Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
509 of 678 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Mostly dreadful, but some good points., June 12, 2007
In the Debacle in Dover, testifying about biochemistry, his main area of expertise, Behe frequently looked like a complete ID-iot. In EOE, Behe spends substantial time discussing areas outside his main ariea of expertise: zoology, astrophysics, developmental biology, etc. Question: If Behe couldn't survive cross-examination in his main area of expertise, then why should we trust him about other areas?
Besides that troubling, general question, there are several specific items that indicate that Behe simply cannot be trusted to get his facts straight. While some reviewers have identified some fairly esoteric errors, I would like to highlight more basic errors, errors so fundamental that a reasonably knowledgeable high school student would catch them.
Behe claims that his previous book, "Darwin's Black Box" (DBB), showed that irreducibly complex (IC) systems could not possibly have evolved in a step-by-step manner, but in reality DBB never said any such thing. DBB argued only that "direct" evolution was highly unlikely. Not only does that still leave the door open for "indirect" evolution, but "highly unlikely" is obviously not the same thing as "impossible." A reasonably sharp high school student would recognize both of those serious errors.
Behe also has a nasty habit of moving the goalposts on an ad hoc basis. In DBB, Behe claimed that IC systems met the standard set by Darwin himself: "could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Under that standard, which Behe freely accepted, merely plausible evolutionary pathways would be effective rebuttals of Behe's IC claims; but whenever biologists mention the numerous, plausible pathways that exist, Behe suddenly changes the standard to "rigorous, detailed explanations." Even a high school student would recognize that "rigorous, detailed explanations" is a radically different standard from "plausible." Such glaring inconsistency on such a key point seems to imply deliberate deception.
Some of Behe's statistical arguments assume that evolutionary success involves finding a needle in a haystack, i.e., a single, specific combination of mutations. In reality, as Behe himself implies in discussing the "Red Queen" effect, there is frequently a large, possibly enormous, number of potentially beneficial combinations available; so evolution is not searching for a needle, rather it is searching for a haystack; and therefore the odds of success are enormously greater than Behe's statistics imply. Any reasonably sharp high school student would recognize the glaring flaw in Behe's deceptive statistics.
Creationists with limited math abilities seem greatly impressed even by math arguments as obviously stupid as Behe's. I think it's worthwhile to point out that the most influential statistician of the 20th century was probably Sir Ronald Fisher, who, in addition to his spectacular achievements in statistics, also happens to have been one of the most influential evolutionists of the 20th century, having been one of the principal proponents of the "modern synthesis." So when ID-iots like Behe start bloviating about statistics, just remember that the real expert in statistics, Sir Ronald Fisher, was an evolutionist.
Finally, in another key argument, Behe simply assumes that "fitness landscapes" never change, but anyone with even a high school level knowledge of earth science knows that physical landscapes change all the time, due to floods, earthquakes, erosion, etc. Is Behe really so clueless that he doesn't realize that if physical landscapes change, then "fitness landscapes" must change too? Behe's idea of an organism "trapped on a fitness peak," forever barred from crossing even a shallow valley and thereby potentially gaining access to a even higher peak is so obviously stupid that any reasonably knowledgeable high school student would reject it.
I fully realize that not everyone can catch every error. Even major errors, like some of those pointed out by other critics, might slip by if they involve obscure or highly technical details. But it is really baffling that five-star reviewers blithely overlook numerous, major blunders that any knowledgeable high school student would catch. How in God's name could that happen?
|
|
|
795 of 1,149 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
The Edge of Inanity: The Search for the Limits of Credulity, June 6, 2007
Behe's all dog no pony Irreducible Complexity (IC) tour is back in town - fresh from a Dover, PA appearance where he literally brought down the house of Intelligent Design (ID) cards with a slapstick vaudeville routine that confusingly conflated astrology with astronomy, dismissed reams (literally) of research into the evolution of the blood clotting cascade, and routinely produced 'oh dear' deer in the headlights stares while under cross examination.
Much of "The Edge of Evolution" centers on the purported inability of evolutionary mechanisms to account for parasites such as malaria. Behe's preferred instrument of faith-based flagellation - the flagellum - stages an encore performance as the malarial cilium; which to Behe's doe eyes looks even more IC than it did before.
Research is cited to show that the production of cilium in eukaryotic cells depends upon the availability of another cellular system known as intraflagellar transport (IFT). Behe then asserts (as in provides no supporting evidence) that both the cilium and IFT are irreducibly complex - in fact he christens this section "Irreducible Complexity Squared" (note to the Discovery Institute: get that trademark application in soon, how about IC2). Behe writes on page 94:
"IFT exponentially increases the difficulty of explaining the irreducibly complex cilium. It is clear from careful experimental work with all ciliated cells that have been examined, from alga to mice, that a functioning cilium requires a working IFT. The problem of the origin of the cilium is now intimately connected to the problem of the origin of IFT. Before its discovery we could be forgiven for overlooking the problem of how a cilium was built. Biologists could vaguely wave off the problem, knowing that some proteins fold by themselves and associate in the cell without help. Just as a century ago Haeckel thought it would be easy for life to originate, a few decades ago one could have been excused for thinking it was probably easy to put a cilium together; the piece could probably just glom together on their own. But now that the elegant complexity of IFT has been uncovered, we can ignore the question no longer."
IC2 states that you can't have/build/produce cilia without a functioning IFT mechanism - evolutionary (natural) causations must explain the apparently choreographed origin of IFT and the origin of cilia - quod erat demonstrum. Unfortunately this claim is false. In the real world eukaryotes exist which have cilia but lack IFT.
One of these organisms belongs to a group called Apicomplexans. These protozoa are obligatory intracellular parasites that must spend part, if not all, of their life cycle in a host animal. The specific apicomplexan in question is Plasmodium falciparum. You probably know it better by its street name: malaria. The organism that Behe touts throughout as being an intelligently designed exemplar of irreducibly complex systems completely demolishes his entire claim that cilia and IFT constitute an irreducible system - squared or not.
Compounding the Plasmodium falciparum debacle is Behe's rubber-band reality utilization of fitness landscape arguments in a chapter that should have been titled "The Mathematical Limits of Beheism" since it only manages to showcase his profligate innumeracy. Here's how Behe turned a fitness landscape into a swamp (with thanks to Mark Chu-Carroll):
1. Restrict evolution to a static and unchanging fitness landscape - unfortunately in the real world fitness landscapes are never static. 2. Constrain the fitness landscape to a smooth surface made up of hills and valleys where a local minimum or maximum in any dimension is a local minimum or maximum in all dimensions - and ignore that a valley in one dimension can be a peak in another. 3. Assert that fitness function mapping from a genome to a point of the fitness landscape is monotonically increasing - in spite of the fact that things don't always go in a single direction - for example a virus may decrease in fitness over time but increase in transmissibility. 4. Define the fitness function as smoothly continuous, with infinitesimally small changes (single point base changes) mapping to equally small changes in position on the fitness landscape - in spite of experimental evidence that even a single base pair change (in a viral quasispecies for example) can eliminate one peak while creating another (and also ignore the consequences of gene duplication, recombination, insertional mutations, transposition, and translocation).
As Mark points out Behe doesn't even understand that he is making these assumptions - you can wade through his mathematics without getting your ankles wet. He then traipses into quicksand of his own design by basing all of his arguments on the flawed fitness landscape and straightjacketed search results they produce. William Dembski acted as an advisor to Behe - and it shows. The master of obscurantist pseudomathematics has found a willing apprentice.
Transmuting lush fitness landscapes into malarial swamps is quite a trick but Behe, ever the prankster, isn't finished yet. Behe accepts common descent and admits that overwhelming evidence links closely related species (e.g. humans and chimpanzees) to shared ancestors, but flatly asserts that evolution by natural means is incapable of facilitating genus or taxa level differentiation such as the emergence of tetrapods from Sarcopterygian fish. The horns of this dilemma should be obvious, even to Behe; how can all species be linked by common descent if evolution above the species level is impossible?
Behe never resolves this disconnect - no mechanism is ever offered. No hint of a hypothesis. No suggested experimental avenues. This logical lacuna can't be bridged by incessant appeals to 'design.' Behe further muddies the waters by surreptitiously substituting a concept much closer to creationist 'baramin' (created kinds) for biological species - created kinds and common descent are irreconcilable concepts.
Ultimately Behe's colleagues at Lehigh University are ideally positioned to comment on his work. The Department of Biological Sciences has posted the following statement on their website concerning Behe:
"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others."
"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of 'intelligent design.' While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
Behe's book is one long train wreck. Unlike Darwin who eloquently elucidated one long argument, Behe tosses off sloppy seconds as research, recycles sophomoric (and rejected) fitness landscape arguments, confusingly conflates or redefines common terms and proffers puerile probability assessments - standard creationist (excuse me, I meant to say IDist) fare.
Thanks to Nick Matzke for uncovering Behe's monumentally grotesque Plasmodium falciparum gaffe.
Special thanks as well to Behe's dysfunctional advisory team: Lydia and Tim McGrew, Peter and Paul Nelson, George Hunter, David DeWitt, Doug Axe, Bill Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Tony Jelsma, Neil Manson, Jay Richards, Guillermo Gonzalez, Bruce Chapman, Steve Meyer, John West, and Rob Crowther - a veritable bestiary of methodological supernaturalists operating at the edge of inanity - and only one 's' away from insanity.
|
|
|
223 of 322 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Did Behe pass BIO 101?, August 1, 2007
"It has become almost a cliché to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics." -Richard Dawkins-
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." -Richard Dawkins-
The treatment given evolution in EoE barely veils Behe's astonishingly poor grasp of the subject, an inexcusable, unforgivable and embarrassing impropriety for any biologist let alone a PhD biochemist endeavoring to write a book on the subject. This ignorance, apparently, constitutes a useful asset to the ID movement, however, since its proponents avoid formally, accurately or even honestly engaging real science at all cost. Indeed, ignorance alone is not enough to fully explain the tortuously ad hoc, forlornly illusory and Christian friendly "science" promulgated by EoE. As tempting as it is, however, I will forgo treatment of Behe's dishonesty at this time. His math is also quite easily attacked, but this has been done quite admirably by others before me. His ignorance of evolutionary biology has yet to be addressed, however, and is, in any case, a much more tempting target for me.
EoE makes several assertions that I think represent Behe's grasp of evolutionary biology fairly well. The problem for Behe is, however, they demonstrate bewilderment on a par with possibly the least astute of creationist minds. I had the opportunity to present some of them to a group of relatively intelligent high school graduates (and science majors to be) with whom I have the pleasure of working over the summer. They turned out to be surprisingly more adept at evolutionary science than Behe. The following passages were taken from EoE. I invite you to witness Behe's astonishing ignorance for yourselves:
BEHE WRITES: "The defense of vertebrates from invasion by microscopic predators is the job of the immune system, yet hemoglobin is not part of the immune system. Hemoglobin's main job is as part of the respiratory system, to carry oxygen to tissues. Using hemoglobin to fight off malaria is an act of utter desperation, like using a TV set to plug a hole in the Hoover Dam." (pp. 29-30)
AND
"A second point is that the mutations are not in the process of joining to build a more complex, interactive biochemical system... A related point is that neither hemoglobin mutation occurs in the immune system... So the mutations are neither making a new system nor even adding to an established one" (p. 34).
Behe is so clueless, so confused, so desperate and so wrong that he can't help but inadvertently shoot himself in the foot from time to time. The above quotes exemplify this perfectly. With these, Behe all but destroys his own case for what he calls "irreducible complexity." A journey outside the world of the microscopic might be helpful in understanding why.
Consider a bird and its wings for example. In most cases these wings are used to fly and are quite well adapted to that task. Not all birds fly, however, and some, in fact, put their wings to significantly different uses. Cormorants are an excellent case in point. Unless one deems their pelagic antics as such, they have lost the ability to fly entirely. In its newly assumed part-time aquatic milieu however, the cormorant's cartoonishly small and awkward wings are instantly transformed from mere vestiges of flight to fairly utile if obviously roughhewn "fins." The cormorants wings in this case represent the very TV set plugging the hole in Behe's dam analogy. This is precisely the sort of thing survival often requires of organisms in nature. Evolved structures are often put to use at tasks for which they did not evolve. As an organisms environment changes, this inevitably becomes necessary. If evolution was not a fact, given the findings of geology, most life forms on earth would be extinct right now. When it becomes necessary to adapt to changing conditions, diets, predators, lifestyles,... etc., wings and legs become fins, Jawbones enable hearing, tongues become lures and forelimbs become wings. An animal moving from land to an aquatic environment does not loose its legs and then evolve fins anew "part" by "part." Legs become fins. This is why some manatees still have toenails on their flippers.
Evolution has no clue what "parts" or "functions" are and can neither predict the future nor plan for it. Since evolution also lacks cognizance of Behe's circumscription, it retains at its disposal quicker, more efficient and less costly means of producing adaptations in living organisms than Behe's "part" by "part," step by step scenario. Parts may hence be co-opted or exapted for functions they can approximate until natural selection better adapts them to those functions. Mind you, this is not the result of any sentient decision making. It is driven by an organisms active efforts to survive within its environment. Just a simple change in diet brought on by a drought, for example, will introduce selective pressures effecting adaptations in already present structures to deal with that change. Finch beaks readily come to mind.
The cormorants wings did not evolve for swimming and we can all pretty much see that. We can't, however, see the type III secretory system or a bacterial flagellum. As such, it is difficult for most non-scientists to conceptualize its many parts as they relate to the structure, functioning and survival of a bacterial cell. Throw in a few big fancy words or names and the situation worsens dramatically. This dynamic virtually assures IC an uncritical and accepting audience among the religious. The truth is, however, exaptation can and does occur on the molecular level. Although it wasn't his intention to, Behe himself points this out. Hemoglobin did not specifically evolve for the task, but it has, nonetheless, been co-opted for use in fighting disease. The type III secretory system is an already evolved structure present within some bacterial cells and readily available for co-option. In this regard, it is no different from the cormorants wings which have been similarly co-opted for use as fins. It wouldn't make sense to demand functional part by part intermediates to wings used for swimming without accounting for their prior function. Unless we remain mindful of changing functions, it's just as senseless to demand functional part by part intermediates for pumps that have been adapted to bacterial motility or oxygen binding proteins that have been adapted to destroying bacteria.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "How could a gazelle better avoid a faster cheetah? One way... is to become faster itself. But another way might be to become better at making quick turns... Or to develop stronger horns for defense. Or tougher skin. Or grow bigger. Or develop camouflage. Or graze where cheetahs aren't. Or when cheetahs are asleep. Or close to a forest in which to hide. Or any of a hundred other strategies. Or all of the above. Like the many different ways human genes can change to fend off malaria, gazelles could change in many unconnected ways" (p. 41)
HOW A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WOULD RESPOND: Cheetahs and gazelles evolve in a very delicately balanced and intricate relationship. Secondly adaptations in the gazelle population will necessarily occur slowly as is typical of most evolutionary change. Gazelles, therefore, won't likely outpace cheetahs so drastically as to render them incapable of countering with evolutionary adaptations of their own. An important point to remember also is that cheetahs cannot simply forgo hunting gazelles merely because of a slight (and gradual) change in the gazelle population. In case it needs to be pointed out to you Mr. Behe, cheetahs can't catch buffalo, zebra, eland or giraffe and they don't fare too well with gnus either. Gazelles are their staple and a perfect prey species for them. Whatever gazelles do to avoid cheetahs will necessarily induce a counter in cheetahs. Would you simply starve to death if you awoke one day to find that the neighborhood grocery store had moved into a larger and better stocked building two blocks further down the street or would you make the longer trek? Would you go looking for the grocery store on Juniper avenue even though you knew or suspected it moved to Tulip? Cheetahs too would grow bigger, or hunt where gazelles are, or develop keener eye sight or... I'm sure you get the picture. It just so happened that speed was the trait that each animal developed, but whatever evolutionary path these animals took, Your argument would be the same since all you have to work with are two fully evolved animals and an imagination handicapped by faith. To put it another way, the dice have been tossed and you can see the outcome. You can't conceive of another because your limited imagination impedes your ability to handle all variables involved with the outcome in the first place. Each die has six sides, not all of which you are capable of seeing.
Incidentally, wouldn't you agree that convergent evolution makes a case for the likely development of certain features in certain environments? Isn't it reasonable to expect animals that spend their entire lives on wide open plains to develop speed and/or stamina as a survival strategy? New World vultures are unrelated to Old World vultures, yet share an uncanny resemblance. No evolutionary biologist alive believes their featherless heads the result of "dumb luck" however. Apparently, featherless heads provide an adaptive advantage to birds that feed exclusively on carrion. Perhaps if you tell them it's okay to, vultures will start sporting Mohawks, mullets and dreadlocks. I doubt it though, since indirect evolution continues to wriggle around your most strident efforts to abnegate it.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "When chloroquine is no longer used to treat malaria patients in a region, the mutant strain of P. falciparum declines and the original strain makes a comeback, indicating that the mutant is weaker than the original strain in the absence of the toxic chloroquine" (p. 51).
HOW A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WOULD RESPOND: Describing the "mutant strain" as "weaker" in this instance is misleading as genetic drift all but assures regression to a prior form once a selective pressure no longer exists. Organisms under non-varying selective pressures should logically be expected to fall into somewhat of a genotypic equilibrium with their environment. Keep in mind also that mother nature is infinitely more patient and more persistent than man. She has also been acting far longer and will continue to even after we cease to exist. The sorts of changes we accredit to her are well within her means.
As an aside, In making the above claim, you contradict your assertion that organisms atop a fitness peak are stuck once there.
WHAT BEHE SAID:
"Answer: the obstacle that malaria hasn't been able to mutate around.
Question: what is sickle cell hemoglobin" (p. 52)
HOW A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WOULD RESPOND:
Answer: no
Question: is malaria in any current danger of extinction for lack of not having evolved a strategy to deal with sickle cell hemoglobin?
(I doubt you understand the significance of this since you have yet to display any real understanding of evolutionary science.). You can't say such a mutation has never arisen or does not currently exist because malaria has never been "pressured" to show it. A mutation of that sort can only be selected and hence revealed if the bacteria without it are eliminated. This would call for a human population almost entirely stricken with sickle cell disease. That is the only thing that will bring it out of hiding. The bottom line is things do not exist to evolve, they evolve to exist.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "Despite ten million years of evolution with quadrillions of fish under relentless, life and death selective pressure, the Antarctic antifreeze protein does not have anything like the sophistication and complexity even of such a simple protein as hemoglobin, let alone that of the stupendous, multiprotein systems that are plentiful in nature." (p. 82)
HOW A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WOULD RESPOND: Mr. Behe, wouldn't it be wonderful if humans had wings and could fly (unlike the poor cormorant)? How about lungs to breath under water? Or eyes in the back of our heads? We are the way we are and yet amazingly, we exist. Those fish are doing just fine with the antifreeze protein they do have. How would a college freshman know this? Simple. The fish exist. No selective pressure has acted upon them that would require them to now be in possession of anything more sophisticated than what they currently have. If that was the case, they would either have it or face extinction. Once again Mr. Behe things don't exist to evolve, they evolve to exist.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "A telltale signature of planning is the coherent ordering of steps toward a goal. Random mutation, on the other hand, is incoherent; that is, any given evolutionary step taken by a population of organisms is unlikely to be connected to its predecessor." (p. 104)
HOW A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WOULD RESPOND: Boy are you clueless. Mutations are indeed random and unconnected, but the very real and pressing need to survive does not embrace all mutations equally. Selection, whether artificial or natural, is the guiding force behind evolution and it is more coherent than anything you have thus far spat up. If selection ceases to be coherent, which it fortunately can't, mass extinctions are inevitable.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "Because random mutation and natural selection have no goal, Darwinian evolution faces the huge problem of incoherence: like a drunkard's walk, the next evolutionary step a population of organisms takes is very likely to be unconnected to the last step. The upshot is that even if a gradual route toward a complex structure exists - even one with no missing steps - if the route is lengthy enough, the likelihood of reaching it by random mutation is terrible." (p. 113)
HOW A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WOULD RESPOND: Unconscious though it is, random mutation and natural selection does indeed have a goal and it is S-U-R-V-I-V-A-L. As I have stated before, mutations are random, but for them to affect a population in any meaningful way, they must first pass through the very coherent and ever vigilant sieve of natural selection. An albino juvenile croc being devoured by its cannibalistic kin is the epitome of coherence. So are zebra fleeing a watering hole in fright at the sight of a white log drifting toward them. A river filled with albino crocs, on the other hand, is very incoherent. If this last scenario was possible (which, luckily for crocodiles, natural selection prevents) crocodiles would literally have to change everything about the way they live just to barely survive if at all. Unless dead logs turn white and the Nile courses with milk, an albino croc is at a distinct disadvantage as an ambush hunter. Then again, it's not likely to ever have to worry about snatching zebras, wildebeest or gazelles off embankments as adult crocs famously do. The sore thumb that it is, an albino croc is far likelier to end up a meal itself, and long before ever having to deal with the likes of an adult zebra or, more significantly, reproducing and passing on its genes.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "If so, then in a rugged evolutionary landscape, it is much more likely that a species will climb a tiny hill and get stuck there, unable to become less fit, yet forever isolated from the surrounding peaks. Random mutation and natural selection can't solve the rugged landscape dilemma - they actually cause the dilemma." (p. 114)
HOW A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WOULD RESPOND: remember this? "When chloroquine is no longer used to treat malaria patients in a region, the mutant strain of P. falciparum declines and the original strain makes a comeback, indicating that the mutant is weaker than the original strain in the absence of the toxic chloroquine." Those were your words Mr. Behe. So which is it, are organisms "unable to become less fit" once they climb a fitness peak, or can they revert to prior presumably "stronger" forms if their environment dictates it? Incidentally, have you done much reading on cave fish? How about tapeworms? Putting these minor quibbles aside (need I point out that this is sarcasm?), I don't think it necessary to spend too much time on this particular argument. Fitness landscapes are obviously not static which they need to be for this argument to stand.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "To trap mice, a deep hole in the ground might do just fine. Yet a hole in the ground isn't a route to the standard mechanical mousetrap... A splotch of glue can catch a mouse, but can't be turned into a mechanical trap." (p. 122)
Let me take this opportunity to give a brief lesson on one of the ways in which evolution progresses.
Mr. Behe, until you get this concept clear you will never be able to fully understand evolutionary science: evolution doesn't plan for the future. It works with what it has to solve problems as they emerge. You say as much in your book, but have yet to demonstrate a true grasp of the full implications of this statement. The fact that the standard mouse trap does not employ a hole or a splotch of glue simply means that evolution had at least one other more viable or convenient and, therefore, likelier pathway to a mousetrap at its disposal (pretending mousetraps can evolve). Evolution, in other words, never sets out to make things in any particular way. It uses what it has and it logically has to because plants and animals can only survive using what they have. Dogs, for example, did not evolve for an aquatic lifestyle, but a dog stuck on a sinking boat in the middle of a lake will swim to shore rather than sink with the boat and drown in the lake. A dog, however, can only swim to safety through the use of its legs. The ancestors of manatees were also restricted to swimming with their legs, only in their case, for whatever reason, swimming became a necessity for survival. This created a "pressure" for structures that could adequately perform the task. Selection readily occurs in this context. A quadruped needing "fins" to improve fitness, in an aquatic environment realistically can only adopt legs to this function. They won't grow fins from scratch because there likely wont be a "pressure" to. Its legs are what a quadruped is likely to swim and hence compete with (in an aquatic setting) in the first place and it is those legs that will likely encounter selective pressure to change; to become "fins."
Mother nature is nothing if not lazy. She is also very creative, very frugal and very resourceful. Though evolution could build this mousetrap from scratch if need be, it will opt for a quicker more efficient and less expensive route if one exists. An already present "part" could be co-opted or exapted and used to approximate the "function" of a mousetrap (remember the cormorant`s wings or the TV set plugging the hole in the dam?). Though this "part" might initially have evolved for a "purpose" far different from that of mousetrap, a change in the environment could have made its prior role no longer critical or necessary for survival (the ancestors of cormorants needed flight to survive, but the cormorant no longer does.). Over time and under continuous selective pressure, this pseudo mousetrap evolves to become more streamlined and more efficient at catching mice. It also further evolves or co-opts other structures and begins to take on the form of the traditional mousetrap. Before long, all "parts" are integrally united into a thoroughly well "designed" and streamlined whole so perfectly suited for its "function" that it is hard to imagine how the whole could have evolved in the first place (the cormorant needs only look at a penguin to see what is possible.). Evolution, however, is not prophecy. Plants and animals as we see them today have already traveled an extensive evolutionary path. Their current forms are not fulfilled prophecies, but contingencies playing to the whims of a capricious and unforgiving world. If evolution creates a mousetrap made of a wooden platform, a spring, and a wire catch, it does so not because it sets out to, but because those things are what were likely already available to it. Evolution uses what it has because it has to.
WHAT BEHE SAID: "In other words, while we have studied it, HIV has run the gamut of all possible substitution mutations, a gamut that would require billions of years for cells to experience. Yet all those mutations have changed the virus very little." (p. 154)
RESPONSE: Do you understand the concept of selection? I wear size 34 by 34 pants. This has been the case since I was eighteen. Suffice it to say I'm much older now. I'm not going to buy size 40 pants simply because I can afford them. I think I look rather sexy in my size 34's, but more than just that, they are a very comfortable fit for me. The point is, Mr. Behe, Humans have not changed a lick since HIV was discovered. HIV cannot be expected to evolve strategies for conditions that don't exist. No matter how quickly HIV reproduces you won't see any significant evolutionary changes in it unless change within us introduces new selective pressures that cause it to. Mutations have to be selectable in order to be preserved and it is an organisms environment that selects, not the organism itself. Quite simply, HIV hasn't changed because we haven't. We remain a good "fit" for it. Coelacanths have not changed for millions of years for the same reason. Evolution is a strategy that enables organisms to survive change within the environment. If there is no change within the environment then change will not occur in its inhabitants. Things don't exist to evolve, they evolve to exist.
Behe is obviously clueless about evolution, but it doesn't matter in the least to him or the Discovery Institute as their interest has never been the advancement of science. The real purpose of this book is made apparent in its final chapter and is axiomatically encapsulated by the following quote:
"Although some people value science chiefly for the control it affords us over nature or the technological benefits it brings, that's not its primary mission. The purpose of science is simply to understand the universe we live in, for its own sake. If that understanding leads to practical benefits, great. If not, that's okay, too. Science is an intellectual adventure, not a business trip. If at the end of the scientific day we simply know more about the world than at the beginning, our chief goal has been met."
What this says loud and clear is that ID is useless as far as science goes. This grim reality is not lost on Behe. Since its inception, ID's only real purpose has been to suppress scientific exploration and protect the myths of Christianity from the light of reason, but it has failed miserably in this regard. The gang over at the DI is getting desperate and it is starting to show. Only desperation can fully explain Behe`s now more outspoken and explicit support of common descent. ID has come apart at the seams and this terribly wayward book is Behe's and the DI's desperate attempt at damage control. They wish to clear the way for the assimilation of religious myths into the corpus of current scientific knowledge, but our thirst for truth and real knowledge will never let that happen. ID is stillborn. I'm curious to see what they will come up with next.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Show more editions and formats
Show fewer editions and formats
See all Editorial Reviews
