Books of interest Culture Darwinism Evolution Genetics Intelligent Design

Science Mag’s hit on Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves avoids his main point

Spread the love

In American Association for the Advancement of Science’s magazine, Science,  we read,

In the grand scheme of evolution, mutations serve only to break structures and degrade functions, Behe argues. He allows that mutation and natural selection can explain species- and genus-level diversification, but only through the degradation of genes. Something else, he insists, is required for meaningful innovation. Here, Behe invokes a “purposeful design” by an “intelligent agent.”

There are indeed many examples of loss-of-function mutations that are advantageous, but Behe is selective in his examples. He dedicates the better part of chapter 7 to discussing a 65,000-generation Escherichia coli experiment, emphasizing the many mutations that arose that degraded function—an expected mode of adaptation to a simple laboratory environment, by the way—while dismissing improved functions and deriding one new one as a “sideshow” (1). (Full disclosure: The findings in question were published by coauthor Richard Lenski.) Nathan H. Lents , S. Joshua Swamidass , Richard E. Lenski, “A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence” at Science

Who are the reviewers? Readers may remember Nathan Lents from his book, Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes, which prompted the legitimate question, “Does Nathan Lents, author of a “bad design” book really teach biology? (A doctor looks at his claims about the human sinuses).” Pathologist and biomedical engineer Joshua Swamidass has long been associated with theistic evolution group Biologos, though maybe not so much now. Richard Lenski is a respected researcher and NAS member who runs multi-generation evolutionary experiments on bacteria.

If you know a bit of the history of the debate, two things stand out from the review. As author Michael Behe observes,

In a few days I will offer a detailed rebuttal. But the overwhelmingly important point to notice right up front is that the reviewers (Lenski plus Josh Swamidass over at Peaceful Science and John Jay College biologist Nathan Lents) have absolutely no response to the very central argument of the book. The argument that I summarized as an epigraph on the first page of the book so no one could miss it. The one that I included in the title of a 2010 Quarterly Review of Biology article upon which the book is based. The one for which I chose the most in-your-face moniker that I could think of (consistent with the professional literature) to goad a response: The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring. The rule summarizes the fact that the overwhelming tendency of random mutation is to degrade genes, and that very often is helpful. Thus natural selection itself acts as a powerful de-volutionary force, increasing helpful broken and degraded genes in the population. Michael Behe, “Woo-hoo! In Science Review of Darwin Devolves, Lenski Has No Response to My Main Argument” at Evolution News and Science Today

Odd indeed. Claims around reproductive fitness (increasing the number of offspring) form the bulk of the news we hear around Darwinism. It’s supposed to explain how you vote, shop, and tip at restaurants, never mind why the peacock has a spectacular but useless tail. So the audience for the review (and the book) is presumably familiar with the concept. Do the reviewers, peers in the field, not have a response? They comment on just about everything else Behe has done.

Second, overall, the language of the review reminded some of us of something we’d heard before and it was easily traced: Lents and Swamidass had been struggling in public on how to do a hit on Behe’s book. And they came up with some of these ideas, served up to Science as leftovers from a blog that took root in the ruins of a previous blog apparently founded in response to someone getting dumped as a commenter here at Uncommon Descent. (Look, we agree that the soap opera is dull; our notes are just for the record. Watch the ball instead.)

If the only purpose for accepting this review was to convince Science readers that Darwinism, the central dogma of evolution, is not simply collapsing, I believe that the review will succeed. Many researchers want nothing more than to get their grant and go through the approved motions to present the approved research, maybe get the desired positions. If information is in an approved paper, it will look like fact to them. Yes, that’s a racket, but what else is there?

On the other hand, if you are in a position that you can afford to know more of the bigger picture of why Darwinism isn’t working anymore, get Darwin Devolves and examine carefully Behe’s central point – the very one the Science reviewers chose to omit discussing: The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring. Is it correct?

In these times, are you better off knowing the problems or innocently citing approved sources of misinformation as your reason for making decisions? You decide.

As we said earlier this week, “Hello? Darwin’s world is collapsing around us, snowflakes. See Suzan Mazur’s new book Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology and the Dissent from Darwinism list now topping 1000 career scientists. And these are unrelated events we heard about just this week, never mind all the others of the last two decades.”

See also: Mike Behe’s New Book, Darwin Devolves: “Absolutely Convincing” Or “Omits Contrary Examples”

From our files:

Protein families are still improbably astonishing – retraction of Matlock and Swamidass paper in order?

Biologist Wayne Rossiter on Joshua Swamidass’s claim that entropy = information

Inference Review did not set out to make a fool of cosmologist Adam Becker

27 Replies to “Science Mag’s hit on Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves avoids his main point

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    I don’t know why News thinks this is news. 🙂

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    Good on Behe for keeping himself fit & strong, as he must be to be able to shift goalposts around like this.
    This is the description of the book’s central message on the book’s homepage:

    Darwin’s mechanism works by a process of devolution, not evolution. On the surface, evolution can help make something look and act different, but it doesn’t have the ability to build or create anything at the genetic level.

    And this is what he is now claiming the central message is:

    The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring. The rule summarizes the fact that the overwhelming tendency of random mutation is to degrade genes, and that very often is helpful.

    So now the second sentence of the original message has disappeared. Could this be because the Science review demolishes it, by simply pointing to the evidence that refutes it by pointing to several examples where evolution has built and created new things at the genetic level?

  3. 3
    PeterA says:

    Perhaps the fact that the reaction to Dr. Behe’s new book is turning so loud lately indicates widespread anxious desperation in the Darwinian territory?
    Entrenched in their ideological bias, they keep spitting their microevolutionary extrapolatations, like delusional dictators hidden in a dark bunker, giving ineffective marching orders to a fictional army that has ceased to exist beyond their prolific imaginations. From their position they can’t see the avalanche of scientific discoveries that is making their outdated macroevolutionary ideas totally senseless. Even atheist scientists are calling for a revision of the old dogmas. But the establishment wants to hold their position at any price, to continue brainwashing the students with textbooks sprinkled with unscientific half trues. However, time seems against them. Newer research papers shed more light on the fascinating biological systems, revealing complex functionality and functional complexity. Fascinating is an understatement in this case.

  4. 4
    lantog says:

    I’ve just read the review and it doesnt look like they ignore the main point. They acknowledge that many loss of function mutations are advantageous but say Behe is selective in the ones he discusses. For example in Lenski’s work there were many LOF but one new function which Behe dismisses.
    They say Behe ignores many instances where his ideas were demolished and fails to mention many cases which disprove his point.
    Final sentence: Ultimately Dawrin Devolves fails to challenge modern evolutionary science because, once again, Behe does not fully engage with it. He misrepresents theory and avoids evidence that challenges him.
    One serious mistake they make – and there is NO excuse for this- it to claim that Behe claimed the chloroquine resistance couldn’t have evolved. Behe’s entire point of his previous book was that it DID evolve but he uses it to set a baseline for whats plausible.

  5. 5
    News says:

    Lantog, for clarification, where does the review address the point addressed here: “The argument that I summarized as an epigraph on the first page of the book so no one could miss it. The one that I included in the title of a 2010 Quarterly Review of Biology article upon which the book is based. The one for which I chose the most in-your-face moniker that I could think of (consistent with the professional literature) to goad a response: The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring. The rule summarizes the fact that the overwhelming tendency of random mutation is to degrade genes, and that very often is helpful. Thus natural selection itself acts as a powerful de-volutionary force, increasing helpful broken and degraded genes in the population.”

    If it is true that “One serious mistake they make – and there is NO excuse for this- it to claim that Behe claimed the chloroquine resistance couldn’t have evolved. Behe’s entire point of his previous book was that it DID evolve but he uses it to set a baseline for whats plausible,” then it does not sound as though addressing his objections honestly formed any part of their intentions.

    At any rate, based on your information, all the more I had better read the book.

  6. 6
    lantog says:

    News

    If it is true that “One serious mistake they make…..” then it does not sound as though addressing his objections honestly formed any part of their intentions.

    I’m sure they were addressing them honestly but they certainly didn’t read his work very closely…or even the analysis of his work on blogs!
    His book will definitely move the the front of the line in terms of my reading list – but its a long line and its hard to justify when I have plenty to read for work.

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    News – they address that by acknowledging it:

    There are indeed many examples of loss-of-function mutations that are advantageous, but Behe is selective in his examples. He dedicates the better part of chapter 7 to discussing a 65,000-generation Escherichia coli experiment, emphasizing the many mutations that arose that degraded function—an expected mode of adaptation to a simple laboratory environment, by the way—while dismissing improved functions and deriding one new one as a “sideshow” (1). (Full disclosure: The findings in question were published by coauthor Richard Lenski.)

  8. 8
    News says:

    Bob O’H at 7: “re) to goad a response: The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring. The rule summarizes the fact that the overwhelming tendency of random mutation is to degrade genes, and that very often is helpful. Thus natural selection itself acts as a powerful de-volutionary force, increasing helpful broken and degraded genes in the population.”

    That is a very general statement. It is not addressed by citing some contrary examples to the ones Behe cites, for the obvious reason that neither he by way of illustration nor they by way of rebuttal can list and discuss all the examples (and maintain a meaningful discussion). They do not appear to want to address the main thesis, that the major effect of natural selection is devolution.

    If they had reason to fear Behe might be right, it would be easier for them to hunt and peck for instances where that isn’t true and create a lot of fanfare around those.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    The argument from Darwinists against Behe’s argument seems to be, that he dismissed “improved functions and derided a one new one as a “sideshow””.

    I’ll wait for Behe himself, (“In a few days I (Behe) will offer a detailed rebuttal”), to address the molecular details, but one thing that struck me in the Darwinist’s accusation that Behe has ignored and/or dismissed evidence in favor of Darwinism, is that Darwinists themselves completely ignore many lines of evidence that directly contradicts and/or falsifies their theory.

    For instance, (out many such instances I could allude to), aside from hand-waving about ecological niches, the only response I’ve ever seen from Darwinists to the following line of evidence is silence, and/or dismissal of its importance. That line of evidence is the extreme, i.e. non-Darwinian, stasis witnessed for ancient bacteria and/or microbes,

    “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”
    http://www.physicsforums.com/s.....p?t=281961

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes: Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.”
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    The extreme stasis witnessed in morphology goes back even further,

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

    Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years – February 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago — and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....104131.htm

    Organisms Refusing to Evolve Over Millions of Years – January 15, 2016
    Excerpt: The team conducted multiple tests on the mats and the microbes found hidden under them, including bulk carbon and SEM analysis and Raman micro-spectroscopy and report that the microbes were shaped like rods, growing in train like filaments, similar to many bacteria alive today. They note also that the microbes were quite uniform in shape and that they were able to control their diameter and length as modern microbes do. The fossils are also approximately 500 million years older than any other previous fossil found in a habitat, and thus represent some of the earliest forms of life ever found (the very earliest date back to approximately 3.43 billion years ago.)
    http://crev.info/2016/01/refusing-to-evolve/

    The geochemical signature reveals the same result of long term extreme stasis

    Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth’s Oldest Fossils – May 2010
    Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats’ metabolic period — and is also seen in ancient rocks — shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,,
    – per science daily

    Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old – 11/11/13
    Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages.
    http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-p...../topstory1

    Scientists find signs of life in Australia dating back 3.48 billion years – Thu November 14, 2013
    Excerpt: “We conclude that the MISS in the Dresser Formation record a complex microbial ecosystem, hitherto unknown, and represent one of the most ancient signs of life on Earth.”… “this MISS displays the same associations that are known from modern as well as fossil” finds. The MISS also shows microbes that act like “modern cyanobacteria,”
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/.....ient-life/

    3.5 billion-year-old ecosystem found – November 12, 2013
    Excerpt: “Mound-like deposits created by ancient bacteria, called stromatolites, and microfossils of bacteria have previously been discovered in this region. However, a phenomenon called microbially induced sedimentary structures, or MISS, had not previously been seen in rocks of this great age.”
    MISS were created by microbial mats as the microbial communities responded to changes in physical sediment dynamics, Professor Wacey said.
    “A common example would be the binding together of sediment grains by microbes to prevent their erosion by water currents,” he said. “The significance of MISS is that they not only demonstrate the presence of life, but also the presence of whole microbial ecosystems that could co-ordinate with one another to respond to changes in their environment.”,,,
    The team described the various MISS from the ancient coastal flats preserved in the Dresser Formation and found close similarities in both form and preservation style to MISS in younger rocks.
    http://www.sciencealert.com.au.....25003.html

    Oldest fossils on Earth discovered in 3.7bn-year-old Greenland rocks – August 31, 2016
    Excerpt: Scientists have discovered the oldest physical evidence for life on the planet in the form of fossils in Greenland rocks that formed 3.7bn years ago.
    The researchers believe the structures in the rocks are stromatolites – layered formations, produced by the activity of microbes, that can be found today in extremely saline lagoons in a few locations around the world.
    The new fossils are 220 million years older than any previously discovered.
    “Up until now the oldest stromatolites have been from Western Australia and they are roughly 3,500 million (3.5bn) years [old],” said Clark Friend, an independent researcher and co-author of the research. “What we are doing is pushing the discovery of life earlier in Earth’s history.”,,,
    the shape of the newly discovered structures, together with clues from their chemical make-up and signs of layers within them, suggests that they were formed by microbes,,,
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/31/oldest-fossils-on-earth-discovered-in-37bn-year-old-greenland-rocks-stromatolites

    Thus, since Darwinists constantly ignore many lines of falsifying evidence such as this, it is the height of hypocrisy for them to now falsely accuse Dr. Behe of ignoring and/or dismissing evidence.

    Like Dr. Behe said, “In a few days I (Behe) will offer a detailed rebuttal”. And that is certainly far more than the hand waving dismissal that we constantly get from Darwinists to all the lines of evidence presented against them that falsifies their theory..

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    News @ 8 – is the the main thesis that the major effect of natural selection is devolution, or is it (as Behe states on the book’s webpage) that devolution is the only effect of natural selection? I haven’t read the book, so I’m going to go with what the book’s homepage says.

  11. 11
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    When Lenski, et. al, say this: “—while dismissing improved functions and deriding one new one as a ‘sideshow’ “, they’re referring, IIRC, the “evolution” of glucose or lactose metabolism (or some sort of sugar reduction) in an aerobic environment. Behe has pointed out already that the E. coli already has this capacity and that this “additional” capacity is not the ability to degrade the sugar for metabolic purposes but the ability to use this capacity in an “deoxygenated” (or “oxygenated”—can’t remember which, but either way it’s basically the same thing). And the way this is done is by breaking down other stuff.

    So, it’s NOT something ‘new,’ but, rather, an already present capability being simply utilized under aerobic conditions. This is not some monumental build-up of some entirely new function.

    Lenski, et. al., can rave all they want about this ‘new function,’ but it is completely unimpressive–which is like most of ‘microevolution’: a slightly bigger beak size, dark coloration from lighter coloration etc. (You know, like saying a ‘red’ Corvette is an entirely new species of Corvette, which are normally either black or white.)

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    If they had reason to fear Behe might be right, it would be easier for them to hunt and peck for instances where that isn’t true and create a lot of fanfare around those.

    Now why didn’t they think of that!

  13. 13
    vmahuna says:

    OK, so I will most assuredly purchase Dr. Behe’s new book, but it hasn’t been PUBLISHED yet. I’ve already bought and read 2 of his previous books. He strikes me as a sane man in a sea of insanity. We need more writers like him. Or Ann Gauger. I like her writing, too.

  14. 14
    PeterA says:

    BA77,
    Good commentary. Thanks.

  15. 15
    PeterA says:

    PaV,
    Good point. Thanks.

  16. 16
    anthropic says:

    When we were on an Alaska cruise, a marine biologist mentioned that the dorsal fin of orcas was diminishing over recent decades. Nobody knows why, exactly, though there are theories. Anyway, I thought this was a good example of Behe’s point.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    These guys are clueless:

    Missing from Behe’s discussion is any mention of exaptation, the process by which nature retools structures for new function and possibly the most common mechanism that leads to the false impression of irreducible complexity. Some Sphingomonas bacteria, for example, have evolved the ability to digest a wood preservative, pentachlorophenol, by recruiting two unrelated biochemical pathways (7). Neither pathway can do that job alone, yet there they are together. The feathers of birds, gas bladders of fish, and ossicles of mammals have similar exaptive origins.

    So blind and mindless processes didit? Blind and mindless processes can’t even produce eukaryotes. These fools are barking at the new moon.

    Behe is skeptical that gene duplication followed by random mutation and selection can contribute to evolutionary innovation.

    Skeptical of the claim that blind and mindless processes didit.

    It is all question-begging and whining.

  18. 18
    tjguy says:

    I have not read the book neither am I a scientist, so what I have to say may not hold much water but…

    His central caveat is this: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring. The rule summarizes the fact that the overwhelming tendency of random mutation is to degrade genes, and that very often is helpful. ”

    I’m not a supporter of Darwinism, but neither do I think this could be characterized as a Rule. We all know that this can and does happen, but he asserts it happens as the mechanism for evolution. He asserts that random mutations are “often very helpful”. I think that is was overstepping the evidence. Often? Really? “Very helpful”? Really? Sure, there are some that have proven helpful in certain ways, but how in the world can this be stated as a rule of evolution? Aren’t most mutations neutral or just slightly deleterious? I’m not on board this argument yet and I’m afraid that if it gets blown out of the water, it will have a negative effect on ID.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Anthropic at 10, this may be of interest:

    The following article shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth.

    The Cambrian’s Many Forms
    Excerpt: “It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.””From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,”….(Yet Surprisingly)….”There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the “surprising and unexplained” loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
    http://www.terradaily.com/repo.....s_999.html

    The following study of one hundred fossil groups also found ‘early high disparity’ and “turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. ”

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    A few more quotes that support the principle of genetic entropy in the fossil record:

    “According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet.”
    Stephen Gould, Harvard, Nature, V.385, 1/16/97

    “Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times.”
    Von Engeln & Caster Geology, p.19

    “Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern University’s Department of Physiology,,, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history.”
    Science Daily, 8/8/07

    Dinosaur Found in Mammal’s Belly – Hillary Mayell – January 12, 2005
    Excerpt: Early mammals were not only bigger than previously thought—some were carnivores and hunted small dinosaurs for dinner.
    Scientists in China have uncovered the fossil remains of two mammals that lived around 130 million years ago. The finds will revolutionize current thinking about life during the Mesozoic era (248 million to 65 million years ago), a time when both dinosaurs and mammals arose.,,,
    ,,,As little as two decades ago, schools taught that the dinosaurs ruled the Earth from 248 million years ago until some still-unknown catastrophic event caused their extinction around 65 million years ago.,,,
    Mammals were not thought to have grown much bigger than rats until after the dinosaurs were gone.,,,
    http://news.nationalgeographic.....ter_2.html

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes:
    Excerpt: “As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo’s law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible.”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

    A general rule of thumb for the ‘Deterioration/Genetic Entropy’ of Dollo’s Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes
    ABSTRACT: Dollo’s law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or “lost” developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints;
    http://www.pnas.org/content/91.....l.pdf+html

    Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo’s law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, “The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....f_tim.html

    Some Further Research On Dollo’s Law – Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig – November 2010
    http://www.globalsciencebooks......)1-21o.pdf

    Moreover, it has been found that a radical change in environment leads to extinction of species and not to the origination of new species as Darwinists presupposed:

    New Species, Darwin Wrong Again – June 28, 2013
    Excerpt: By examining the fossil records of 19 Cenozoic terrestrial mammal clades, Quental and Marshall discovered extinction rates exceeding the formation rates of new species. Fossil record evidence demonstrates that the rate of extinction far exceeds the formation of new species.
    ,,, The investigators found no evidence for the emergence of any new species.
    These fossil record findings undermine Darwin’s theory that changing environments are a driving force of evolution:
    “under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.”
    Rather than acquiring “any degree of perfection” in the wake of environmental changes, the effect increased the rate of extinction, not speciation.
    ,,,When species are challenged by changing environments, rather than adapting, the pendulum swings in favor of destruction?extinction rather than “the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection.” Darwin’s natural selection pendulum favors extinction, not the formation of new species.
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....ong-again/

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Also of interest, humans are devolving, not evolving into some type of superhumans as was envisioned by the Nazis, and as is still envisioned by many modern day Darwinists,

    Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? – February 2011
    Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years,
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....arter.html

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

    Cro Magnon skull shows that our brains have shrunk – Mar 15, 2010 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of the 28,000-year-old brain and found that it is about 15-20% larger than our brains.
    http://phys.org/news187877156.html

    Human face has shrunk over the past 10,000 years – November 2005
    Excerpt: Human faces are shrinking by 1%-2% every 1,000 years. What’s more, we are growing less teeth. Ten thousand years ago everyone grew wisdom teeth but now only half of us get them, and other teeth like the lateral incisors have become much smaller. This is evolution in action.”
    http://www.stonepages.com/news.....01604.html

    Scientists Discover Proof That Humanity Is Getting Dumber, Smaller And Weaker By Michael Snyder, on April 29th, 2014
    Excerpt: An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly.
    Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 percent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.
    And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller.
    The findings reverse perceived wisdom that humans have grown taller and larger, a belief which has grown from data on more recent physical development.
    The decline, said scientists, has happened over the past 10,000 years.
    http://thetruthwins.com/archiv.....and-weaker

    of related note:

    “Neanderthals are known for their large cranial capacity, which at 1600cc is larger on average than modern humans.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Anatomy

    The genetic evidence falls in line with the fossil evidence,

    Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations – (Nov. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins — the workhorses of the cell — occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
    “One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,”,,,
    “Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older.” (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
    The report shows that “recent” events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
    The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132259.htm

    Also see,

    NIH Presentation – Mutation Accumulation: Is it a Serious Health Risk? – John Sanford – lectured delivered at National Institutes of Health – 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqIjnol9uh8

    Genetic Entropy – Sanford’s main site
    https://www.geneticentropy.org/

  21. 21
    Eugene says:

    It is actually possible that Darwin and ID proponents are both right. How so? Very easy. We don’t know where random events are coming from in nature. Sure, wave function collapse is presumably random, and so the mutations caused by quantum events are presumably random too, but where is this randomness coming from? If the randomness is ultimately produced and controlled by the Designer, then those random mutations are no longer random. They can be guided on as-needed basis, yet we will never notice the subtle difference.

  22. 22
    PeterA says:

    A never-ending debate where people talk past each other?

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Eugene states,

    Sure, wave function collapse is presumably random,

    I don’t ‘presume’ wave function collapse to be random. As Steven Weinberg stated, “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure”. Weinberg also stated that the instrumentalist approach undermines the Darwinian worldview from within in that “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg
    – JANUARY 19, 2017
    Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9
    ,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,
    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

    Moreover, with the closing of the ‘free-will loophole’, the instrumentalist approach is now empirically verified as being true:

    (December 2018) Neuroscientific and quantum validation of free will
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/three-knockdown-proofs-of-the-immateriality-of-mind-and-why-computers-compute-not-think/#comment-670445

    Moreover the probability distribution for where you will find a particle after wave function collapse follows the Born rule, and is therefore not completely random.

    The Born rule (also called the Born law, Born’s rule, or Born’s law) formulated by German physicist Max Born in 1926, is a law of quantum mechanics giving the probability that a measurement on a quantum system will yield a given result.[1] In its simplest form it states that the probability density of finding the particle at a given point is proportional to the square of the magnitude of the particle’s wavefunction at that point. The Born rule is one of the key principles of quantum mechanics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule

    In fact, the inability to derive the Born rule for probability distribution is one of the main reasons why we know that the Many Worlds Interpretation is false.

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – (Inspiring Philosophy – 2014) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=7

    Maverick branches, a proof that Everett’s (Many Worlds) theory is totally wrong – December 02, 2015
    Excerpt: To make any predictions, one must pick a basis and use the Born rule to compute the probabilities of each possible outcome. The basis of “possible outcomes” must be actively chosen by an observer. There can’t exist any “canonical” or “objective” way to pick the right basis for the Hilbert space. If the people were thinking about actual physical problems and not some idealized propagandist clichés that are designed to make the MWI paradigm look viable, even though it is not, they would know that what they claim to be possible clearly isn’t possible.
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2015.....s.html?m=1

    Quantum probability and many worlds – 2007
    Abstract: We discuss the meaning of probabilities in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We start by presenting very briefly the many worlds theory, how the problem of probability arises, and some unsuccessful attempts to solve it in the past. Then we criticize a recent attempt by Deutsch to derive the quantum mechanical probabilities from the non-probabilistic parts of quantum mechanics and classical decision theory. We further argue that the Born probability does not make sense even as an additional probability rule in the many worlds theory. Our conclusion is that the many worlds theory fails to account for the probabilistic statements of standard quantum mechanics.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s.....980700024X

    Moreover, Darwinists presupposed that the randomness of life would be based on thermodynamic principles, not quantum principles. As Bruce Alberts stated, “most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB.”

    “We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB — and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme’s active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second.
    But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
    – Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294)
    https://brucealberts.ucsf.edu/publications/BAPub157.pdf
    Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013). Dr Alberts served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences

    Yet life, contrary to what Darwinists presupposed, and as Schrodinger predicted in his 1944 book “What is Life”, life is found to be based on ‘very orderly’ Quantum Principles, and not on ‘very disorderly’ thermodynamic principles as Darwinists had presupposed:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, the presupposed unconstrained randomness of thermodynamics, as is held in Darwinian theory, is falsified by what is termed the ‘Quantum Zeno Effect’. Which is, to put it simply, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.

    Quantum Zeno Effect
    The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

    ‘Zeno effect’ verified—atoms won’t move while you watch – October 23, 2015
    Excerpt: Graduate students,, created and cooled a gas of about a billion Rubidium atoms inside a vacuum chamber and suspended the mass between laser beams.,,,
    In that state the atoms arrange in an orderly lattice just as they would in a crystalline solid.,But at such low temperatures, the atoms can “tunnel” from place to place in the lattice.,,,
    The researchers demonstrated that they were able to suppress quantum tunneling merely by observing the atoms.,,,
    The researchers observed the atoms under a microscope by illuminating them with a separate imaging laser. A light microscope can’t see individual atoms, but the imaging laser causes them to fluoresce, and the microscope captured the flashes of light. When the imaging laser was off, or turned on only dimly, the atoms tunneled freely. But as the imaging beam was made brighter and measurements made more frequently, the tunneling reduced dramatically.,,,
    The experiments were made possible by the group’s invention of a novel imaging technique that made it possible to observe ultracold atoms while leaving them in the same quantum state.,,,
    The popular press has drawn a parallel of this work with the “weeping angels” depicted in the Dr. Who television series – alien creatures who look like statues and can’t move as long as you’re looking at them. There may be some sense to that. In the quantum world, the folk wisdom really is true: “A watched pot never boils.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-10-z.....-wont.html

    Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015
    Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....S-20150415

    The reason why I am very impressed with the Quantum Zeno effect as to establishing consciousness and free will’s primacy in quantum mechanics is, for one thing, that Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:

    “An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ”
    Dr Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video
    https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

    Moreover, as the following paper, (The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution), states, “Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,”

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Moreover, on top of all that, the vast majority of ‘mutations’ to DNA are now shown, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, not to be random mutations but are shown to be directed mutations.

    How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013
    Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – 2014
    Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.
    On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.
    http://edge.org/response-detail/25264

    Duality in the human genome – November 28, 2014
    Excerpt: The results show that most genes can occur in many different forms within a population: On average, about 250 different forms of each gene exist. The researchers found around four million different gene forms just in the 400 or so genomes they analysed. This figure is certain to increase as more human genomes are examined. More than 85 percent of all genes have no predominant form which occurs in more than half of all individuals. This enormous diversity means that over half of all genes in an individual, around 9,000 of 17,500, occur uniquely in that one person – and are therefore individual in the truest sense of the word.
    The gene, as we imagined it, exists only in exceptional cases. “We need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time.,,,
    According to the researchers, mutations of genes are not randomly distributed between the parental chromosomes. They found that 60 percent of mutations affect the same chromosome set and 40 percent both sets. Scientists refer to these as cis and trans mutations, respectively. Evidently, an organism must have more cis mutations, where the second gene form remains intact. “It’s amazing how precisely the 60:40 ratio is maintained. It occurs in the genome of every individual – almost like a magic formula,” says Hoehe.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....enome.html

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover even these ‘directed’ mutations are of no help to Darwinists. Specifically we find that, “Even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.”

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy – Dr John Sanford – 7 March 2013
    Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.].
    African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!
    http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

    Further notes refuting the entire reductive materialist foundation of Darwinian evolution can be found here:

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Quote and Verses:

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    Psalm 102:25-27
    Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

    Hebrews 1:10-12
    You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
    And the heavens are the works of Your hands;
    They will perish, but You remain;
    And they all will become old like a garment,
    And like a mantle You will roll them up;
    Like a garment they will also be changed.
    But You are the same,
    And Your years will not come to an end.

    Romans 8:18-21
    I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

  26. 26
    Nonlin.org says:

    Behe deserves the three stooges’ criticism for playing their game with his acceptance of “natural selection”, “beneficial mutation”, “microevolution”, etc.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    It is really sad that Joshua Swamidass is really proud of his review even though it is nothing but an attack on a straw man or caricature of what Dr. Behe is saying.

    Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”?

    The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems

    That was from Dr Behe’s schooling of Judge Jones after the lame decision came out. These three stooges clearly didn’t get, didn’t read or couldn’t understand, the memo.

    What is even more pathetic is not one of ID’s opponents will understand any of that nor will they grasp anything Dr. Behe has to say because they cannot grasp the context.

Leave a Reply