Back to Junk DNA (Evolution)
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 .
Complete thread:
- Back to Junk DNA -
dhw,
2018-11-21, 09:38
- Back to Junk DNA -
David Turell,
2018-11-21, 22:23
- Back to Junk DNA - David Turell, 2018-11-22, 00:26
- Back to Junk DNA -
dhw,
2018-11-22, 08:44
- Back to Junk DNA - David Turell, 2018-11-22, 22:42
- Back to Junk DNA -
David Turell,
2018-11-21, 22:23