Of course, just now, one suspects that it is mainly the editors in Frisco who have pored over it. But now, Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne tells us,l
Michael Behe, author of the intelligent-design (ID) creationist books Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, has a new book coming out next February, Darwin Devolves: The New Science about DNA that Challenges Evolution. (Let me point out here that the phrase “that challenges evolution” has an unclear antecedent, either the new science that challenges evolution—what he clearly means—or the DNA itself that challenges evolution. Bad title!)
The construction that offends Dr. Coyne is a clause, not a phrase; however, why be picky and it will doubtless be clear enough to most people. Maybe too clear. But now,
I realize that I’ve just given Behe publicity, but how many people who would buy an ID book read this website? Anyway, I’ll have more to say about it after I’ve read it. More.
Might be an idea, that, to read it first. But, to answer the rhetorical question, thanks to UD, possibly a number of people will read that post and order the book.
Let’s see how the book does.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: A peek at Mike Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves We’re told that the basic thesis is, The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any functional gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring.
and
Huge study shows yeasts evolve by reducing their complexity If losing complex traits is a reliable and successful form of evolution, how did successful life forms acquire great complexity in the past, when there was less time to evolve?
What both Behe and Sanford prove,,,
,,, is that the overwhelming majority of mutations, even supposedly beneficial mutations, are detrimental.
One of the main reasons why mutations will, for all practical purposes, always be detrimental is because genes, (contrary to the ‘selfish gene’ concept, that is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking), genes are instead best thought of as existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation.
The fairly obvious result of genes existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence is that mutations to one element of the web will, in fairly quick order, detrimentally effect the whole holistic web that comprises the genome of an organism.
This negative effect on the ‘holistic’ network of genes within a organism has been revealed by what is termed negative and/or antagonistic epistasis between mutations
Of course such pervasive negative interactions between supposedly ‘selfish’ and/or individualistic genes is completely devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution. (Which more or less hold genes to be fairly individualistic in their actions)
Whereas, on the other hand, for the Christian Theist who presupposes life to have an ‘author’, and since every book is dominated by a holistic ‘context’ in which ‘the whole (book) is required to give meaning to the part (sentence)’.,,,
,,, then such pervasive mutual interdependence among genes is exactly what we would expect to see beforehand.
And indeed that is exactly what we find over and over again.
As Dr. Wells states, “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
Supplemental note: The unifying ‘form’, i.e. ‘context’, of an organism is found to forever be beyond the grasp of ‘bottom up’ Darwinian explanations:
Verse:
I own and have read 2 of Dr. Behe’s books and find them fascinating, and VERY convincing.
If he’s written another book, I’ll buy it (and read it) as soon as it’s available.
I especially like the way he has overviews in the main text for us non-Biology majors and then MUCH more detailed explanations in appendices. That is, he knows how to be instructive without being condescending.
Cotnes highlights this from the publishers’ blurb:
This is baffling – if there’s one thing ID has failed to do it is to ask these questions. It’s all about trying to show what evolution can’t do.
(to be fair, I should mention Mike Gene’s front-loading as about the only exception to my criticism)
I will note that Bob O’H’s ignorance is not an argument. ID is not anti-evolution, Bob, so clearly ID does not try to show what evolution can’t do.
The debate is all about what blind and mindless processes can do vs what it takes telic processes to produce. So yes, ID has proposed telic processes as the mechanism as opposed to blind and mindless processes.
“Not By Chance” was published in 1997. That’s 21 years ago. It does exactly what Bob says doesn’t exist.
Then there’s John Davison’s “Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis”- again it does what Bob says doesn’t exist.
Well, ET, what specific process have design theorists proposed? What are the specific causes? What is the reason or mechanism? What telic processes took place?
Well, Bob, Dr. Spetner (Not By Chance) proposed “built-in responses to environmental cues”, which clearly has the environment as the cause and those built-in responses as a mechanism. Epigenetics has helped confirm it. He also has transposons as mechanisms for directed change- Perry Marshall is also a proponent of transposons for directed change.
Then there are all the changes discussed by Shapiro in “Evolution: a view from the 21st century”. Organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design, Bob- they were designed with the ability to adapt.
Telic processes took place to produce all of the biological codes and systems (physical components) needed to carry them out. Telic processes take place to run all of the codes and systems to keep cells functioning. Telic processes take place in proof reading, error correction, editing, splicing, transcribing and translating. It takes place with chaperones helping the polypeptides find their shape and ferrying them to their destination.
That is for starters, Bob.
The alternative, Bob, is changes just happen (just because). Those which make it past the error correcting (which also just happened) will either be eliminated or allowed to accumulate. And when the “right” changes just happen to happen, well you know, here we are!
Bob O’H
You and others often ask “… Where is the evidence for ID or creation?”
The evidence is as close to you as your own head, so let me present the evidence from the top down, the top being the human head.
The human head is an amazing collection of instrumentation, computing power and inventive genius that far surpasses any collection of machines brought about by those same heads.
To continue on with this, click this link:
https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/intelligent-design-creation-the-evidence/
And also get my layman’s look at the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/172008193X/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i5
As my former Marine Corp boss (a general) used to say “This should be obvious even to a sea-going corporal.”
I just posted the following on Jerry’s blog:
The mechanisms for ID are telic processes as opposed to your blind and mindless processes, Jerry. ID holds that organisms were not only intelligently designed, but designed with the ability to evolve and adapt.
IDists can test the claim that, for example, ATP synthase was the result of intelligent design. Can anyone say how to test the claim it evolved by means of blind and mindless processes?
Will he allow it to stay?
ET @ 8 – what are these “built-in responses”?
As for transposons, what direct them? As far as we know, they integrate into specific sites at random, so what directs them? They also wouldn’t explain evolution in bacteria, for obvious reasons.
You mention “telic processes”, but what were these processes?
To put it bluntly: how did the designer do their job?
Bob, That is what science is for- to answer those questions.
What directs transposons? The cellular programming- it’s OS.
I mentioned telic processes and provided a short list.
That didn’t last- Jerry booted me and his exit rant proved that he is a clueless dolt:
Yes, Jerry, ID is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution. ID is OK with descent with modification, ie evolution. It is only if you define evolution as the blind watchmaker thesis that ID is anti-evolution. ID is OK with every textbook definition of evolution I could find. You lose, Jerry
The calculations to support my claim are in the peer-reviewed paper titled “Waiting for Two Mutations”. It shows the difficulty of getting a mere TWO specified mutations. The change from reptile to mammal requires more than that. You lose, Jerry.
Beak size- wow! Too bad beak size means nothing in the grand scheme of things and as far as you know it is all designed in variability. You have nothing that can account for the existence of birds, loser.
Natural selection is not an analogue of artificial selection. Ernst Mayr explained the differences in “What Evolution Is”:
“BY CONTRST” means they are not analogues but dissimilar. So clearly there is no “nature determines the optimum” except in the ignorant and wishful minds of evos, like Jerry Coyne. Natural selection could never do what we can do. It could never produce the different breeds of dogs but take away humans and NS will take away those breeds. NS is good at undoing what we have done.
Jerry Coyne is an ignorant loser feeding the Kool Aid to the ignorant minions.