There is a review of Behe's book which is not yet officially published:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/michael-behes-darwin-devolves-topples-foundational-cl...

"Behe dismantles the fundamental claim of evolutionary theory that mutations and natural selection naturally drive life toward greater complexity as new information is constantly generated. In stark contrast to this belief, Behe demonstrates the opposite. He summarizes the thesis of his book by stating:

"With surpassing irony it turns out that…Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counter-intuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully de-volutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting. That is, the very same factors that promote diversity at the simplest levels of biology actively prevent it at more complex ones. Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain.

***

"All studies [he reviewed] demonstrated the same basic results. First, the vast majority of adaptive mutations degrade or outright disable genes. For instance, the gene most strongly associated with the difference in blunt-beak verses pointed-beak finches is called ALX1. The only variation in it throughout all finch species is two mutations that both impair function. Similarly, the E. coli strains that best adapt to strong selective pressures primarily disable genes that are not immediately needed for survival. Behe labels this result the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution:

"Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring.

"This rule is easy to understand. Random mutations can far more easily break a gene than enable some new function, so solutions to challenges that involve breaking a gene will predominate.

***

"The big picture conclusions of all studies is that evolutionary processes are only capable of driving changes at the level of species and genera, but not at the level of families or higher. Stated differently, evolution produces a limited number of changes and then no further significant change is possible. For instance, the adaptations seen in the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria over 15,000 years closely match those seen in the cichlid fish in the other lakes after several million years. The same limited number of changes repeated themselves over and over. In addition, all modifications represent minor alterations of the same cichlid body plan.

"The evidence commonly cited to argue for evolution’s ability to drive large-scale transformations is almost always circular. Biologists regularly identify similarities and differences between two groups and then assume those differences are the result of natural selection, mutations, and related processes. However, this conclusion is not based on any actual hard evidence. It is simply assumed. As Behe demonstrates, all empirical data point to the conclusion that evolution is only capable of producing minor alterations of existing designs but nothing truly novel."

Comment: Until I get the book these obvious points about his theory are all I can provide. reading the entire article might help in understanding .

DAVID: The gene is changed to an earlier form in the code.

dhw: Oh gosh, so the human genome existed in or even before the bacterial genome.

Under “Plant bloom”:
QUOTE: "Earlier this year, as reported in Cosmos, a US-led team suggested the answer lies in the ability of these plants to downsize their genomes, giving them the infrastructure and energy to spread rapidly. (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: Note my bold: downsizing DNA is devolution of DNA to advance plants. This research was noted in the previous entry here describing the genome shrinking in order to advance the flowering form.

dhw: Assuming common descent, I don’t see any problem in species discarding whatever parts of the inherited genome are not suitable or needed for their survival and/or improved chances of survival (= my idea of “junk”). (Yes, yes, I agree with Darwin and many others that survival is one key element in the advance of evolution.) And I still don’t buy the argument that a more complex genome (e.g. human compared to bacteria) entails subtraction and devolution.

DAVID: The only reason this discussion has gone on is your refusal to follow what is described: All that happens is the DNA gene is made shorter or reverted to a previous form perhaps with modification. Note the plant flowering article supports this. Taht can be described as devolution. And as far as I am concerned evolution does not enhance survival. the idea is a tautology.

I agree that the flower can be described as devolution, so please tell us if you now believe that the more complex human genome has devolved from the simpler bacterial genome. I have offered you an explanation of the flower’s devolution process, which you have ignored because for some reason you don’t think survival plays any role in the process of evolution. The tautology you are referring to is the argument that those organisms which are able to survive will survive (survival of the fittest), but it is not a tautology to say that the struggle to survive influences changes in organisms. What do you think motivates adaptation? And finally, would you please tell us why you have described this devolution theory as heretical?

DAVID: There is a review of Behe's book which is not yet officially published:
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/11/michael-behes-darwin-devolves-topples-foundational-cl...

DAVID’s comment: Until I get the book these obvious points about his theory are all I can provide. reading the entire article might help in understanding.

Thank you. This does indeed seem to emphasize the obvious points, e.g. about random mutations, which you and I both accept, and the fact that nobody knows how innovations are produced. It will be interesting to hear if/how he argues that humans devolved from bacteria.