Best ID Takedown of 2014 - Perhaps Ken Miller's Demolition of "Edge of Evolution"?

I never understood how Behe thought that he was making a point by contrasting the strength of nature, including evolution by natural selection, with the weaknesses demonstrated by human-designed drugs. Every time a new designed drug is introduced which shows effectiveness against the malaria parasite, evolution of the parasite makes the drug ineffective. (Isn't it true that the evolution of sickle-cell trait has remained effective?) To me, this is an example of Orgel's Second Law: Evolution is smarter than you are.

Hardly an example of how intelligent design is necessary.

This is a favor for science supporters. In my experience what little appeal evolution denial has for the general public is solely based on "humans are special" arguments.

"God creates malaria drug resistance by a miracle, but bothers to use normal molecules for his miracle" has no appeal except as a bizarre dead end obsessive pseudo-legalistic word game for the rare weirdos who post at UD. This type of crap made an initially sympathetic crowd in the Dover courtroom laugh at ID.

This has got to be the dumbest thing Behe has ever done and that's saying a lot. He is claiming that resistance cannot evolve. But it has, repeatedly. This is like saying that a bumble bee cannot fly, it is obviously wrong.

Or maybe he trying to say that god intelligently designed and produced the resistant parasites. NIce god you got there Mikey. You better hope this is natural evolution. Then we at least have a chance of intelligently designing effective strategies for dealing with it. But if the magic sky pixie wants millions of people to die for no apparent reason, then we might as well give up and just let them all die. Sure seems like an awfully inefficient way of killing people though. Why not just strike them all dead at once? WHy give them the chance to develop drugs that can save their lives? If Behe is claiming that some god really is behind all this, then he has shown the limits of his god, not evolution.

Or maybe he trying to say that god intelligently designed and produced the resistant parasites.

But if the magic sky pixie wants millions of people to die for no apparent reason, then we might as well give up and just let them all die. Sure seems like an awfully inefficient way of killing people though. Why not just strike them all dead at once?

harold said:

Or maybe he trying to say that god intelligently designed and produced the resistant parasites.

This has to be what he's saying, since he doesn't deny the existence of resistance, nor deny that drugs worked before resistance arose.

But if the magic sky pixie wants millions of people to die for no apparent reason, then we might as well give up and just let them all die. Sure seems like an awfully inefficient way of killing people though. Why not just strike them all dead at once?

An excellent point. It's barely worth engaging Behe's absurd argument at this depth, but, anyway, for amusement... 1) To repeat a point I made above, if resistance is the magical act of a god, why bother with mutations and molecules to begin with? Why not just make the chloroquine magically disappear as soon as the patient ingests it? The FSM could do that with ease. 2) As you note, if this god of Behe's wants all these malaria victims dead, why bother with the whole rigmarole of parasites that humans might or might not be able to successfully defeat? Why not just magically cause the intended victims to experience high fever and organ failure, and die? We just end up at the same old Last Thursdayism impasse - it's either a totally inscrutable god, frequently malign from human perspective, who always behaves exactly in the same way that evolution would act, or it's evolution. However, unlike true Last Thursdayism, Behe can be shown to be wrong. His proposed mechanism for the emergence of malaria drug resistance - "exactly and only two exact mutations, at exactly the same time, and nothing else will work" - is incorrect.

DS said: But if the magic sky pixie wants millions of people to die for no apparent reason, then we might as well give up and just let them all die. Sure seems like an awfully inefficient way of killing people though. Why not just strike them all dead at once? WHy give them the chance to develop drugs that can save their lives?

Well, it's there if there ever is a Dover II, or Scopes V (not sure what the count would be, actually), or whatever they want to call it.

Edging Toward Irrelevance, though? Regarding science, there never was any relevance, and flatly claiming victory for ID whenever the evidence goes (even more) against them is them being about as PR relevant as ever. Still, it's fun to see Behe's whole last book go down the drain, not just for unwarranted speculations and claimed knowledge of God's mind and doings (how did he know where and when design left off anyway, so that he "knew" God didn't design chloroquine resistance?), but for being quite wrong on the facts.

They've got the true believers who'll swallow any nonsense said against "godless evolution," and I guess they're happy to stick with them. Behe's just showing that he can be even more pathetic than he was at Dover. For the tribe, that's proof of loyalty, with the added benefit that "I was wrong" is conveniently off of the table (he seems allergic to it).

Glen Davidson

harold said: "God creates malaria drug resistance by a miracle, but bothers to use normal molecules for his miracle" has no appeal except as a bizarre dead end obsessive pseudo-legalistic word game for the rare weirdos who post at UD. This type of crap made an initially sympathetic crowd in the Dover courtroom laugh at ID.

DS said: This has got to be the dumbest thing Behe has ever done and that's saying a lot. He is claiming that resistance cannot evolve. But it has, repeatedly. This is like saying that a bumble bee cannot fly, it is obviously wrong.

As this sorry episode well indicates, when it comes to evolution, Michael Behe is intellectually dishonest. But then, we've known that since even before Dover. This is merely the most recent example of his penchant for lying.

For sheer dishonesty, no creationist can top Philip Johnson. But Behe comes close.

John Harshman said:

DS said: This has got to be the dumbest thing Behe has ever done and that's saying a lot. He is claiming that resistance cannot evolve. But it has, repeatedly. This is like saying that a bumble bee cannot fly, it is obviously wrong.

How is it possible, after all the discussion here and elsewhere, to continue to fundamentally misunderstand Behe on this point? He didn't say that resistance can't evolve. In fact he uses it as an example of evolution, in fact of the most that evolution can produce. Miller's point is that Behe's idea of how resistance evolved (by exactly two simultaneous mutations, each individually deleterious) is just plain wrong. Once again: Behe thinks that chloroquine resistance did evolve. He's just wrong about the details of the process.

The need for multiple mutations neatly accounts for why the development of spontaneous resistance to chloroquine is an event of extremely low probability – approximately one in a hundred billion billion (1 in 1020) malarial cell replications

John Harshman said: Behe thinks that chloroquine resistance did evolve. He's just wrong about the details of the process.

“Now suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. … So, if other things were equal, the likelihood of getting two new binding sites would be what we called in Chapter 3 a ‘double CCC’ — the square of a CCC, or one in ten to the fortieth power. Since that’s more cells than likely have ever existed on earth, such an event would not be expected to have happened by Darwinian processes in the history of the world. .. And the great majority of proteins in the cell work in complexes of six or more. Far beyond that edge." (Behe, 2007, p. 135). [boldface emphasis added by mattdance18]

It seems to me that Behe is claiming that the probability of resistance evolving is so low that it couldn't happen naturally. But it has evolved multiple times in different species. Therefore his probability calculations are irrelevant. Resistance did evolve, many times, so no matter what he claims evolution cannot do, he has already been proven to be wrong about that. So he could be wrong about anything else he claims evolution cannot do as well.

Even if he is only trying to claim that it is extremely unlikely for resistance to evolve, he has still been proven wrong. Unlikely things happen all the time. Even if his calculations did somehow accurately represent reality, the only possible conclusion would be that there are orders of magnitude more than enough parasites for resistance to evolve in a fairly short period of time. So, even if he refuses to say what his point is, he still loses. His resistance to evolution is futile.

Now if he had a step by step, miracle by miracle account of exactly how the resistance came about by supernatural means, that pathetic level of detail might be something to look at. Until then, all he has is personal incredulity, a specious probability calculation and a fundamentally flawed understanding of biology.

DS said: Until then, all he has is personal incredulity, a specious probability calculation and a fundamentally flawed understanding of biology.

I thought that what Behe wrote in Edge was that resistance required two SIMULTANEOUS mutations and that was beyond the edge of evolution, therefore the malaria plasmodium was designed. Didn't Behe argue as well that SEQUENTIAL mutations were essentially impossible leading again, ta da, to design.

Thus, I was mystified (and still dazed and confused) how a paper which describes a series and multiple pathways of SEQUENTIAL mutations conferring resistance is in any way supportive of his thesis in Edge.

I can only surmise that if you're an IDiot shouting "Victory!" loud enough is all you need to do, because certainly the IDiot minions aren't going to read the paper.

Good Lord - all these science-y arguments being made! The Discovery Institute laughs at your logic, for it matters not. The people who send the DI money - boatloads and boatloads of green crisp delicious money - don't read your science-y replies. They don't actually understand or even care about the science. And neither does the Discovery Institute.

The Discovery Institute is about all that cabbage, that kale. The Cheddar, the clams, the lettuce, the bread. It's about simoleons, not science; loot, not logic; Benjamins, not biology. It's a multimillion dollar-a-year enterprise with hardly any real expenses, and just a few employees. It's a legal permit to print money, and the more time, effort, and electronic ink you spend attacking it rationally on its scientific merits, the happier, wealthier, and more legitimate-looking do you make its beneficiaries.

It seems to me that it is the general structure of the thought processes of ID/creationists that leads them to make such dumb mistakes. They all have a sectarian, preconceived notion of how the world was built and should be working; and every one of them, throughout their entire educations - those that actually got an education - have been systematically bending and breaking scientific concepts and evidence to fit their sectarian world view. It has become locked-in behavior; they simply can't think any other way.

ID/creationists misconceptions have pedagogical implications for those who have the responsibilities for teaching science to the general public. ID/creationist memes are common in our culture because of fifty years of intense socio/political effort on the part of the leaders of the ID/creationist movement. Depending on the part of the US in which one lives, instructors are very likely to encounter them in at least a few of their students.

ID/creationist misconceptions aren't confined to biological evolution - the original motivation for the genesis of the ID/creationist movement back in the 1970s. They now have to get even basic probability and statistics wrong; to say nothing of how they mangle basic physics and chemistry.

But certainly one thing has become clear in the fifty years ID/creationists have been spreading their memes, despite repeated attempts by members of the scientific community to correct them; ID/creationism is dishonest to its core, and the leaders of this movement know it.

It has been a long time since I read "Edge of Evolution".

Does Behe expect the reader to think that all of the changes to the malaria parasite in response to each new human-designed treatment to be "Intelligently Designed" or to have occurred by natural causes (that is, evolution)?

Is the sickle cell trait still effective against malaria? Does Behe expect the reader to think that the sickle cell trait to have evolved, or to be "Intelligently Designed"?

I understand that B. has suggested that modern organisms have had their traits in latent form back to long ago. Would that be the explanation, according to B., for the modern appearance of resistance? That maybe the "Intelligent Designers" anticipated modern human designs of treatments, and designed the original malaria parasites so that they could respond to our treatments?

Is it possible to make a consistent account of B.'s. Is there any account which someone could describe with a straight face?

On the matter of whether or not Behe thinks chloroquine resistance evolved, there this. Note that Hoppe corrects his claim that Behe thought that chloroquine resistance couldn't evolve, and links to a couple of posts.

Beyond a bit of googling, I wasn't about to enact the labor, since it's baseless BS anyway. Still, no point in making basically incorrect claims about what Behe himself has declared.

Glen Davidson

This should have been the link, because Hoppe's correction shows at the top here. Still in the previous link, but you have to scroll up to find it. I didn't realize that it had linked to one of the linked comments.

Glen Davidson

I've actually had creationists, in their zeal to oppose evolution no matter what, state that they believe God deliberately designs the biochemical pathways and biological structures pathogens use to inflict disease. IOW, they'd rather believe in a bio-terrorist god than evolution.

Now that's dedication! Or delusion.....

burllamb said: Good Lord - all these science-y arguments being made! The Discovery Institute laughs at your logic, for it matters not. The people who send the DI money - boatloads and boatloads of green crisp delicious money - don't read your science-y replies. They don't actually understand or even care about the science. And neither does the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is about all that cabbage, that kale. The Cheddar, the clams, the lettuce, the bread. It's about simoleons, not science; loot, not logic; Benjamins, not biology. It's a multimillion dollar-a-year enterprise with hardly any real expenses, and just a few employees. It's a legal permit to print money, and the more time, effort, and electronic ink you spend attacking it rationally on its scientific merits, the happier, wealthier, and more legitimate-looking do you make its beneficiaries.

Doc Bill said:

burllamb said: Good Lord - all these science-y arguments being made! The Discovery Institute laughs at your logic, for it matters not. The people who send the DI money - boatloads and boatloads of green crisp delicious money - don't read your science-y replies. They don't actually understand or even care about the science. And neither does the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is about all that cabbage, that kale. The Cheddar, the clams, the lettuce, the bread. It's about simoleons, not science; loot, not logic; Benjamins, not biology. It's a multimillion dollar-a-year enterprise with hardly any real expenses, and just a few employees. It's a legal permit to print money, and the more time, effort, and electronic ink you spend attacking it rationally on its scientific merits, the happier, wealthier, and more legitimate-looking do you make its beneficiaries.

You forgot the gravy train! Tute! Tute! The gravy train has been running slowly these past few years, so the Tooter's started shoveling the old Tent Revival to get the steam up! Not so coy about You-Know-Who, the Designer (tm), why it's the old guy with the white beard and I don't mean Santa. I've been surprised that they've come flat earth, I mean, flat out and admitted they're all creationists but one look at the Ken Hampire tells you there's green in them thar hills, hillbillys and all. That will be the Gerbil on the fiddle and Klinkers on the jug. And a one, and a two ... Whatever it takes to keep that gravy train rolling.

boatloads and boatloads of green crisp delicious money

burllamb said: Good Lord - all these science-y arguments being made! The Discovery Institute laughs at your logic, for it matters not. The people who send the DI money - boatloads and boatloads of green crisp delicious money - don't read your science-y replies. They don't actually understand or even care about the science. And neither does the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is about all that cabbage, that kale. The Cheddar, the clams, the lettuce, the bread. It's about simoleons, not science; loot, not logic; Benjamins, not biology. It's a multimillion dollar-a-year enterprise with hardly any real expenses, and just a few employees. It's a legal permit to print money, and the more time, effort, and electronic ink you spend attacking it rationally on its scientific merits, the happier, wealthier, and more legitimate-looking do you make its beneficiaries.

mattdance18 said:

DS said: Until then, all he has is personal incredulity, a specious probability calculation and a fundamentally flawed understanding of biology.

...and a tenured university position teaching biology....

SLC said: It is my information that he only adopted ID after he got tenure. Prior to his getting tenure, he was a productive scientist publishing in peer reviewed journals. As to whether his non-tenured sojourn was duplicitous, like Jonathan Wells pre-PhD award position, I don't know.

gdavidson418 said: This should have been the link, because Hoppe's correction shows at the top here. Still in the previous link, but you have to scroll up to find it. I didn't realize that it had linked to one of the linked comments. Glen Davidson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution

Wiki seems to indicate that Behe is ambiguous in his intent. It sounds like Behe wants it both ways in terms of evolution or design. Apparently in the book he does claim that the designer is responsible for putting mutations into organisms, but he doesn't seem to be clear on what mutations these are. Behe seems to believe that malarial resistance is some type of edge of evolution. He probably understands that two mutations could occur naturally, and that may be his maximum expected, so his prediction would be that malarial resistance is not due to the designer and that only two mutations would be found to be necessary. This would be Behe's "edge." There would be no reason to crow about the results if this were the case. Behe's reaction to the findings indicates that he thinks that even though two mutations are a possibility that they are so improbable that Design is more probable. Behe had to admit that his own simulation determined that his double mutation was expected to occur in a single generation of the number of organisms found in a reasonable amount of pond mud. He would be claiming that his designer was helping the malarial parasite to continue to be a plague on the designer's human creations. So either way Behe's argument seems to be stupid. Either nature would have been expected to be responsible, or for some reason even though two mutations could occur naturally the designer would have some reason to help the malarial parasite in multiple instances where the same mutations have occurred in different populations.

Pretty much only Behe knows that he meant. Malarial resistance seems to be a null result for ID no matter what interpretation is put forward.

I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims. Apparently nobody has actually read Ken Miller's analysis, which should have made everything clear. Chloroquine resistance is Behe's "edge of evolution" precisely because he thinks it's the very most that evolution can ever do. (And this only in a huge population with short generations.) Can't anyone else here read?

It's a "double CC" that he thinks is impossible: two simultaneous events equivalent to the evolution of chloroquine resistance.

Further, what Behe thinks the evolution of resistance entails is two simultaneous mutations, each of which would be deleterious on its own. This he agrees can happen in the Plasmodium population, around once every 20 years. What Miller shows is that Behe's imagined double-mutation mechanism wasn't required and in fact didn't happen, which demolishes his argument.

I think that you underestimate self-deception.

John Harshman said: I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims. Apparently nobody has actually read Ken Miller's analysis, which should have made everything clear. Chloroquine resistance is Behe's "edge of evolution" precisely because he thinks it's the very most that evolution can ever do. (And this only in a huge population with short generations.) Can't anyone else here read? It's a "double CC" that he thinks is impossible: two simultaneous events equivalent to the evolution of chloroquine resistance. Further, what Behe thinks the evolution of resistance entails is two simultaneous mutations, each of which would be deleterious on its own. This he agrees can happen in the Plasmodium population, around once every 20 years. What Miller shows is that Behe's imagined double-mutation mechanism wasn't required and in fact didn't happen, which demolishes his argument.

Here’s how it works. Let’s accept Behe’s number of 1 in 1020 for the evolution of a complex mutation like his CCC. As he admits, CCC’s have arisen multiple times in the malaria parasite population since the drug was first introduced in 1947. In fact, resistance to the drug appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s, within just 15 years of its widespread use. So it only took a decade and a half for one of Behe’s CCC’s to emerge in the parasite population. Now, suppose that another drug, equal in effectiveness to chloroquine, were to come into wide use. According to Behe, resistance to both drugs would require two CCCs, and the probability of double resistance arising would be a CCC squared. That’s 1 in 1020 x 1020 or one chance in 1 in 1040. According to Behe’s math, that’s such a large number that we can call it impossible: “…throughout the course of history there would have been slightly fewer than 1040 cells, a bit less than we’d expect to need to get a double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the entire course of life on earth.” (Behe, 2007, p. 63).

John Harshman said: I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims. Apparently nobody has actually read Ken Miller's analysis, which should have made everything clear. Chloroquine resistance is Behe's "edge of evolution" precisely because he thinks it's the very most that evolution can ever do. (And this only in a huge population with short generations.) Can't anyone else here read? It's a "double CC" that he thinks is impossible: two simultaneous events equivalent to the evolution of chloroquine resistance. Further, what Behe thinks the evolution of resistance entails is two simultaneous mutations, each of which would be deleterious on its own. This he agrees can happen in the Plasmodium population, around once every 20 years. What Miller shows is that Behe's imagined double-mutation mechanism wasn't required and in fact didn't happen, which demolishes his argument.

John Harshman said: I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims. Apparently nobody has actually read Ken Miller's analysis, which should have made everything clear. Chloroquine resistance is Behe's "edge of evolution" precisely because he thinks it's the very most that evolution can ever do. (And this only in a huge population with short generations.) Can't anyone else here read? It's a "double CC" that he thinks is impossible: two simultaneous events equivalent to the evolution of chloroquine resistance. Further, what Behe thinks the evolution of resistance entails is two simultaneous mutations, each of which would be deleterious on its own. This he agrees can happen in the Plasmodium population, around once every 20 years. What Miller shows is that Behe's imagined double-mutation mechanism wasn't required and in fact didn't happen, which demolishes his argument.

Ron Okimoto said:

John Harshman said: I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims. Apparently nobody has actually read Ken Miller's analysis, which should have made everything clear. Chloroquine resistance is Behe's "edge of evolution" precisely because he thinks it's the very most that evolution can ever do. (And this only in a huge population with short generations.) Can't anyone else here read? It's a "double CC" that he thinks is impossible: two simultaneous events equivalent to the evolution of chloroquine resistance. Further, what Behe thinks the evolution of resistance entails is two simultaneous mutations, each of which would be deleterious on its own. This he agrees can happen in the Plasmodium population, around once every 20 years. What Miller shows is that Behe's imagined double-mutation mechanism wasn't required and in fact didn't happen, which demolishes his argument.

My guess is that Behe pretty much wants to be misinterpreted. As I pointed out it doesn't matter what Behe meant. A double mutation is a null argument either way, whether a double mutation is needed or not. Behe should look into mutations that radically change the phenotype that happen a lot more often than the plasmodium mutation. FGFR3 mutates in humans to the dominant phenotype of achondroplastic dwarfisum. We can count the de novo mutations and they happen around every 14,000 live births. Behe should look at instances like these and try to figure out what the design is. If the designer can control mutation rate of specific positions in a gene to create certain combinations, what is Behe's excuse for the high rate of dwarfism? If the designer isn't controlling the locus why isn't he controlling the locus if he can when he wants to? Why is the designer making a lot of dwarfs and making plasmodium more resistant? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1801129/ FGFR2 also has a position that changes at a high rate, and can be detected due to dominance of the mutation though it doesn't change as often. This paper looks into the issue. In the FGFR2 instance the designer seems to be tinkering with the paternal gametes (the designer is mutating the father's genes). http://www.pnas.org/content/102/17/6051.full So if all Behe is claiming is that mutations would have to occur at a higher rate than expected he should explain hot spots of mutation and why he doesn't have to figure that into his calculations? Is the designer really directly involved in making a lot of dwarfs? Isn't that a lot better locus to study than looking where he is looking? If the designer can control mutations at specific positions what is the designer doing with FGFR3? In the case of FGFR3 the extremely high rate of mutation seems to be a human phenomenon. If the mutation at that position was occurring at that rate in cats and dogs or chickens and cows we should know it by now, so why isn't that the edge of evolution? Achondroplasitic dwarfism occurs in other animals, but not, that I know of, at the rate of 1 in 14,000 births. Could it be that the designer wants more humans on earth to be dwarf? Does that mean that the dwarf parents that choose to abort normal fetuses are doing the right thing in terms of the desires of the designer? The possible discussion is endless.

Well if Behe wants to do a probability calculation, why doesn't he do one using the multiple pathway model? If he thinks that this paper is evidence in favor of his version of reality, whatever that may be, then why hasn't he learned anything from it? It proves that two simultaneous mutations are not required. It proves that new functions can evolve. It proves that mutations can be beneficial. It proves that sitting around doing fallacious math to try to prove that reality conforms to your preconceptions is a worthless endeavor.

You are really talking out both sides of your ass if you claim that the odds are against something happening even once in the entire history of life on earth and then saying that it could happen in the existing population of one species. And you are just plain lying about it in either case, since it demonstrably happened multiple times in the recent past. At the very least this guy is telling two different lies to two different audiences. No one expects anything different. But crowing about how a paper supports one of your lies when it actually demolishes both of them goes beyond mere dishonesty and duplicity.

Actually, multiple times in the very recent past in much smaller subpopulations and in more than one species.

harold said:

John Harshman said: I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims. Apparently nobody has actually read Ken Miller's analysis, which should have made everything clear. Chloroquine resistance is Behe's "edge of evolution" precisely because he thinks it's the very most that evolution can ever do. (And this only in a huge population with short generations.) Can't anyone else here read? It's a "double CC" that he thinks is impossible: two simultaneous events equivalent to the evolution of chloroquine resistance. Further, what Behe thinks the evolution of resistance entails is two simultaneous mutations, each of which would be deleterious on its own. This he agrees can happen in the Plasmodium population, around once every 20 years. What Miller shows is that Behe's imagined double-mutation mechanism wasn't required and in fact didn't happen, which demolishes his argument.

Prove it. Find a direct quote from Behe that says, in unambiguous language, "I concede that malaria chloroquine resistance itself is the result of mutation and natural selection, but I bring this example up to show that such evolutionary events are very rare". Ideally find verifiable quotes of Behe saying that in unambiguous language on more than one occasion. To repeat, Behe himself saying it in unambiguous language that would not be interpreted by a reasonable person as "I'm saying that chloroquine resistance can't evolve, it exists, therefore it's a miracle". Any unambiguous quote will do. Passage from book, quote from interview, even honest transcript of a personal conversation with Behe.

The development of chloroquine resistance isn't the toughest problem that evolution faces. We know that for certain, because the malarial parasite solved that problem, but hasn't solved others, such as sickle hemoglobin. How much more difficult than a CCC would a challenge have to get before Darwinian evolution would essentially be ineffective, even for simple single-celled creatures such as malaria?

Even though the odds are tremendously stacked against it, P. falciparum was able to develop chloroquine resistance because there are an enormous number of parasitic cells (about a trillion) in an infected patient's body, and about a billion infected people in the world in a year. So the parasite has the population numbers to get around the terrible odds.

gdavidson418 said:

The development of chloroquine resistance isn't the toughest problem that evolution faces. We know that for certain, because the malarial parasite solved that problem, but hasn't solved others, such as sickle hemoglobin. How much more difficult than a CCC would a challenge have to get before Darwinian evolution would essentially be ineffective, even for simple single-celled creatures such as malaria?

Look, every real biologist realizes that there are limitations to evolution.

As long as we're on the subject, one thing that always annoyed me about Behe's chloroquine resistance as an "example" is that it appears to require at least two (now there's another problem with Behe's calculations, never has it been shown that only two are needed) on the same gene. Then he uses his calculations where at least two mutations are needed on the same gene to "argue" that any time three or more "simultaneous mutations" are needed ("simultaneous" being from a rectal extraction of his) that the same odds obtain.

Complete BS, because in many cases these would involve mutations on different genes, which sexual reproduction shuffles around using crossing-over and chromosome exchanges. That, presumably, is at least one reason for sexual reproduction, to get around the problem of needing more than one mutation in the same DNA length. I'm not aware of anywhere in his book that he acknowledged that two mutations in different genes would have very different odds of ending up in the same organism than two mutations in the same gene. I'm not saying that only chloroquine resistance needs the two mutations in the same gene, since that would be ridiculous, just that Behe conflates the situation of chloroquine resistance with any and all "simultaneous mutations" (in his prejudicial term), even those where sexual reproduction would assist in bringing two mutational changes into one organism.

Glen davidson

Then he uses his calculations where at least two mutations are needed on the same gene to “argue” that any time three or more “simultaneous mutations” are needed (“simultaneous” being from a rectal extraction of his) that the same odds obtain.

I’m not saying that only chloroquine resistance needs the two mutations in the same gene, since that would be ridiculous, just that Behe conflates the situation of chloroquine resistance with any and all “simultaneous mutations” (in his prejudicial term), even those where sexual reproduction would assist in bringing two mutational changes into one organism.

chloroquine existence

gdavidson418 said: For perspective, the Behe quote from p. 62 in my post above is preceded by this on p. 59:

Even though the odds are tremendously stacked against it, P. falciparum was able to develop chloroquine resistance because there are an enormous number of parasitic cells (about a trillion) in an infected patient's body, and about a billion infected people in the world in a year. So the parasite has the population numbers to get around the terrible odds.

Then he argues that it would be much more difficult in other organisms, such as humans, to evolve even a "CCC." That, perhaps, leads to some sense of Behe being ambiguous, because he considers even a "CCC" as not being very likely for humans, or, say, elephants, because of much lower "natural" population sizes. But in the context of his claims, it's not inconsistent (if doubtful on grounds of reality--especially that claim that his two mutations had to be simultaneous), he really thinks that chloroquine resistance could and did evolve in P. falciparum, and a "CCC" could even occur over long time spans in humans or turtles, yet for the rather lower population animals it's getting to be a rather tenuous possibility. Glen Davidson

The more I read this thread, the more I find myself wondering whether Behe understands the genetics of populations. There is no such thing as a unique, perfectly adapted "wild type" polypeptide sequence. In the living world, there is extensive polymorphism, with several different isoforms possessing no discernible selective advantage or disadvantage under measurable conditions. The steps between a given coding sequence and a new property may be many or few, depending on which isoform we're talking about. As for "deleterious" polymorphism, Sue Lindquist has published several excellent studies supporting a role for protein chaperones as capacitors for evolution. In her recent PNAS paper, she even provides evidence for chaperones as capacitors for the evolution of chemotherapy resistance in breast tumor cells.

Joel Eissenberg said: The more I read this thread, the more I find myself wondering whether Behe understands the genetics of populations. There is no such thing as a unique, perfectly adapted "wild type" polypeptide sequence. In the living world, there is extensive polymorphism, with several different isoforms possessing no discernible selective advantage or disadvantage under measurable conditions. The steps between a given coding sequence and a new property may be many or few, depending on which isoform we're talking about. As for "deleterious" polymorphism, Sue Lindquist has published several excellent studies supporting a role for protein chaperones as capacitors for evolution. In her recent PNAS paper, she even provides evidence for chaperones as capacitors for the evolution of chemotherapy resistance in breast tumor cells.

The best takedown!! ID took down and is presently holding same as any audience should note.
I don't follow these intimates of how many mutations on a head of a pin will rearrange , successfully, enduring reproducing biology.
Yet it is still all about ID thinkers squeezing out the evidence that evolutionary biology demands very coorperating mutations to be going on at the same time to make the glory of complexity and diversity found in biology.
If any errors are made by iD thinkers they still they got the theme right. JUst fine tune the criticism of mutational cohabitants in genetics.

harold said:

Joel Eissenberg said: The more I read this thread, the more I find myself wondering whether Behe understands the genetics of populations. There is no such thing as a unique, perfectly adapted "wild type" polypeptide sequence. In the living world, there is extensive polymorphism, with several different isoforms possessing no discernible selective advantage or disadvantage under measurable conditions. The steps between a given coding sequence and a new property may be many or few, depending on which isoform we're talking about. As for "deleterious" polymorphism, Sue Lindquist has published several excellent studies supporting a role for protein chaperones as capacitors for evolution. In her recent PNAS paper, she even provides evidence for chaperones as capacitors for the evolution of chemotherapy resistance in breast tumor cells.

Denying evolution is a business. Behe has done very well. Now, he may just be lucky. It could be that in a world where evolution denial is regarded the same way as gravity denial, an imaginary identical twin of Behe would still misunderstand the basics of evolution, despite being a trained biochemist. Or it could be that he makes up crap on purpose to enrich himself. Or as I suspect, it's neither. Creationists do not experience "the truth" as regular comment makers here do. Indeed, maybe most people don't. He's literally too biased to actually either tell the truth, or feel dishonest. This is somewhat the same as "not understanding", but it's an emotional issue not an intellectual one. But the bottom line is that there's no way to tell. He's wrong and he gets well paid by wealthy right wingers to keep being wrong. Sincere idiot, charlatan, or merely, as I believe, biased over-privileged egotist, it doesn't really matter.

Most people do not have the stomach for being a scam artist.

gdavidson418 said: As long as we're on the subject, one thing that always annoyed me about Behe's chloroquine resistance as an "example" is that it appears to require at least two (now there's another problem with Behe's calculations, never has it been shown that only two are needed) on the same gene. Then he uses his calculations where at least two mutations are needed on the same gene to "argue" that any time three or more "simultaneous mutations" are needed ("simultaneous" being from a rectal extraction of his) that the same odds obtain. Complete BS, because in many cases these would involve mutations on different genes, which sexual reproduction shuffles around using crossing-over and chromosome exchanges. That, presumably, is at least one reason for sexual reproduction, to get around the problem of needing more than one mutation in the same DNA length. I'm not aware of anywhere in his book that he acknowledged that two mutations in different genes would have very different odds of ending up in the same organism than two mutations in the same gene. I'm not saying that only chloroquine resistance needs the two mutations in the same gene, since that would be ridiculous, just that Behe conflates the situation of chloroquine resistance with any and all "simultaneous mutations" (in his prejudicial term), even those where sexual reproduction would assist in bringing two mutational changes into one organism. Glen davidson

gdavidson418 said:

John Harshman said: I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims.

Apparently Harshman can't read, or he'd know I've always held this position here, but he's self-righteous grumping as all too usual, so I'm clearly not saying this for him.

Robert Byers said: The best takedown!! ID took down and is presently holding same as any audience should note. I don't follow these intimates of how many mutations on a head of a pin will rearrange , successfully, enduring reproducing biology. Yet it is still all about ID thinkers squeezing out the evidence that evolutionary biology demands very coorperating mutations to be going on at the same time to make the glory of complexity and diversity found in biology. If any errors are made by iD thinkers they still they got the theme right. JUst fine tune the criticism of mutational cohabitants in genetics.

John Harshman said:

gdavidson418 said:

John Harshman said: I'm fairly depressed that so few people commenting seem to have any idea of what Behe claims.

Apparently Harshman can't read, or he'd know I've always held this position here, but he's self-righteous grumping as all too usual, so I'm clearly not saying this for him.

I said "so few people". You're one of the few. Why are you complaining about me, when we clearly agree?

Can’t anyone else here read?

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: The best takedown!! ID took down and is presently holding same as any audience should note. I don't follow these intimates of how many mutations on a head of a pin will rearrange , successfully, enduring reproducing biology. Yet it is still all about ID thinkers squeezing out the evidence that evolutionary biology demands very coorperating mutations to be going on at the same time to make the glory of complexity and diversity found in biology. If any errors are made by iD thinkers they still they got the theme right. JUst fine tune the criticism of mutational cohabitants in genetics.

Umm... is that English? I have a lot of years of reading behind me, and more than my share of interpreting barely-literate high school students' writing... but damn!

Mr Thomas would no doubt prefer comments on Byers to be taken to the Bathroom Wall.

TomS said: So, why not more?

This is the commentary Behe made in which Miller responded to, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html. There are several problems with Miller's criticisms. Never once in his career did he ever actually successfully refute Behe. We have shown for 5 years now on this board that Miller has time and time again repeatedly made an idiot out of himself working nothing but rhetoric, red herrings, and strawman arguments. As one can plainly see from Behe's comments, the point Behe made was that the transition requires a mutation that has a 1 in 10²° probability of occurring. No one ever disputed that the full transition would require sequential mutations. The problem is that one of the mutations in the sequence is an astronomical hurdle. That was the point Behe made that as you can plainly see is being ignored by his critics.

Tristan Miller said: Dennis Jones opines on FB:

...As one can plainly see from Behe's comments, the point Behe made was that the transition requires a mutation that has a 1 in 10²° probability of occurring. No one ever disputed that the full transition would require sequential mutations. The problem is that one of the mutations in the sequence is an astronomical hurdle.

"The bottom line is that the need for an organism to acquire multiple mutations in some situations before a relevant selectable function appears is now an established experimental fact."

Excuse me, but that fact was established long ago. For example, the Lenski experiments demonstrate the importance of historical contingency. Now why do you suppose they did't cite that paper as evidence that their hypothesis was correct? Oh wait, that's because evolution actually worked, even in a small; population in the laboratory. Funny thing, resistance actually evolved in the malaria parasites as well. I guess they haven't discovered the edge of evolution after all, just the edge of their own knowledge.

AltairIV said:

TomS said: So, why not more?

Some possible reasons... 1) Because it's a niche market? There's only so much demand for sciency-sounding denialism. The primary target market consists of religious fundamentalists, after all, who are in general not known for their scientific literacy or interest. 2) It's not really as easy as it looks? Evolution denialism may be easier than being a real scientist, but it does take a certain kind of clever and dissembling mind, one capable of looking at what science really says, then twisting it to appear to say pretty much the opposite. It also requires carefully tailoring the message to several different audiences, to the general public, to government officials, to the scientific community, and to your own supporters. Not to mention, for the Behe type of denier at least, the real inverse correlation between education and non-religiosity. The just aren't that many people who are able to work their way up to PhD level (instead of just buying one from a diploma mill), while keeping their initial faith intact. 3) Ethics? Since this kind of denialism is pretty much pure propaganda, I think, believe it or not, that few people have the kind of mindset necessary to be that deceptive on such a consistent basis. Sure most of it probably involves some sort of Morton's Demon style self-deception, but there's probably still a deep part of the psyche that's capable of feeling uneasy about making a career out of such work. 4) The pressure? How many, even of the most faithful, can withstand the stigma and frankly whithering level of criticism that professional deniers have to constantly endure? How many are willing to accept being marginalized in their workplaces, like Behe, or being forced to hop from one insignificant seminary to another like Dembski? Denialism may be a relatively easy way to make a living, but it's not a particularly rewarding career choice. This is just a few possibilities off the top of my head. I imagine that some combination of these and others are at work.

Can’t anyone else here read?

harold said: I modify my previous arguments against Behe and concede that John Harshman was right on this narrow point.

I wonder whether maverick scientists receive discreet overtures from the ID-ers. "Your contributions to science will receive the recognition that they deserve ...".

TomS said: I wonder whether maverick scientists receive discreet overtures from the ID-ers. "Your contributions to science will receive the recognition that they deserve ...".

TomS said: I wonder whether maverick scientists receive discreet overtures from the ID-ers. "Your contributions to science will receive the recognition that they deserve ...".

And if Lehigh finally gets fed up with him and shows him the long overdue pavement

The main point I'm trying to establish here is that when confronting Behe's bogus arguments it is important to confront the bogus arguments he actually makes rather than bogus arguments you might imagine he might make.

John Harshman said: The main point I'm trying to establish here is that when confronting Behe's bogus arguments it is important to confront the bogus arguments he actually makes rather than bogus arguments you might imagine he might make.

AltairIV said:

TomS said: So, why not more?

Some possible reasons... 1) Because it's a niche market? There's only so much demand for sciency-sounding denialism. The primary target market consists of religious fundamentalists, after all, who are in general not known for their scientific literacy or interest. 2) It's not really as easy as it looks? Evolution denialism may be easier than being a real scientist, but it does take a certain kind of clever and dissembling mind, one capable of looking at what science really says, then twisting it to appear to say pretty much the opposite. It also requires carefully tailoring the message to several different audiences, to the general public, to government officials, to the scientific community, and to your own supporters. Not to mention, for the Behe type of denier at least, the real inverse correlation between education and non-religiosity. The just aren't that many people who are able to work their way up to PhD level (instead of just buying one from a diploma mill), while keeping their initial faith intact. 3) Ethics? Since this kind of denialism is pretty much pure propaganda, I think, believe it or not, that few people have the kind of mindset necessary to be that deceptive on such a consistent basis. Sure most of it probably involves some sort of Morton's Demon style self-deception, but there's probably still a deep part of the psyche that's capable of feeling uneasy about making a career out of such work. 4) The pressure? How many, even of the most faithful, can withstand the stigma and frankly whithering level of criticism that professional deniers have to constantly endure? How many are willing to accept being marginalized in their workplaces, like Behe, or being forced to hop from one insignificant seminary to another like Dembski? Denialism may be a relatively easy way to make a living, but it's not a particularly rewarding career choice. This is just a few possibilities off the top of my head. I imagine that some combination of these and others are at work.

John Harshman said: The main point I'm trying to establish here is that when confronting Behe's bogus arguments it is important to confront the bogus arguments he actually makes rather than bogus arguments you might imagine he might make.

DS said:

John Harshman said: The main point I'm trying to establish here is that when confronting Behe's bogus arguments it is important to confront the bogus arguments he actually makes rather than bogus arguments you might imagine he might make.

Absolutely agree. But Behe is the one who is being ambiguous. He is the one who is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is the one who is trying to disguise his true beliefs.

And you have been, up to this point, attacking him for something he very clearly didn’t say, and which in fact directly contradicts a main theme of The Edge of Evolution. The ambiguity lies elsewhere.

harold said:

And you have been, up to this point, attacking him for something he very clearly didn’t say, and which in fact directly contradicts a main theme of The Edge of Evolution. The ambiguity lies elsewhere.

I agree but not with the "very clearly part". I actually considered making a "Scumbag Behe" meme. "Makes up a ridiculous, 'improbable' straw man version of how chloroquine resistance evolved." "Expects you to understand that he 'isn't really denying' that chloroquine resistance evolved". Except if you're a creationist, when it's - "Puts one line in the same book where he wrongly calls chloroquine resistance 'improbable', stating that he 'isn't really' denying that it evolved". "Expects you to overlook that line and assume that he is denying it evolved".

However, I will forgo direct jokes about the designer magically creating chloroquine resistance in the future.

Harold, I'm assuming you haven't read the book. True?

John Harshman said: The main point I'm trying to establish here is that when confronting Behe's bogus arguments it is important to confront the bogus arguments he actually makes rather than bogus arguments you might imagine he might make.

harold said: I don't agree that "Okay, okay, chloroquine resistance was 'highly improbable' but it evolved but basically nothing else does because...wrong probability calculation".... Is all that different from "Whatever example didn't evolve because...wrong probability calculation".

mattdance18 said:

harold said: I don't agree that "Okay, okay, chloroquine resistance was 'highly improbable' but it evolved but basically nothing else does because...wrong probability calculation".... Is all that different from "Whatever example didn't evolve because...wrong probability calculation".

Exactly. It's wrong probability calculations all the way down.

TomS said: It's been a long time since I read "Edge". Does B. make probability calculations (wrong or right) concerning "design", so that they can be contrasted with the probabilities that he offers concerning "evolution"? It would be an obvious thing to expect, if one is saying that A fails test X, to show that B passes the same test.

Scott F said: In fact, where does Behe even come up with his 10²⁰ number in the first place? Even that seems pretty arbitrary.

John Harshman said: Harold, I'm assuming you haven't read the book. True?

The critics were wrong from the outset. Behe's argument in The Edge of Evolution didn't depend on whether chloroquine resistance arose in a stepwise manner, or only after multiple mutations accumulated. His argument was based upon an empirically observed data point from public health studies which found that chloroquine resistance arose in about 1 in every 1020 organisms. He had a strong citation for this empirical observation: Nicholas White, "Antimalarial Drug Resistance," Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 113: 1084-1092 (2004). He called the mutations (whatever they were) that caused chloroquine resistance a "chloroquine complexity cluster" or CCC. Whatever molecular mechanisms may be behind a CCC, empirical data showed that 1020 cells are required in order to produce one. Behe pointed out that if a trait required the molecular equivalent of two CCC's before providing any advantage, then that would pose major problems for Darwinian evolution. It's a simple calculation. Behe observed that if 10^20 organisms were required to obtain one CCC, then the square of that amount -- 1040 organisms -- would be required to evolve a trait that required two CCC's before providing any advantage. However, as Behe observed, a total of only 1040 organisms have lived on Earth over the entire history of the planet

TomS said:

mattdance18 said:

harold said: I don't agree that "Okay, okay, chloroquine resistance was 'highly improbable' but it evolved but basically nothing else does because...wrong probability calculation".... Is all that different from "Whatever example didn't evolve because...wrong probability calculation".

Exactly. It's wrong probability calculations all the way down.

It's been a long time since I read "Edge". Does B. make probability calculations (wrong or right) concerning "design", so that they can be contrasted with the probabilities that he offers concerning "evolution"? It would be an obvious thing to expect, if one is saying that A fails test X, to show that B passes the same test.

harold said:

TomS said:

mattdance18 said:

harold said: I don't agree that "Okay, okay, chloroquine resistance was 'highly improbable' but it evolved but basically nothing else does because...wrong probability calculation".... Is all that different from "Whatever example didn't evolve because...wrong probability calculation".

Exactly. It's wrong probability calculations all the way down.

It's been a long time since I read "Edge". Does B. make probability calculations (wrong or right) concerning "design", so that they can be contrasted with the probabilities that he offers concerning "evolution"? It would be an obvious thing to expect, if one is saying that A fails test X, to show that B passes the same test.

I've noted before that "creation science" made some positive claims, but ID literally cannot. It's very easy to see why when you realize that ID is just a dissembling way to disguise "creation science" claims. If ID makes a true positive claim that strongly contradicts YEC creation science, that makes ID pointless to those who fund it. (Please don't be fooled by "could have" language. If ideologues claim that the sky is green and a panderer dissembles that the sky "could" be blue, that's pandering to the ideologues. The sky is absolutely blue.) If ID makes a positive claim that is compatible with YEC creation science, that destroys the dissembling, disguising function of ID. So they can only ever squawk on and on that "evolution is impossible" and can never make positive claims.

harold said:

John Harshman said: Harold, I'm assuming you haven't read the book. True?

A common creationist argument is that you can't criticize their reasoning unless you have read every single word they have written. And then they write the same thing over and over again, in a volume that is very difficult to read. The idea of writing the same wrong logical constructions over and over again and arguing that they can't be critiqued because the critic hasn't read every repetition is childish. For a good everyday example of this check out the UD website, where, even though critical feedback is already banned, some of the accounts post Tolstoy-sized blabbering comments over and over again, in an effort to delude themselves that their ideas must be right if no-one can keep up. I read "Darwin's Black Box", but no, I have not slogged through an original ID book since Dover. I rely on forums like this to summarize them for me. There is virtually no difference between the logic of the two books. In "Darwin", Behe sets up a routine creationist straw man version of evolution (essentially "It all had to happen simultaneously"). The psychologically minded will note that this is actually a projection of what creationists themselves do claim happened, projected onto scientists. Behe uses the semi-original language "irreducibly complex" in the book but is just recycling the old "A 747 isn't created by a tornado passing through a junk yard" argument. He argues that systems that he deems irreducibly complex can only emerge if all parts emerge simultaneously. That is a very fair paraphrase. In "Edge" he does almost exactly the same thing. Now he uses fake probability language instead of the words "irreducibly complex". It's all the same. "If a bunch of exact things had to happen simultaneously, gee, that must mean evolution is impossible and it had to be magic". As an optional step, multiply very small numbers together and make some irrelevant statement about probability. I've noted many times how amazingly easy it is to boil ID/creationist crap down to a very small number of invalid constructons. "It all had to happen at once, now I'll show you that's impossible without magic" is one of those constructions that is repeated over and over again. Here's a quote from Evolution News and Views, from a FAVORABLE review of Behe.

The critics were wrong from the outset. Behe's argument in The Edge of Evolution didn't depend on whether chloroquine resistance arose in a stepwise manner, or only after multiple mutations accumulated. His argument was based upon an empirically observed data point from public health studies which found that chloroquine resistance arose in about 1 in every 1020 organisms. He had a strong citation for this empirical observation: Nicholas White, "Antimalarial Drug Resistance," Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 113: 1084-1092 (2004). He called the mutations (whatever they were) that caused chloroquine resistance a "chloroquine complexity cluster" or CCC. Whatever molecular mechanisms may be behind a CCC, empirical data showed that 1020 cells are required in order to produce one. Behe pointed out that if a trait required the molecular equivalent of two CCC's before providing any advantage, then that would pose major problems for Darwinian evolution. It's a simple calculation. Behe observed that if 10^20 organisms were required to obtain one CCC, then the square of that amount -- 1040 organisms -- would be required to evolve a trait that required two CCC's before providing any advantage. However, as Behe observed, a total of only 1040 organisms have lived on Earth over the entire history of the planet

This is from a favorable review of Behe. The word "simultaneous" isn't directly stated here, but the words "a trait that required two CCC's before providing any advantage" is equivalent. The not very hidden straw man claims here are that "traits that don't provide any advantage disappear immediately", and "all systems are built up of traits that didn't provide any advantage until they came together". What Behe's calculation actually proves, correctly, is that if there are two mutations, each of which is immediately fatal in isolation, each of which has a frequency of 10^20 per replication, and which are beneficial in combination, that combination can only occur, on average, in every 10^40 replications. That's perfectly true, but totally irrelevant and trivial.

You have been trying to defend your misconception by claiming it makes no difference, and that Behe is wrong about so much else that it doesn’t matter whether you get his claims right. I disagree.

Yes, his arguments are bogus. All I ask is that you correctly understand his bogus argument before criticizing it.

It’s true you don’t have to read the whole book to do that as long as you read something that correctly summarizes his claim. Miller’s takedown does just that. There’s also quite a bit of discussion on Sandwalk that would help.

Before Edwards vs. Aguillard, the "scientific" creationists argued, "What good is a half a wing?"

After Edwards vs. Aguillard, the reconstituted ID/creationists argued, "What good is a half a molecule?"

Rather than learn the real science, they just tried to get around the law by word-gaming.

Ron Okimoto said: What do these guys get out of being IDiots? They do write IDiot books, and that can be a living.

Ron Okimoto said: My guess is that some of these guys aren't getting much out of the ID scam financially. I don't know what is enough for some people. I recall that the Discovery Institute used to have something up about fellowships available for from $40,000 to $60,000 dollars around the turn of the century and I don't know what it is today.

If I may also put my 2¢ into the Behe debate (which is probably more than its worth) ...

I can't claim to know anything more about what Behe says than what I've read in these blogs, but the impression I get is that he's simply playing the micro-/macro- evolution angle for all that it's worth. I mean "The Edge Of Evolution" is a dead giveaway, isn't it?

This means that he can play both sides with impunity. When the changes are small, and/or the evidence for the evolution of something is impossible to deny, he can state that it's natural, "micro" evolution, but whenever he can spin the numbers in a way to cast doubt, it goes "over the edge" and becomes impossible without some form of intelligent intervention (hint, hint, wink, wink). And best of all, he can simply place the line wherever it is most useful for him at the moment.

So yes, Behe's whole shtick is that he can accept that some things "evolve", while still casting doubt on evolution as a whole.

John Harshman -

Apologies if my last comment is a bit frustrated in tone.

YOU WERE RIGHT that Behe does not claim that chloroquine resistance did not evolve.

To put those words in Behe's mouth is wrong.

I think what may be frustrating you is that you don't see a comment that just says that.

Even this one won't be "pure". I stand by everything I said about Behe in this thread, except that I retract any suggestion that Behe says that particular resistance didn't evolve.

However, yes, you were clearly right about that. Having read the Miller piece, I should not have made that error in the first place. Basically, I was biased by the desire to see Behe look extra foolish.

But he wants mainstream scientists to fret, wring their hands, and pace the halls saying “Oh but Michael Behe is so respectable! He ‘doesn’t deny’ the age of the Earth. He works at a mainstream university. Why he isn’t the least bit like that awful Ken Ham. I’m sure Behe is really making some wrong but respectable point, based on sincere misunderstanding”.

— Harold

harold said: John Harshman - Apologies if my last comment is a bit frustrated in tone. YOU WERE RIGHT that Behe does not claim that chloroquine resistance did not evolve. To put those words in Behe's mouth is wrong. I think what may be frustrating you is that you don't see a comment that just says that. Even this one won't be "pure". I stand by everything I said about Behe in this thread, except that I retract any suggestion that Behe says that particular resistance didn't evolve. However, yes, you were clearly right about that. Having read the Miller piece, I should not have made that error in the first place. Basically, I was biased by the desire to see Behe look extra foolish.

John Harshman said:

harold said: John Harshman - Apologies if my last comment is a bit frustrated in tone. YOU WERE RIGHT that Behe does not claim that chloroquine resistance did not evolve. To put those words in Behe's mouth is wrong. I think what may be frustrating you is that you don't see a comment that just says that. Even this one won't be "pure". I stand by everything I said about Behe in this thread, except that I retract any suggestion that Behe says that particular resistance didn't evolve. However, yes, you were clearly right about that. Having read the Miller piece, I should not have made that error in the first place. Basically, I was biased by the desire to see Behe look extra foolish.

Thanks for that clearing of the air. I saw your bringing up of all Behe's real problems as trying to excuse your original false claims. I hope we can agree that there's really no need to make Behe look extra foolish, as his real arguments are foolish enough. Sometimes we get into an "us vs. them" mode in which it's easy for the real argument to disappear, and that's counterproductive. And a firm understanding of the opponent's position (admittedly, sometimes hard to get given the weaselly nature of most IDiots) is an essential first step in refuting him.

TomS said: As far as what interpretation of "Edge", I note that the idea that the Intelligent Design is active in countering human attempts in combatting malaria ought to be an embarrassment. Far worse than any mistakes in science. Are we to expect preaching that treatment of malaria is counter to the Will of God?

John Harshman said:

TomS said: As far as what interpretation of "Edge", I note that the idea that the Intelligent Design is active in countering human attempts in combatting malaria ought to be an embarrassment. Far worse than any mistakes in science. Are we to expect preaching that treatment of malaria is counter to the Will of God?

Possibly from some IDiots, but not from Behe. Again, Behe thinks that resistance to malaria evolved naturally in malaria populations. (On the other hand, he appears to think that various other features of the malaria parasite are specifically designed, so the designer is a nasty fellow.)

Behe has never grasped cumulative selection. He treats mutation as if it's like organic synthesis.

lclane2 said: Behe has never grasped cumulative selection. He treats mutation as if it's like organic synthesis.

lclane2 said: Behe has never grasped cumulative selection. He treats mutation as if it's like organic synthesis.

This is one of the most basic ways that all ID/creationists misrepresent evolution.

— harold

They argue that “a whole bunch of exact things had to happen at once, and that’s impossible”.

— harold

Frank J said:

They argue that “a whole bunch of exact things had to happen at once, and that’s impossible”.

— harold

Note that at least the big names in the ID movement, like Behe and Dembski, know just where and when to subtly substitute "impossible" with "improbable," to best help their case, at least to fool the less technical reader. It's a double benefit for them, in that some refutations from critics who spot the bait-and-switch are so technical that I can barely follow them, let alone the intended reader. Catchy sound bites of incredulity almost always win against a solid refutation that takes a big investment of time and attention to truly appreciate.

harold said:

Frank J said:

They argue that “a whole bunch of exact things had to happen at once, and that’s impossible”.

— harold

Note that at least the big names in the ID movement, like Behe and Dembski, know just where and when to subtly substitute "impossible" with "improbable," to best help their case, at least to fool the less technical reader. It's a double benefit for them, in that some refutations from critics who spot the bait-and-switch are so technical that I can barely follow them, let alone the intended reader. Catchy sound bites of incredulity almost always win against a solid refutation that takes a big investment of time and attention to truly appreciate.

Although Dembski has made reference incorrectly to the "definition of impossible"; referring to events with a probability of less that some small number, I think usually 10^-30. Of course, that's actually a mis-representation of the applications, usually in engineering, that use that approximation. First of all it would be that probability of ever happening, not of happening in a single trial. Second of all, it's an approximation for applied sciences. The definition of impossible is "probability = 0". The sheer sterility of this crap is amazing. It's logically equivalent to me making up some straw man scenario for the construction of the Empire State Building, declaring my straw man to be "improbable", declaring or implying "improbable" to mean "impossible", and then declaring that the Empire State Building was created by magic and I've just proven that all evidence to the contrary can be ignored. The uselessness and stupidity are mind-boggling.

TomS said: The mathematics has all the appearances of being irrelevant trimming only serving to draw attention away from a thoroughly flawed argument.

N = 2 ⁵⁰⁰, p is less than 2 ^-500, therefore intelligent design.

TomS said:

harold said:

Frank J said:

They argue that “a whole bunch of exact things had to happen at once, and that’s impossible”.

— harold

Note that at least the big names in the ID movement, like Behe and Dembski, know just where and when to subtly substitute "impossible" with "improbable," to best help their case, at least to fool the less technical reader. It's a double benefit for them, in that some refutations from critics who spot the bait-and-switch are so technical that I can barely follow them, let alone the intended reader. Catchy sound bites of incredulity almost always win against a solid refutation that takes a big investment of time and attention to truly appreciate.

Although Dembski has made reference incorrectly to the "definition of impossible"; referring to events with a probability of less that some small number, I think usually 10^-30. Of course, that's actually a mis-representation of the applications, usually in engineering, that use that approximation. First of all it would be that probability of ever happening, not of happening in a single trial. Second of all, it's an approximation for applied sciences. The definition of impossible is "probability = 0". The sheer sterility of this crap is amazing. It's logically equivalent to me making up some straw man scenario for the construction of the Empire State Building, declaring my straw man to be "improbable", declaring or implying "improbable" to mean "impossible", and then declaring that the Empire State Building was created by magic and I've just proven that all evidence to the contrary can be ignored. The uselessness and stupidity are mind-boggling.

In mathematics, there are the concepts of almost never and similar terms ("almost nowhere", "asymptotically almost", and the opposites "almost surely" ...) which refer to probability=0, which are different from impossible. This might not have any physical importance. Anyway, these "probability calculations" are never accompanied, for comparison, with the probability that unconstrained "designers" would choose the designated outcome. (My estimate of that probability is zero.) The mathematics has all the appearances of being irrelevant trimming only serving to draw attention away from a thoroughly flawed argument.

He asserts the typical ID/creationist mantra that says essentially that an ideal gas of inert objects won’t come together to produce a specified assembly in the history of the universe.

— Mike Elzinga

The mathematical concepts qualified with almost are discussed in Wikipedia articles. The idea that something has a probability 0 (or 1) is not the same as it being impossible (or certain). It is based on the measure of the set. For example, the probability of a real number being an integer is 0. Wikipedia uses the example of the probability of a dart thrown at a target will hit a particular point being 0. Yet the dart will hit one point. So, wherever a dart hit, it was almost impossible. (They don't take into account that the target and the dart are not infinitely divisible. There are only a finite number of atoms. The atoms are in thermal motion. Let alone quantum effects.)
It is difficult to think that a person could earn a Ph.D. in mathematics without coming across the distinction between "impossible" and "probability 0".

But if you're randomly selecting a point from an infinity of points, doesn't the probability need to be expressed in a form that allows infinitesimals in the value?

Frank J said:

He asserts the typical ID/creationist mantra that says essentially that an ideal gas of inert objects won’t come together to produce a specified assembly in the history of the universe.

— Mike Elzinga

In fact one of the first bells that went of in my mind when first reading ID nonsense in the 90s was the implicit assumption that matter behaved like ideal gases, which we - and that includes IDers - know ain't so. But if they know that's nonsense, and certainly biochemist Behe does, they still need to use bogus math and word games, if only to maximize the probability that the refutation will be too technical to compete with their misleading sound bites to the intended audience (and again I mean nonscientists, mostly not pre-committed to denying evolution).

If you open the door to a room full of junk, a computer won't self-assemble; therefore intelligent design.

If you put a mouse in a thermos bottle, seal it up and put it on the shelf for a million years, when you open it up, a cat won't come out; therefore no evolution.

Spontaneous Molecular Chaos can't jump the Cybernetic Gap; therefore intelligent design.

Henry J said: But if you're randomly selecting a point from an infinity of points, doesn't the probability need to be expressed in a form that allows infinitesimals in the value?

And for 2015, the DI is doing even more wonderful work! Here's a great
takedown of an ID "paper" by scientist Jennifer Raff, who has a blog called "Violent Metaphors." It seems that the Disco Tute's Casey Luskin challenged her to take an ID research paper as seriously as she would any other scientific paper. 2015 is off to a great start for the ID movement!

So, a short, pithy sentence that summarizes all of Dembski’s years of “scholarship” would be: N = 2 500, p is less than 2 -500, therefore intelligent design.

— Mike Elzinga

Karen S. said: And for 2015, the DI is doing even more wonderful work! Here's a great takedown of an ID "paper" by scientist Jennifer Raff, who has a blog called "Violent Metaphors." It seems that the Disco Tute's Casey Luskin challenged her to take an ID research paper as seriously as she would any other scientific paper. 2015 is off to a great start for the ID movement!

Karen S. said: And for 2015, the DI is doing even more wonderful work! Here's a great takedown of an ID "paper" by scientist Jennifer Raff, who has a blog called "Violent Metaphors." It seems that the Disco Tute's Casey Luskin challenged her to take an ID research paper as seriously as she would any other scientific paper. 2015 is off to a great start for the ID movement!

Frank J said: In fact the only well-cited record I know of anyone even asking about that essential next step came a full 4 years later. Not only did Dembski not attempt it, before or after that challenge, he replied to it insisting that it’s not “ID’s task.”

Usually Jennifer Raff goes after the anti-vax folks. She has a good facebook page. Any pseudo-science is fair game.

Although the takedown was published September, 2013, there is a comment today by the author of the criticized “paper” as well as a response by Ms. Raff.

Karen S. said:

Although the takedown was published September, 2013, there is a comment today by the author of the criticized “paper” as well as a response by Ms. Raff.

Not that they would have new material every year. That's the defining feature of pseudo-science--no progress.

Karen S. said:

Although the takedown was published September, 2013, there is a comment today by the author of the criticized “paper” as well as a response by Ms. Raff.

Not that they would have new material every year. That's the defining feature of pseudo-science--no progress.

The idea that something has a probability 0 (or 1) is not the same as it being impossible (or certain).

It is based on the measure of the set.

For example, the probability of a real number being an integer is 0. Wikipedia uses the example of the probability of a dart thrown at a target will hit a particular point being 0. Yet the dart will hit one point. So, wherever a dart hit, it was almost impossible.

(They don't take into account that the target and the dart are not infinitely divisible. There are only a finite number of atoms. The atoms are in thermal motion. Let alone quantum effects.)

It is difficult to think that a person could earn a Ph.D. in mathematics without coming across the distinction between "impossible" and "probability 0".

harold said: Yes, Dembski, like other ID types, is guilty of two major errors. The first is creating straw man versions of evolution. But it is also true that he deliberately confuses his audience about probability, implying that some arbitrary low probability means "absolutely impossible", which is silly.

The fact that no ID/creationist can bring himself to lay out a research program, put the experimental handles on any phenomena to be observed, specify the kind of equipment needed, specify the timeline, manpower, and budget requirements, and then set up the lab and do the experiments in full light of day, speaks volumes about ID/creationist primary objectives. Those objectives have always been, from the beginning, socio/political action and propaganda.

— Mike Elzinga

Umm... is that English?

Maybe we should be more aware of the effect of religious bias. Isn't that what we find reflected in the statistics:
link

Rolf said: Maybe we should be more aware of the effect of religious bias. Isn't that what we find reflected in the statistics: link

TomS said:

harold said: Yes, Dembski, like other ID types, is guilty of two major errors. The first is creating straw man versions of evolution. But it is also true that he deliberately confuses his audience about probability, implying that some arbitrary low probability means "absolutely impossible", which is silly.

And I must confess that I am contributing to the cause of obfuscating by bringing up a minor point. There are any of the details of probability that he glosses over that one is tempted to say that they are deliberate ways of distracting from the important failures. One being that there is the straw man version of evolution. The other is that there is no alternative to evolution. And it's even worse than that, that they cannot even mount an attack on the straw man, and they cannot even offer an alternative to the straw man! For that, they have to resort to mathematical blunders!

The researchers cite a 2005 study finding that 78 percent of adults agreed that plants and animals had evolved from other organisms. In the same study, 62 percent also believed that God created humans without any evolutionary development.

Fewer than half of American adults can provide a minimal definition of DNA, the authors add.

To clarify the quiz "guessing average." Had the 1000 respondents all guessed (mix of T/F and multiple choice), the mean would have been ~5. The actual was only ~8.

Back to that 62%. It’s higher than the 40-45% from that endlessly-cited Gallup one, but that may be because it includes those who think “humans were created in their present form” but not “in the last 10,000 years.” Question wording is crucial, especially when most people answer without thinking it through; I have seen other polls that sharply illustrate the massive confusion on this topic.

1) Correctly and fairly state the position you are arguing against. 2) Correctly show how what you are arguing against is at odds with the evidence. This is enough on its own, but it’s even better to suggest an alternative, and that’s what ID/creationists claim to do. So…

— harold

YEC does make predictions - data should support an earth less than 10,000 years old and so on. YEC can easily be ruled out by the evidence. ID makes no predictions at all.

— harold

From the perspective of direct attacks on science education, those are all coming from the 22% who deny that plants or anything else evolved.

— harold

But if that does bother you, pin them down with “are you absolutely sure” type questions.

— harold

Frank J said:

The fact that no ID/creationist can bring himself to lay out a research program, put the experimental handles on any phenomena to be observed, specify the kind of equipment needed, specify the timeline, manpower, and budget requirements, and then set up the lab and do the experiments in full light of day, speaks volumes about ID/creationist primary objectives. Those objectives have always been, from the beginning, socio/political action and propaganda.

— Mike Elzinga

Right, but how many people know that? Almost no one on the street. But you know that DI sure does. My frustration is not with them - they know they have no other option - but with why it took 4 years (6 years if you count Behe's 1996 "figuring it all out") for a well-cited example of someone asking about that crucial next step. The challenger effectively even give Dembski the last word (albeit one very incriminating)? I didn't even discover the "bait" quote until 2006 when I wrote this obvious reply.

The folks in the street aren’t passing themselves off as experts; and many people do acknowledge that they were “bad” in science and math.

— Mike Elzinga

When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

I think that we should expect something out of people who are suggesting that there is something fatally flawed in evolutionary biology.

Some of this is what we expect of people who are speaking in public about any subject, whether it's science or anything else.

Some are peculiar to science.

I think that if one is going to suggest that the standard approach to a topic is fatally flawed, that one ought to have the outlines of a replacement. It seems to be a standard that is universally accepted. People who say that Shakespeare didn't write "Hamlet" always have a suggestion for who did write it. UFO-logists have some ideas of what they really are. There are those people who think that they have something to offer about Elvis being alive. In the more serious cases, Copernicus felt the need to work out an alternative theory. It was generally known that there were difficulties with Ptolomy's model, but that was not enough. Likewise, the phlogiston theory or ether-wave theory of light or caloric.

It seems to be taken for granted that the "reigning paradigm" is going to have some difficulties. Whether in science or history or music or literature. And the "rebels" take it upon themselves to make an alternative.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has made an alternative suggestion to the basic idea that there is a great deal of common descent within the world of life on Earth. I'm not going to count variations on the Omphalos Hypothesis, that things just happen to look like they have evolved over vast stretches of time.

To me, this is the number one problem shared among YEC, OEC, ID. It was pointed out in the 19th century. And ID is the worst violator. Almost as if the proponents of ID realized the depth and rigor and obviousness of the the evolutionary account for the variety of life, and how much work it would be to mount a challenge. (It would be a digression to remark on the causes of lack of a demand for an alternative. And digressions are the bane of the support for evolutionary biology.)

:Lacking an alternative, all that can be done is to attack evolutionary biology. But the only attacks that anyone can think of are:
1) There are genuine puzzles about the "details" or the "fringes".
2) There are simply denial about vast amounts of human knowledge. "Were you there?" This is unwitting testimony to the overwhelming evidence and logic for evolutionary biology - that the only way to respond to it is nihilism, solipsism, cynicism.
3) The straw man version of evolution
4) Personal attacks on the morals of those who accept evolutionary biology.

IMHO, as bad as are the attacks on evolutionary biology, to respond to them can be a distraction from the primary fault: What is the alternative?

Am I absolutely sure about common descent in the world of life?

I am not an expert on biology, science, or anything else.

The most I can do is to go along with the experts insofar as they make sense to me.

And there are some ideas that are so much integrated in an understanding of the world that they, to me, pass the standard, "Nothing in such-and-such makes sense except in the light of thus-and-so."

I would count a few of the really important ones as: (1) atomic theory of matter (2) heliocentric model of the Solar System (3) common descent as an explanation of variety of life (4) plate tectonics over deep time (5) germ theory of infectious disease.

Among those ideas, the one that I am closest to having direct experience of the evidence is common descent.

To be a little romantic about things, I look at some of the vast effort over ages of dedicated persons and I feel an obligation not to let their sacrifices go to waste (and I count also the lifetimes of those who went off on what are now recognized as dead ends).

That expresses, as best I can, how confident I am in common descent.

I think that if one is going to suggest that the standard approach to a topic is fatally flawed, that one ought to have the outlines of a replacement. It seems to be a standard that is universally accepted."

— TomS

Frank J said:

I think that if one is going to suggest that the standard approach to a topic is fatally flawed, that one ought to have the outlines of a replacement. It seems to be a standard that is universally accepted."

— TomS

Even if you give the IDers the benefit of the doubt (which means ignoring for the moment that they constantly try to have it both ways) that all they are doing is "falsifying" evolution, and bringing us back to "we don't know," which is legitimate, if not "universally accepted," the fact - of which they are fully aware - is that replacements, several famous mutually-contradictory ones, have already been proposed. So pretending they don't exist means that they likely find them at least as unconvincing as they find (or pretend to find) evolution. They can't refute them, because that would risk peace in the big tent (though I suspect not much, even tentative science-deniers are surprisingly compartmentalized). But more importantly they can't support them, because they know the evidence is not there.

harold said:

Frank J said:

I think that if one is going to suggest that the standard approach to a topic is fatally flawed, that one ought to have the outlines of a replacement. It seems to be a standard that is universally accepted."

— TomS

Even if you give the IDers the benefit of the doubt (which means ignoring for the moment that they constantly try to have it both ways) that all they are doing is "falsifying" evolution, and bringing us back to "we don't know," which is legitimate, if not "universally accepted," the fact - of which they are fully aware - is that replacements, several famous mutually-contradictory ones, have already been proposed. So pretending they don't exist means that they likely find them at least as unconvincing as they find (or pretend to find) evolution. They can't refute them, because that would risk peace in the big tent (though I suspect not much, even tentative science-deniers are surprisingly compartmentalized). But more importantly they can't support them, because they know the evidence is not there.

I will add a couple of points here. By definition it isn't "intelligent design" unless an "intelligent designer" is at least implied. "Falsifying evolution" is only acceptable because of the implied false dichotomy.

Polls - it is empirically the hard core 22% who are ideologues (that's the national percentage, remember that it's higher in some places) who have pushed evolution denial in public school, in Kansas, Dover, Ohio, Texas, etc. Freshwater is a member of this group. This is the empirical, physical fact. This is who does it. Another empirical fact is that when evolution deniers known to be evolution deniers have been in a school board election anywhere they have lost. They sneak in but get voted out when discovered. I'm not making this up, these are the empirical facts.I ID weasels are secretly, or not so secretly, working for and supporting that 22%, but the Dissembling Snouted ID Weasel is a very rare animal. That 62% you worry about are indeed poorly informed but have never heard of either the DI or AiG. In my personal empirical experience, ID arguments actually cause the 62% to support science more (because they perceive the same transparent stupidity we do and science looks good by comparison). People who claim to find ID convincing were committed anti-science ideologues BEFORE they heard of ID. I realize you say you briefly thought there was something to it but "briefly" is the key word.

Polls - it is empirically the hard core 22% who are ideologues...

— Harold

In my personal empirical experience, ID arguments actually cause the 62% to support science more (because they perceive the same transparent stupidity we do and science looks good by comparison).

— Harold

John Harshman said:

TomS said: As far as what interpretation of "Edge", I note that the idea that the Intelligent Design is active in countering human attempts in combatting malaria ought to be an embarrassment. Far worse than any mistakes in science. Are we to expect preaching that treatment of malaria is counter to the Will of God?

Possibly from some IDiots, but not from Behe. Again, Behe thinks that resistance to malaria evolved naturally in malaria populations. (On the other hand, he appears to think that various other features of the malaria parasite are specifically designed, so the designer is a nasty fellow.)

One wonders if all of these designers working at cross-purposes is an issue that IDiots bother to think about.

— bigdakine

bigdakine said: One wonders if all of these designers working at cross-purposes is an issue that IDiots bother to think about.

Miller's reading of Summers et al. is seriously mistaken. Sadly, a person who can't accurately report the results of a paper makes for an unreliable guide. I urge everyone who has sufficient background to read at least the disputed parts of Summers et al. Determine for yourself which account is correct.

FL said:

I urge everyone who has sufficient background to read at least the disputed parts of Summers et al. Determine for yourself which account is correct.

"The bacterial flagellum is like a mouse trap, I don’t read the scientific literature, and I can't imagine how it came to be; therefore it is "Irreducibly Complex" and must have been intelligently designed."

FL said: Just in case it hasn't already been presented in this forum, permit me to offer Panda readers a link to Dr. Behe's response to Miller's so-called "takedown." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/kenneth_miller092691.html

Miller's reading of Summers et al. is seriously mistaken. Sadly, a person who can't accurately report the results of a paper makes for an unreliable guide. I urge everyone who has sufficient background to read at least the disputed parts of Summers et al. Determine for yourself which account is correct.

Think it over, Pandas. FL

Once again, Floyd falls for the cheap con artist routine because he wants to believe the nonsense so badly. For shame Floyd, for shame.

— DS

Behe has posted a response to Miller's reply here

Tristan Miller said: Behe has posted a response to Miller's reply here

Here Miller's mistake helps us to see the bad effects of the lack of quantitative rigor. He exclaims that there is not just one pathway from partial to full chloroquine resistance, there are "several mutational routes." His italics indicate that he thinks this is very important. But a moment's quantitative thought shows that the number of pathways makes precious little practical difference. Suppose you were given a choice of a billion trillion roads to travel, but were told that only one of them led to safety; the others all led to certain death. You would likely feel pretty pessimistic about your chances. But suppose someone came along to tell you that there are actually several paths -- in fact, five of them! So your odds of finding a safe path home have jumped from one in a billion trillion to five in a billion trillion. Feeling better? I didn't think so.

Wow, Behe is an intellectually lazy asshole. And wow, Floyd is gullible. The lazy asshole doubles down on his lazily reached conclusion -- it's the same bullshit Miller already refuted -- then projectively accuses his opponent of being the insufficiently rigorous thinker... and Floyd falls for it.

Bravo, Floyd! You're an idiot.

C'mon now. Behe fully understands Miller's math, and even if he hasn't kept up with the science, understands it at least well enough to know that Miller is not making stuff up. But he is so invested in peddling evolution denial that he has no choice but to sound like he doesn't understand it. As a "lawyer" hell-bent on promoting unreasonable doubt, he is anything but "intellectually lazy."

Here is a place where an ID-defender argues with a biology person about the Behe/Miller exchange. Perhaps people here are eager to participate:
http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2015/01/behes-latest-replies-to-miller.html

Cheers,
NS

There is no way anybody is going to argue probabilities of molecular assemblies or mutations based on the pseudo mathematics of ID/creationism.

One has to have some inkling of the work that got the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry in order to understand probabilities of molecular assemblies. And even then, one has to know something about the environments in which specific molecular assemblies evolved and mutated.

As long as Behe remains locked up in ID/creationist thinking about biomolecules, his assessments of any scientific evidence about their evolution is irrelevant. Behe is a has been at best; but more likely a never was.

Mike Elzinga said: There is no way anybody is going to argue probabilities of molecular assemblies or mutations based on the pseudo mathematics of ID/creationism. One has to have some inkling of the work that got the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry in order to understand probabilities of molecular assemblies. And even then, one has to know something about the environments in which specific molecular assemblies evolved and mutated. As long as Behe remains locked up in ID/creationist thinking about biomolecules, his assessments of any scientific evidence about their evolution is irrelevant. Behe is a has been at best; but more likely a never was.

TomS said: I realize how pointless it is to expect a reasonable reaction from an evolution-denier, but can one not point out in response to the "calculation of probabilities" that a similar calculation proceeding from ID produces smaller numbers?

Is everyone busy reading the discussion in the link I posted?

sciencedefeated said: Is everyone busy reading the discussion in the link I posted?

sciencedefeated said: Is everyone busy reading the discussion in the link I posted?

What, you mean some blogger's opinion that Behe beat Miller in an argument? It took but a moment, and was very nearly worth the investment. But not quite.

sciencedefeated said:

What, you mean some blogger's opinion that Behe beat Miller in an argument? It took but a moment, and was very nearly worth the investment. But not quite.

No - I mean the comments! A biology graduate student offers a defense of Miller.