Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin Devolves

At Nature Heredity Mike Behe vindicated but not cited

At Nature Heredity: Discoveries during the subsequent two decades have continued to support the idea that loss of function contributes to adaptation (Murray 2020), with cases of adaptive or beneficial loss of function being discovered across diverse organisms, genes, traits, and environments.” Read More ›

Michael Behe: New paper supports my “Darwin Devolves” thesis

The trouble with Darwin Devolves is that it is likely to be both quite right and a big problem for schoolbook Darwinism. Just as it is much easier to—without thinking much—throw something out than fix or adapt it, life forms will far more likely randomly mutate by dumping complex equipment than by reengineering it. It’s not that life forms can’t develop complex new equipment. But such changes probably aren’t an instance of natural selection acting on random mutation. And in these times, that’s the controversial part: design in nature. Read More ›

Behe vindicated by goldfish? But of course!

We see devolution all the time with unintelligent causes. Animals gnaw a hole in the bottom of a jug of water and they get some water but the rest is wasted. They destroy the feedhouse door trying to get into the feed because they don’t know how to use the doorhandle. They do get fed but the feed is scattered and much is wasted. *That’s what an unintelligent cause is typically like.* Put another way, the animals won’t learn to use the doorhandle or the jug cap. But just to survive and reproduce, they might not need to. Read More ›

Michael Behe responds to the critics at his university, Parts 2 and 3

Contra Lang and Rice, it’s preposterous to say that the data “are more than sufficient to convince any open minded skeptic that unguided evolution is capable of generating complex systems.” Unless one defines a skeptic of Darwin’s theory (the most prominent proposed “unguided” explanation) as closed-minded, a quick visit to the library will disabuse one of that notion. Read More ›

Michael Behe responds to the hit pre-publication review at Science

The fact that the attack is incompetent is its strength, not its weakness. It shows the social power of Darwinism, irrespective of intellectual force. Most Science readers will probably go with social power. It gives them the right to sneer, right or wrong. Intellectual force requires a basis. Note: Social power is a form of living on capital. When it’s gone, it’s gone. Read More ›

Some thoughts on the hatchet review of Behe’s Darwin Devolves in Science

One wonders, do many biologists have independent ideas that Darwinism stifles? If so, they must be frustrated by the need to keep them under wraps or defend them from malign mediocrities for whom mere orthodoxy produces a living. Read More ›

Swamidass et al’s hit review at Science on Behe’s forthcoming Darwin Devolves “borders on fraud”

Well, somebody out there must think Behe worth hearing. At 8:00 pm EST February 11, 2019, the book was #1 in Developmental Biology. Ships on February 26. Read More ›

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

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 Read More ›

Mike Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves: “Absolutely convincing” or “omits contrary examples”

From two people, from very different perspectives. First, German biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Nathan Lents, author of a “bad design” book. Read More ›

A peek at Mike Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves

Here: While Stephen Colbert has called Michael J. Behe the “Father of Intelligent Design,” Behe’s arguments have been called, “close to heretical” by the New York Times Book Review, and Richard Dawkins has publicly taken him to task for his “maverick” views. Wherever he goes, Behe makes waves, but has remained singularly focused on doing rigorous scientific analysis that points to controversial but incredible results that other scientists won’t touch. Twenty years after publishing his seminal work, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe shows that new scientific discoveries point to a stunning fact: 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 Read More ›