ... 2. No. Natural Selection fails since survival is not directly tied to phenotype and “survival of the best adapted” is tautological. In a small farm, only organisms closely related to their wild cousins survive, but agribusinesses select for chickens with oversize breasts and research labs select for populations with specific genetic mutations requiring tight environments to survive. As shown, all these different organisms may or may not survive regardless of their phenotype. The only measure of “selection” is survival – we only know if and organism was selected if it survives and reproduces. “Best adapted” is also unknowable separate from survival. 3. Survivability is a recurrent function of genotype, an infinite continuum of environments, and other unknown factors since phenotype is the unstable infinite set (hence unknowable and theoretical) of observable characteristics determined by genotype and the environment while genotype is a recurrent function of previous genotypes, environments, and other factors. While survivability can be measured as can be the individual genotype, measuring a population’s genotype is daunting at best, and the impact of the ever changing environment is simply impossible to evaluate. We do see genetic mutations (unknowable if random) and we do know that, given a similar environment, extreme genotypes reduce survivability, yet we also know that a large variety of genotypes survive just fine in any population. 4. Fitness is never defined independently of survival - this renders the fitness concept redundant especially since survivability can be measured while fitness cannot. Evolutionary Fitness is defined as the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection (reproductive success) of a genotype or phenotype in a given environment. "Survival of the fittest" is interpreted as: "Survival of the form (phenotypic or genotypic) that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." Not only is survivability the only measure, but survivability also changes with the environment. 5. Plant and animal breeding is not the “artificial selection” described by Darwin and has nothing to do with any natural process. Breeding requires a desired outcome, selection (just a minor step!) and isolation of successive generations of promising individuals, active mating or artificial insemination, optimization of growth conditions for the selected individuals, and/or other genetic technologies. Without most of these active steps nothing happens. Chihuahua and Poodle have no superior survivability to common dog or wolf, but happened anyway because humans worked hard to make them possible. But no one ensures all these active steps in nature. To take only one example, how could humans have “evolved” distinctly from chimps when no one separated each and every new generation based on a teleological model? Why did the proto-human not mate back with his/her regular chimp cousins to put an end to the split? Who and how could have separately optimized conditions for both chimp and human so both lineages survived in what looks like very much similar environments? ‘Selection’ of both “artificial” and “natural” type is thus the wrong word and should be phased out. ...Nonlin.org_{July 3, 2018
July
07
Jul
3
03
2018
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply