Behe, Common Descent, & UD
by BilboFirst, let me quote part of Michael Behe's argument, from his book, The Edge of Evolution, that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor:
"More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin — not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. [10] In one region of our genomes humans have five genes for proteins that act at various stages of development (from embryo through adult) as the second (betalike) chain of hemoglobin. This includes the gene for the beta chain itself, two almost identical copies of a gamma chain (which occurs in fetal hemoglobin), and several others. Chimpanzees have the very same genes in the very same order. In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a "pseudogene") that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.
"Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotide letters that seems to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene's coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseudogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.
"The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.
"That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, [11] there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." (p. 71-72)
[10] Chang, L.Y., and Slightom, J.L 1984. Isolation and nucleotide sequence analysis of the beta-type globin pseudogene from human, gorilla and chimpanzee. J. Mol. Biol. 180:767-84.
[11] Bapteste, E., Susko, E., Leigh, J., MacLeod, D., Charlebois, R.L., and Doolittle, W.F. 2005. Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support treethinking? BMC Evol. Biol. 5:33.
There should be nothing surprising about the fact that Behe believes in common descent. He admitted as much in his first book, Darwin's Black Box, plus in frequent presentations and debates. But it surprised some people, such as Jerry Coyne, when he read Behe's argument for common descent in EOE. Okay, I don't expect critics to pay attention to all the details.
But I do expect fellow proponents of ID to pay attention. That brings me to the blog, Uncommon Descent. There are many critics of common descent at UD. No surprise there. They very often refer to people who believe in common descent as "98 percenters." And the tone they use toward these people seems to be a bit, well, snooty, and occasionally downright hostile. Again, no big surprise there.
What surprises me is that UD has become the second home of Behe's blog. Have people such as Denyse O'Leary and Cornelius Hunter ever read EOE? If not, they may be in for a surprise of their own, someday.
So that no one will think that Behe is saying that neo-Darwinism can account for common descent, I'll add the next paragraph from his book:
"The bottom line is this. Common descent is true; yet the explanation of common descent — even the common descent of humans and chimps — although fascinating, is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. It does not even begin to explain where those commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences. Something that is nonrandom must account for the common descent of life."
September 12th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Bilbo,
I asked Dembski about this sort of thing directly in this thread. I appreciated his response, but it still leaves me wondering if ID (as Dembski conceives it) is too restrictive. Any ID that would, say.. leave Mike Gene out of its definition is an ID whose horizons need to be broadened, I think.
That said, I'm not sure the "98 percenters" remark is directed merely at people who believe in common descent, is it? That seems to be a crack leveled squarely at people who claim humans are 98% identical to chimpanzees, etc. Someone can both accept common descent while at the same time regard that number as misleading or wrong.
Comment by nullasalus — September 12, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
September 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Hi Bilbo, I appreciate your frustration with Uncommon Descent when it comes to common ancestry. There are many, including Cornelius Hunter, who regularly equate common ancestry with neo-Darwinism. I would also say that there are many on UD that are highly religously motivated. Many find that the acceptance of a human/chimp common ancestor, and the necessary abandonment of a literal Adam and Eve to be too startling to their theological perspective to accept. If the ID community doesn't truly let the evidence lead, then it truly is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. Though I think that many, including Behe and Mike Gene, are lead by the science, not religion. However, UD has an abundance of commenters, and more than a few posters, who have not separated their religious committment from their science.
Comment by bFast — September 12, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
September 12th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I agree with Nullasalus. The 98% figure was clung to years ago as a result of correctly citing vast sequence similarities between chimps and humans. While there is no cause for snootiness or hostility there is a need to recognize a tendency to simplify the significance of supporting data. The importance of non-coding RNA sequences became known relatively recently as time frames go. More and more we are coming to appreciate how regulatory effects can impact phenotype. It's not that this is new only that our appreciation of it has deepened with recent findings. There is more to direct comparisons than protein homology. Look at these sequences:
Mike Enge dovatseac front oldaing.
Can you make that out? There are considerable sequence similarities to this next sentence but vast differences in meaningful function.
Mike Gene advocates front loading.
Comment by Bradford — September 12, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
September 12th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
OK, so there are jackasses as UD. There are Jackasses at antievolution. And there may be a few here too. Jackasses exist. That seems clear enough.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 12, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
September 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Hi Bilbo, is it possible to be an ID proponent and not accept the evidence for common descent?
Wouldn't it be a restrictive view of ID to insist, as DaveScot used to, that proponents never question CD or the arguments for it?
Comment by Pez — September 12, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
September 12th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I believe Micheal Behe would tend to agree with what John A. Davison has to say on the subject of CD:
John A. Davison said:
Comment by computerist — September 12, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 4:13 am
I don't know anything about IDers that disavow common descent, but there's is an oddity about Behe's position that, I imagine, unnerves some ID supporters. The problem is that if you recognize that common descent is undeniable in some pretty amazing cases, such as chimps and humans, you have to wonder what would motivate an intelligent designer to meddle in some tiny corner of the animal kingdom such as inventing flagella. Once you understand that the relation between chimps and humans is really beyond question, and that good old variation and selection easily accounts for it, it seems silly to consider that a relatively minor structure such as the flagellum would be any kind of challenge for evolution, no matter what Behe imagines he sees in it.
Comment by don provan — September 13, 2009 @ 4:13 am
September 13th, 2009 at 5:04 am
As an ID proponent I have indeed thought about UCD at multiple resolutions. I have concluded that its completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Darwinian processes or an Intelligent Designer was involved. This irrelevance blows UCD through the roof simply from the fact that these organisms are each carriers of prescribed "blueprint" information slowly but surely waiting for their next "release" state.
Comment by computerist — September 13, 2009 @ 5:04 am
September 13th, 2009 at 5:05 am
How did you determine that?
Comment by don provan — September 13, 2009 @ 5:05 am
September 13th, 2009 at 5:27 am
As far as UCD is concerned, I see it as nothing more except one of many helper tool's/mechanism's to induce and "activate" the next dormant prescribed "blueprint".
Comment by computerist — September 13, 2009 @ 5:27 am
September 13th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Hi Don Provan,
The ID proponent wouldn't be unnerved as you mention if he got his info on common descent by reading Behe. Recognizing common descent is not recognizing the ease with which good old variation and selection account for evolution and it doesn't relegate the Designer to some strange corner to work on the bacterial flagellum. Behe recognizes that Darwinism, which he argues against, is multi-facetted and makes claims far beyond mere common descent.
Why, after two decades, are ID proponents not unnerved that they still don't know what Behe is saying?
Comment by Pez — September 13, 2009 @ 9:49 am
September 13th, 2009 at 9:57 am
computerist, you wrote:
That's an interesting viewpoint, perhaps somewhat motivated by the tools of your trade (assuming your handle gives us a clue about that), but doesn't our current understanding of evolutionary mechanisms make this impossible? I am of course referring to the fact that non-functional DNA accumulates mutations that would fairly quickly transform the blueprint into gibberish. Unless there is some mechanism in place that prevents this from happening. Is there any evidence to suggest that such a mechanism exists?
Comment by Jure — September 13, 2009 @ 9:57 am
September 13th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Computerist suggests:
If John's views are so ID friendly, it would seem odd that he is banned from commenting at Telic Thoughts, Uncommon Descent, and ARN org. (Though interestingly, left as the only contributor still posting at ISCID, home of the only peer reviewed ID journal PCID, where no one else can or does post.)
By the way, computerist, have you abandoned any attempt to make a fist of calculating FCSI/FSCI?
Comment by Alan Fox — September 13, 2009 @ 9:59 am
September 13th, 2009 at 11:23 am
To Jure,
http://darwins-god.blogspot.co...
Comment by Pez — September 13, 2009 @ 11:23 am
September 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
You could use the 98% similarity to bolster a hard-core Creationist argument:
The Creator used certain basic materials out of which to fashion life just as a potter can use clay to make either a cup or a saucer. Cups and saucers have very different functions but are made from the same basic ingredients.
Their common ancestry is both the materials used and the creative impetus that caused them to come into being. This does not mean, however, that one evolved into or from the other.
Comment by ash — September 13, 2009 @ 11:24 am
September 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Care to elaborate on how "variation and selection easily accounts for it" don? Let's hear what variations were selected and why.
Remember – you're the one who claims this is "easily" done.
If non-functional DNA is quickly transformed into gibberish, why do chimps and humans still have these remarkably similar pseudogenes?
There are others who infrequently post at ISCID Alan, including William Brookfield, Melvin H. Fox, Christopher D. Beling, and Bruce Fast. Maybe you should (again) try actually going to these places and reading a bit before you post your forgone conclusions.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 13, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Pez,
Thanks for that link to Cornelius Hunter's essay. He claims that some highly conserved noncoding elements in animals contradict evolution. I am a bit puzzled because he links to a paper that explains how these conserved regions evolved. Yet Hunter doesn't address any of the arguments and evidence in the paper.
Here is the abstract from that paper. You judge for yourself.
Comment by Jure — September 13, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Daniel Smith,
Can you be a bit more specific? Are they more similar than expected if they were neutral?
Comment by Jure — September 13, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
September 13th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
In "Darwin's Black Box", Behe also mentions that he believes in common descent, but it's not empasized, mentioned only in passing. This strong wording in EoE, as quoted here, I'm sure is to eliminate all ambiguity concerning his views. Anyone who's read "Darwin's Black Box" will understand why common descent is a non-issue for Behe. As a molecular chemist, Behe's playing field is at the level of molecules…how they interact to perform complex functions in and out of the cell. In 1996, in the Journal of Molecular Evolution, 80 percent of the articles were on sequencing similarities between species, the majority of the remainder of the articles were mathematically-based and hypothetical. A paltry few were on the origin of complex molecular systems, and these were not specific but very general with no named proteins and their interactions.
In other words, Behe's whole schtick is about the origin of systems at the molecular level. Some of the systems he concludes are irreducibly complex…for example blood clotting, and he asserts this because there's no way he can figure out how this multi-protein system could have gradully evolved, and neither does anyone else. He is a chemist and demands evidence at the molecular level, that can be checked and tested, so glossy meatless articles that give no insight or help in the laboratory is just so much handwaving to Behe, and his books reveal that he holds such people in low regard.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — September 13, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I'm not sure what you're saying. The OP suggests that Behe accepts common descent, but you seem to be saying that he only accepts that they are variations, not that those variations show common descent. Anyway, I was just trusting the OP.
But if you're right, that makes Behe's position even more dubious. Has he identified IC structures between humans and chimps and their common ancestor? Denying common descent between two such closely related species seems even more obviously hand-waving than what he does when he talks about the clear example of the flagellum. Perhaps that's why hardcore IDers don't like it.
Comment by don provan — September 14, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
You were right, DP.
Behe accepts common descent. That's what he, the OP and I said.
But he doesn't make any claims "that good old variation and selection easily accounts for it".
He tells us what kinds of things Darwinism can account for and what it seems unable to account for (anything beyond a double CC, for instance, or an IC structure). He has not publicly investigated the variations required to go from chimp to human but he has made no claims that Darwinism can account for them.
However dubious his position is should be decided upon reading it and not making it up.
Comment by Pez — September 14, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Hmmm!
If you call one post by Chris Beiling in the last twelve months infrequent, then I agree. Of course there are a few posts from Dave Springer poking John with a stick, too, so ISCID is in reality buzzing with activity
Didn't we have a PM exchange about no new registrations plus your, mine and anyone else's (apart from "fellows") posting privileges being rescinded?
Comment by Alan Fox — September 14, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Oh and Dan,
PCID latest issue November 2005!
Comment by Alan Fox — September 14, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Alan,
I was specifically challenging this statement:
Are you standing by the bolded claims?
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 14, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I don't know. You're the one making the claim: "non-functional DNA accumulates mutations that would fairly quickly transform the blueprint into gibberish".
How fast is "fairly quickly"?
How do you define "gibberish"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 14, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Of course. Note the subtle use of the word "or". There are some who are able to post but don't bother, some who might have posted and no longer can, like me and you, and the rest who cannot now register even if they wanted to. ISCID is mothballed FAPP.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 14, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Alan,
I also noticed the not-so-subtle use of the words "the only contributor still posting at ISCID", and "no one else".
I guess the subtle use of the word "or" negates all that.
Comment by Daniel Smith — September 14, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Dan, are you telling me that ISCID is not moribund, FAPP?
From their contact page:
ISCID is no longer being managed as an organization, and thus no longer has contact information. We leave this website up for archival purposes.
Comment by Alan Fox — September 14, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Oh noes! I wonder what happened to the plush ISCID headquarters in Princeton? Here are a couple of pictures taken by Prof. Steve Steve (scroll down).
Comment by olegt — September 14, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
What surprises me is this quote:
"What surprises me is that UD has become the second home of Behe's blog. Have people such as Denyse O'Leary and Cornelius Hunter ever read EOE? If not, they may be in for a surprise of their own, someday."
I for one was glad to see Behe at UD because it demonstrates that ID can be comprised of any proponents who believe that there is some element of design and intelligence involved with origins (including the Crickian directed transpermia).
To suggest that Behe exists there at UD with his CD incognito under the very unaware noses of O'Leary and Hunter is a bit goofy to me. I don't necessarily agree with Behe on CD, but I really appreciated EOE. It was an eye opener, and I will wager that Hunter and O'leary are fully aware and appreciative of Behe's presence and his incorrigible CD leanings.
Comment by selectedpete — September 14, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
If I understand Dembski's answer, he's merely saying that there's no scientific need for Theistic Evolutionists to accomodate neo-Darwinism. He would still include Mike Gene in the ID camp. I think Mike Gene would disagree with him, Behe, Lynn Margulis, and me about neo-Darwinism.
Maybe I misunderstood the "98 percenters" label. I thought it was a short-hand method to refer to anyone who believed in common descent.
Sure it is. But you need to ask certain people at UD if it's possible to be an ID proponent and accept common descent.
Yes it would be too restrictive. As Behe once said, questioning anything in science is always healthy. But if I understand certain people at UD, it's doubtful if one can be an ID proponent and accept CD.
Behe updated his criterion to include two-binding sites (three interacting proteins) in EOE. Has he identified any of those between humans and chimps? I don't think so. But I think he suspects that they exist. Quoting from his next paragraph:
"It does not even begin to explain where those commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences."
Comment by Bilbo — September 14, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
OK. I take "descent" to describe what happens through natural processes, but you want it to include engineering two variations from a common original. I suppose I have to concede that's a possible interpretation, even if it's not one I would make.
OK. But that means he has no reason to think standard theory cannot account for the difference, either.
Other experts feel existing theory can easily account for the variations required to go from their common ancestor to humans and chimps. By acknowledging that common descent is positively supported, Behe opens the door to someone noticing that the evidence in this case doesn't support any claim of intelligent intervention, positively or negatively.
I read the OP. What did I miss? What should have made me realize that when Behe says, "…all creatures on earth are biological relatives," that he was not referring to the standard theories about biological relations?
Comment by don provan — September 14, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
September 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
You didn't miss anything, Don. I've added to the OP, to help you understand Behe's position.
Comment by Bilbo — September 14, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Hi Bilbo,
I need to ask that?
Who do you think at UD would say Behe is not an ID proponent?
Really, who?
Who are these certain people? Anonymous commenters?
Are you confusing the fact that some people don't believe the evidence for common descent is compelling with the idea that they think you can't believe in ID if you do find it compelling?
—
Hi DP,
Weird. Since when does "descent" have metaphysical connotations?
Non sequitur. Because he has not made his public case says nothing about what he has personal reasons to believe one way or the other. He hasn't said one way or another so nobody need be unnerved by his non-claim.
Knock me over with a feather.
Good point. So acknowledging CD doesn't say anything either way. Not so unnerving when you know what Behe is saying.
You just have to read the words and not invent new meanings for them.
Comment by Pez — September 15, 2009 @ 2:51 am
September 15th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Pez,
In Bilbo's defense, UD (and I'd say the DI in general) does seem to put out mixed signals about the compatibility of ID with evolution in general. Common descent I actually see brought up less, but it could be I'm missing it – I don't go out of my way to look for such.
Still, as I told Bilbo, I don't think the 98 percenters thing is a CD knock. So maybe there's some honest misunderstanding going on here. I think one problem is that ID has quite a 'big tent' – various claims and views, not all of them strictly compatible with each other. So it's easy to mistake 'a' ID view as 'the' ID view if it seems to come up often enough.
Comment by nullasalus — September 15, 2009 @ 5:07 am
September 15th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Here is another quote from Behe, which occurs near the end of Darwin's Black Box. It is the cell that Behe thinks was designed:
The irreducibly complex biochemical systems that I have discussed in this book did not have to be produced recently. It is entirely possible, based simply on an examination of the systems themselves, that they were designed billions of years ago and that they have been passed down to the present by the normal processes of cellular reproduction. Perhaps a speculative scenario will illustrate the point. Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not “turned on” In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.) Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design. The cell containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat or be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer the vagaries of life on earth. During this process, pace Ken Miller, psuedogenes might occasionally arise and a complex organ might become nonfunctional. These chance events do not mean that the initial biochemical systems were not designed. The cellular warts and wrinkles that Miller takes as evidence of evolution may simply be evidence of age.
Behe’s last sentence here can be misconstrued to mean that Behe is arguing against evolution…he actually isn’t (you’d have to read the whole chapter to realize this, as he firmly believes in evolution). He should have written “The cellular warts and wrinkles that Miller takes as evidence against design may simply be evidence of age.” Earlier, Behe had written about how Miller argues against design based on perceived biological imperfections.
But getting back to the reason why I pasted the quote into this comment, this is the only postulation in the book that Behe makes in regards to the origin of life. A postulation that it began with the cell and that it was designed. The reason why he believes this is because he is a biochemist and can't figure out how the complex functions in the cell could have gradually evolved, and all the evidence at his disposable indicates irreducible complexity (for some of the systems) such that they couldn't have gradually evolved. Also, just as importantly, neither can anyone else figure it out. Essentially he's making an inference based on what he does know.
An important point, and one that he continually makes in the book, is that the systems he writes about are known to a very precise degree…i.e. the molecules and proteins and their interactions and sequencing, for example, of the blood clotting system, immunology, the cilium, etc., are well known, so his inference is based on evidence. It is how the parts came together to function in the first place that baffle everyone including himself, and that is why he postulates a designer.
Perhaps one day a chemist will be able to design a cell that will reproduce itself, but no one now can figure out how to do it. Ironically, when it is figured out, the accomplishment will further bolster ID as a viable concept.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — September 15, 2009 @ 7:13 am
September 15th, 2009 at 10:25 am
So this idea tha Behe "admits" that the evidence for CD is strong is irritating as well. Behe is an evolutionary biologist trained up in the discipline and believing its tenets like most all evolutionary biologists. He came to change his mind about the efficacy of the proposed Darwinian mechanisms for evolution as a published and working scientist. He never denied CD and was never forced to admit it. Miller made this point long ago, that he and Behe share an evolutionary view of the history of the earth, including man from apes. But MIller keeps acting surprised by it and he and Behe's opponents keep acting like Behe has suddenly done an about face or pulled the rug out from under creation believers or ID proponents.
what does Behe think was designed?
The origin of life, the cell, the genetic code, multiprotein complexes, molecular machines, cell types, the kingdoms, phyla, classes, for sure.
Maybe the families and genera as well.
Varieties within species? No, he sees no scientific reason to conclude Darwinian theory can't account for these.
Comment by Pez — September 15, 2009 @ 10:25 am
September 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Living systems respond purposefully and rationally to stimuli. Purposeful response is what distinguishes life from non life. The responses of life are fallible, only roughly predictable, but capable of unpredictable creativity. These are characteristics of the human mind, and to a more limited extent, of the apparently purposeful behaviour of all organisms with a central nervous system. Our bodies also respond rationally and purposefully without our conscious awareness. I’ve seen evidence that single cultured cells, lacking a central nervous system, show evidence of limited, intelligent, purposeful response.
http://www.basic.northwestern....
On the other hand, if non life appears to show any response, it always turns out to be some mindless, predictable, deterministic, thermostat-like reaction. Trees are moved by the wind, and wind follows deterministic laws of classical physics and chemistry. The movement of water can also be predicted by the laws of physics. No volition has been detected in non living systems.
I’m not sure why some scientists are so insistent that there is no difference between life and non life, that the appearance of unpredictable, creative free choice in living systems is an illusion. Indeed, some go so far as to claim human free choice is an illusion. They are having difficulty imposing this assumption upon the rest of us. Many of us see intelligence as an innate aspect of all living systems. It has nothing to do with religion; I am a religious agnostic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Protein Regulators Are Themselves Regulated
The materialist search for mechanistic causes will be an endless regression. Eventually some of us must acknowledge that the ultimate regulator is an organizing intelligence innate to living systems.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — September 15, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Thanks. So with this addition, what I see is Behe sketching out the fundamentals of the argument for MET, including some very convincing examples, and then ending with "…but I don't buy it." So I'm still thinking the objections might be motivated by ID supporters being unnerved to see the two cases so clearly juxtaposed, the scientific case for the modern theory, with its specific, concrete findings, versus the ID case consisting of nothing more than "I don't buy it". It's just too easy to see for oneself that the information Behe presents very clearly does "begin to explain where those commonalities came from, or how humans subsequently acquired remarkable differences," even if it is just a beginning. So one has to start wondering to what degree Behe's being entirely honest and complete in his evaluation, even as he admits that the case involving common descent is undeniable.
Species are artificial divisions invented by humans. Thinking Darwinian theory would be limited by the man-made label "species" is like thinking that animals can't migrate over the borders between countries. Once Behe concedes varieties within species, the cat's out of the bag, the cow's out of the barn, and Behe's slipping down the slope to mainstream theory.
I'm not sure how many ID supporters recognize the problem consciously, but I don't find it surprising that what Behe says upsets many of them even if they don't entirely understand the logical threat.
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
No, I'm confused as to how some people — Denyse O'Leary and Cornelius Hunter, for example — can react with such disdain and hostility toward people who believe in common descent, and still believe that people, including Behe, can accept CD and ID. Could you ask them if they realize that Behe is a 98 percenter?
You forgot "the fox is in the hen house."
But seriously, Behe is trying to address the evidence. He sees evidence for randomness, and he sees evidence for design. It doesn't make sense to design a pseudogene (a gene that no longer functions as a gene) once, let alone twice — once in chimpanzees and once in humans. So it makes more sense to believe that randomness has played a role in evolutionary history, and that the two had a common ancestor. On the other hand, he sees limits to what randomness can accomplish, even when coupled with natural selection. So it makes more sense to him to believe that design has played a role in evolutionary history, also. For Behe, the interesting question is trying to discern the edge between design and non-design. Hence the title of his latest book.
Comment by Bilbo — September 15, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Since Darwinism took established the meaning of "descent" in biological contexts, I suppose. But descending is what something does itself. If there was an intelligence involved, I would expect the term "derive" would be used instead of descent. Using "descent" is almost begging to be misinterpreted. And I fell into the trap.
Sorry, I don't believe you. By not making the case, he leaves people thinking he doesn't have a case. And, of course, we all know he doesn't have a case, since otherwise he would have made his argument more effective instead of just trailing off with "…but I don't buy it."
The points Behe presents are the beginning of the evolutionary case. They are not the beginning of any ID case. No, they don't put the ball over the goal line, but they do move it five yards in the wrong direction for those trying to make the case against.
(Of course, it would have been ten yards if Behe weren't so superficial. Guess what? The differences are actually distributed in a way that statistically correlates to random mutations instead of engineered changes!)
Help me out. When he said "biological relations," why was I supposed to read that as something entirely different than what most biologists would think it meant?
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Dang!
I think this is part of the problem. He defines a nice, crisp criteria, but then he turns around rules on chimps and humans without applying it. (Never mind that he also hasn't backed up his mathematical musings with any confirming evidence.)
From this discussion here, it sounds like he's placing the edge rather too close to non-design for mainstream IDer's tastes.
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Hi Don Provan,
Interesting. Since neither "descent" nor "biological" has anything to say about metaphysics the answer must lie in the word "Darwinism". Thanks, just as I thought.
If you're still talking about CD then no, he has no case against it. That's the point.
If you're talking about whether or not Darwinism can account for the differences between chimps and people he has made no case. So yes, you are right, he has no scientific case to present. Therefore, he doesn't present one. But funny enough, he still believes in ID. Therefore, it is irrelevant to his project.
Only those who reject CD. Behe considers the ball is at or over the other goal line.
Since you admit they are making a metaphysical claim when they talk about biology I guess you are excused. I try to read words for their real meaning, not the hidden philosophical intent. Your theory covers descent, variation and selection. Behe is arguing against the claims regarding variation, not descent or selection. Anyone who knows him enough to be unnerved by his project would know this.
Comment by Pez — September 15, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
What are you talking about?
What's "mainstream ID" and where's your evidence for this claim?
Comment by Pez — September 15, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I was talking about the blog entry Bilbo pointed to.
This is in reference to the people objecting to Behe's position that Bilbo wants us to talk about.
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Whatever. I'll leave you to argue with yourself about who should own what semantic turf.
I think you've completely lost sight of the OP. The question isn't about the quality of his work, but only on how some ID proponents are reacting to it and why. He presents a clear, scientific case for common descent, including some elements that are at the verge of supporting Darwinism itself, and then he presents no evidence for his contrary position. I'm suggesting that some people might see that as undermining the ID cause.
That's right: we're talking about IDers that consider common descent an unacceptable concession.
How did Behe decide the ball was over the goal line when you yourself tell us he has no case either way?
Comment by don provan — September 15, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
September 15th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Hi don provan,
Please pay extra attention here because we are not communicating.
Behe makes no case concerning humans and chimps and whether or not Darwinism can account for their differences or whether Design is required.
Good so far?
Good.
Behe also accepts universal common descent. I know we're good here.
Here's where you have to really pay attention. Behe's project has nothing to do with common descent or the LCA of humans and chimps. Right? Right. We've agreed on that. He has no case, pro or con. He accepts it and, lo and behold, is still an ID proponent.
The ball is across the goal because of what his project does deal with; IC, the BF, the cilium, The Edge Of Evolution, etc.
His project rejects the efficacy of the Darwinian processes to account for these, it rejects random mutation as the engine of evolution, it does not argue against common descent and it is not impacted by common ancestry for chimps and humans. His acceptance of that common ancestry does not affect his ID case.
Nice dodge. Show me his ruling on chimps and people, please, which is 180 degrees from his nice crisp criteria elucidated elsewhere.
Ah yes, those ones. Since you said you didn't know about them which are they again? When you made this admission you claimed that Behe's acceptance of CD meant he accepted the efficacy of good old variation and selection. It doesn't.
Comment by Pez — September 15, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
September 16th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
We're talking about chimps. Does or doesn't Behe consider the ball across the goal line in the specific case of chimps and humans descending from a common ancestor via the unguided process accepted by biologists?
You're underscoring my point. Behe's identified one or two places that he claims are impossible for natural processes to get by, but he seems to oversell his case by assuming all paths have such blocks. But of course he does that. Unless he assumes his handful of examples prove a much larger trend, he's in the position I first mentioned, where he has to explain why those specific meddles can be detected but no others.
I'm sorry, but you're just not following the conversation Bilbo and I are having. Bilbo pointed to his blog of Behe's two-bindings-site rule, and my response was to observe that Behe had not applied it to humans, but was happy to say natural processes couldn't explain humans even though he couldn't back it up.
You'd have to ask Bilbo.
Comment by don provan — September 16, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
September 17th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Hi Don Provan,
Yeah, I've followed your conversation with Bilbo just fine and I still want to know what you're talking about.
What's the answer? Where did he say this thing he can't back up?
So you don't know know anything about any of these anonymous ID proponents who are unnerved by Behe's ID hypothesis. I don't either. At least none that actually read him and know what he says.
No he doesn't. Behe specifically talks about paths which are not blocked and about things that happen by chance and random variation. He also specifically talks about things which he thinks can't be explained in such a manner (he doesn't say they are impossible) and says why he thinks this and what the implication is.
You're not following. He doesn't say (though you pretend he does). He makes no case. He very likely has no case. It doesn't matter to him. He doesn't rest his case on human/chimp ancestry. It makes no difference.
Being that I'm not clairvoyant I can't tell you what he thinks on this.
Let me repeat my first comment to you and let you notice how you have said nothing whatsoever on the subject of any relevance since:
Comment by Pez — September 17, 2009 @ 12:14 am
September 17th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Too late to edit.
All you've done is make the claim that an ID proponent who doesn't accept common descent will be bothered that Behe does. First, you're wrong, and second, if you were right, so what?
Comment by Pez — September 17, 2009 @ 12:30 am
September 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
No, I've responded to Bilbo's statement that some people that don't accept common descent were bothered that Behe does. If you think Bilbo's wrong, you should be talking to him about it, not me.
Again, you have to ask Bilbo. He's the one that was wondering. I've just suggested some explanations for him to consider.
Comment by don provan — September 17, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
September 18th, 2009 at 1:36 am
That's another claim I haven't seen any evidence of. Where did Bilbo show that there were IDers who were bothered by Behe?
Comment by Pez — September 18, 2009 @ 1:36 am
September 18th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Comment by don provan — September 18, 2009 @ 1:52 am
September 18th, 2009 at 3:32 am
That doesn't answer the question.
Comment by Pez — September 18, 2009 @ 3:32 am
September 21st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Yes, it does.
Comment by don provan — September 21, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
September 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I never said that ID proponents — who reject CD — are bothered by Behe's acceptance of CD. But I suspect that they are.
Comment by Bilbo — September 21, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
September 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I don't know of anyone in ID that is bothered by Behe's acceptance of universal common descent.
His views fall in line with front-loading evolution.
Comment by ID guy — September 21, 2009 @ 4:55 pm