Darwinism Kill-Bear by Behe

As some already are aware many, even the most biased Darwinists, have abandoned their belief in Darwinism, especially recently…

So, one might rightly ask: Why do we still need to review Behe’s book if Darwinism is dead? Why did Behe even need to write the book in the first place?

Well some, while few left, still believe that Darwinism, although dead, could be kept on life-support for at least a little while, or another 31 years, as Lenski, one of the three musketeers, hopes for…

Why? I will try to cover this in one of my upcoming OPs…

Few facts about Behe before we get to the kill-bear:

Behe bases he claims on the available research-the interpretations of it may not necessary be sound because of evolutionary bias

Behe sees evolution (Darwinian) mainly as a devourer of gene functions, which sometimes can help the organism to survive or reproduce etc…

The short and simple evolution story of brown bear into polar bear is as follows:

The polar bear has apparently separated itself from an ancestor some 400 000 years ago and during this time it has gone through a “speedy evolution”, as indicated by multiple mutations in comparison to its cousin, which caused the adaptation of the polar bear to the environment and turned it “white”… Well, not really white…

Due to its evolved ability to blend in with the surroundings of white snow and ice the mutated polar bear could ovoid predators, such as arctic fox, wolf and narwhal… 😉

Due to this adaptive camouflage that kept the polar bear out of the sight of murderous predators, the mutated bear has been thriving in the Northern Pole…

This great evolutionary adaptation apparently is not an issue for most (not me 😉 ), including Behe…What is at issue, is by what mechanism the bear has evolved all those great adaptations that protected it from the ferocious predators…

Behe says the mutations that affected the bear’s fur transformation from brown to “white” were mainly due to degraded or damaged genes. Darwinists say he has misrepresented the data by omitting the beneficial or benign mutations…

Who is right?

Polar bears’ fur is not really white even though they appears to be white. The cells in their hair follicles of polar bears called melanocytes do not produce melanin-NONE!-of the pigment that makes the brown bears brown. They do not produce white pigment or any other pigment either! What causes the lack of the production of melanin in polar bears’ hair follicles?

The mutations that disable 2 genes, LYST and AIM1, are responsible for production of melanin. Make no mistake about it! Polar bears’ fur is not white! Their hair is clear and doesn’t contain ANY pigment whatsoever, so the speculations by Darwinists about which mutations exactly are more damaging and which ones are not as much, are pointless. The 2 damaged genes prevent the hair follicles from producing pigment in the hair shaft, which makes them appear white but they are in reality clear, devoid of any color…

Any other mutations, beneficial or benign, don’t matter at all in this case because they have no effect on any other pigment production that would make the polar bear actually white, or even off-white…

In some other animals in the Arctic other adaptations may have been possible, which could be regulated by the same or different genes, or their regulatory networks, that may be affected by the changing of seasons; i.e. sunlight or air temperature, causing the hair follicles to produce different pigment colors at different times of the year, in order for the animals to better blend in with the surroundings….

But in the case of polar bears, this doesn’t happen at all, as their fur always remains clear, devoid of pigment all year around…

Behe wins! 1 : 0

Round 2: The cholesterol kill-all… 😉

93 thoughts on “Darwinism Kill-Bear by Behe

  1. Mung: I am going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and say no.

    Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting? Do you really think that Professor Lenski will not allow my comment to be published on his blog? Why would he do that? He is not afraid to tell the public what he is hoping his experiment is going to accomplish, right? It is not a secret or a mystery? He is going to use tax payers money and they have the right to know if their money is going to be spent reasonably, right?

  2. T_aquaticus: Are you seriously arguing that camouflage is not advantageous to predators?Really?

    Next time read the OP first!
    “In some other animals in the Arctic other adaptations may have been possible, which could be regulated by the same or different genes, or their regulatory networks, that may be affected by the changing of seasons; i.e. sunlight or air temperature, causing the hair follicles to produce different pigment colors at different times of the year, in order for the animals to better blend in with the surroundings…”

  3. J-Mac: Why? Straight answer and no more than 3 sentences…please!

    I suspect they had to submit a proposal and have it approved. Your request that they switch things up is probably not something they are allowed to do. Therefore your request is not reasonable.

  4. Mung: I suspect they had to submit a proposal and have it approved. Your request that they switch things up is probably not something they are allowed to do. Therefore your request is not reasonable.

    So you are speculating…
    If Lenski claims that his experiment was designed in such a way so as 70 000 generations of bacteria would be an equivalent of millions of years of human evolution, why not design it so that bacteria can evolve beyond bacteria and prove Behe and people like me wrong with Bacteria-Kill ID?

    But both Behe and I know it is not possible for bacteria to evolve into something else because it mainly breaks or downgrades genes…
    Behe thinks it’s ONLY possible with supernatural intervention.
    I say the law of conservation of quantum information allows for “common ascend” within restricted “kind”; i.e. dog “kind” from wolf, bear “kind” from black bear etc…
    Due to that law, becteria will continue to be bacteria for another 31 years or more

  5. J-Mac: If Lenski claims that his experiment was designed in such a way so as 70 000 generations of bacteria would be an equivalent of millions of years of human evolution, why not design it so that bacteria can evolve beyond bacteria and prove Behe and people like me wrong with Bacteria-Kill ID?

    How would you suggest he should have set up the experiment ,if that had been his goal?

  6. newton: How would you suggest he should have set up the experiment,if that had been his goal?

    Isn’t that obvious?
    To make bacteria evolve and not devolve…
    He has spent the last 31 years proving what was already suspected by many, like Behe, and now it’s proven beyond any doubt: Evolution, Darwinian or other, only devolves…
    If after 31 years of experiments, bacteria are still bacteria, with mainly damaged or degraded genes, how could have a 5 pound land walking mammal evolved into a 50 ton whale?

    Can you see my problem, perhaps?

  7. J-Mac: So you are speculating…

    Guilty as charged. But isn’t that what you asked me to do. To wit, speculate as to whether or not your question was reasonable?

  8. Mung: Guilty as charged. But isn’t that what you asked me to do. To wit, speculate as to whether or not your question was reasonable?

    So, you don’t really know whether the question was reasonable or not?
    Now imagine an article in a popular science newspaper (s) that asks the same question plus: Are the taxpayers money used prudently?
    If Lenski, and pretty much everyone following the Three Musketeers and D’Artagnan, already know that natural selection is impotent in preventing the mutations from degradation of gene functions, why continue the same design of the experiment? So that Behe can write another book Darwin Still Devolves thanks to continuation of failure of 40 years of LTEE?

  9. Seals keep their breathing holes open all winter long, even in ice up to two meters (six feet) thick. They surface about every five to fifteen minutes at one of the holes or use air pockets trapped under the ice when available.

    Polar bears attack by waiting for seals to breathe at the openings. They locate them with their powerful sense of smell and wait for the seals to emerge. Polar bears have to be smart and patient because the wait can be long—sometimes hours, or even days.

    From here

  10. Alan Fox: The link takes me to a fact-checking site confirming that the polar bear shown is in fact starving to death. Are you also a climate-change denier, J-Mac?

    Climate change adaptive camouflage due to frequent fasting…😉

  11. J-Mac: Climate change adaptive camouflage due to frequent fasting…

    Speaking in tongues now? What are you trying to say?

  12. J-Mac,

    Following that link, I find a well-argued critique of Michal Behe’s book, Darwin Devolves, by Nathan Lents and Arthur Hunt.

    Yet J-Mac baldly asserts:

    They should rename this embarrassing to good science website to:
    Panda’s Dumb…🤣

    and offers no support for this silly statement. What’s dumb about the article, J-Mac? Try and be somewhat specific, please.

  13. Alan Fox: Richard Lenski explains how the LTEE is funded.

    So, what prevents Lenski from designing the experiment so that bacteria could evolve beyond bacteria? None of the funding he gets is from any anti-evolution organizations…
    Do you think Lenski gets the funding based on the assumption that he will continue to provide evidence that bacteria continue to devolve by breaking and degrading gene functions?
    I fail to see the logic behind the funding to support “biological demolition”, do you? There is no such need. Scientists see enough of it by analyzing cancer cells…

  14. Alan Fox: What’s dumb about the article, J-Mac? Try and be somewhat specific, please.

    Read this OP as many times as needed…Pay special attention to specifics because I will not respond because you choose ignorance… I hope you understand…😉

  15. J-Mac: Read this OP as many times as needed

    I have read it a few times now. It gets no better.

    Pay special attention to specifics because I will not respond…

    OK. My impression is you are unable to support the claims you make in your OP. That appears to be confirmed by your inability to respond to points raised.

    …because you choose ignorance…

    Ignorance of what, exactly?

    I hope you understand…

    Nope. I am at a loss to understand what your objective was in producing your OP. I am quite clear however what the result has been.

  16. J-Mac: So, what prevents Lenski from designing the experiment so that bacteria could evolve beyond bacteria?

    Fundamental failure of comprehension. Lenski designed the experiment. The evolutionary change that has occured was not designed by him.

    None of the funding he gets is from any anti-evolution organizations…

    That’s not surprising, if true. (Your record on accuracy is such that I feel obliged to look up any factual statement you make. That should make you pause.)

    Do you think Lenski gets the funding based on the assumption that he will continue to provide evidence that bacteria continue to devolveby breaking and degrading gene functions?

    I expect Lenski will continue to receive funding for the LTEE as many people see value in it continuing.

    I fail to see the logic behind the funding to support “biological demolition”, do you?

    Loaded question! 🙂 What is “biological demolition”?

    There is no such need. Scientists see enough of it by analyzing cancer cells…

    Well, those working in the area of research into causes and cures for various cancers, I guess. There is always the chance, in pure research, of finding out something unexpected. That you don’t see that matters not at all.

  17. Alan Fox: I expect Lenski will continue to receive funding for the LTEE as many people see value in it continuing.

    All the while J-Mac has to fund those bird chasing and quantum mechanics experiments all by himself. What an unfair world we live in

  18. J-Mac: My advice would be not to waste time…you know, long, boring French winters

    Hmmm! Where are you getting your information? Where I live, folks usually expect a short, sharp winter snap in February. In past years, we have had a week or two at -10°C to -17°C (approaching 0°F). This year, so far, we haven’t had a winter, it hasn’t dropped below freezing on more than a couple of nights. Spring is a month early. Almond blossom everywhere. A hoopoe was searching for insects by our kitchen door this morning. Makes me uneasy.

  19. Alan Fox,

    We just had 5 days with temps in the low 20’s (Celsius). That would not be unreasonable for July. Bees on flowers, daffs out, February records broken 4 days before it finished. Of course, as climate change deniers might suddenly decide to parrot, ‘it’s just weather’. 🙄

  20. J-Mac: Read this OP as many times as needed…Pay special attention to specifics because I will not respond because you choose ignorance… I hope you understand…

    J-Mac think’s he’s really doing the lards work here. But in reality he’s just squeaking a little squeak. J-Mac, if you are the alternative I think most people here will be signing up for ignorance.

    Alan Fox: OK. My impression is you are unable to support the claims you make in your OP. That appears to be confirmed by your inability to respond to points raised.

    I wonder what his motivations are. Has nobody told him the “Darwinists” have already won and keeping them busy with his endless “quantum” Gish Gallop OP’s won’t stop them teaching atheism in biology classes?

    J-Mac: So that Behe can write another book Darwin Still Devolves thanks to continuation of failure of 40 years of LTEE?

    Out of interest, J-Mac, why is it that if everything is devolving bacteria are still bacteria after 40 years? How many generations will it be before everything devolves so much it cannot survive?

    I am not surprised you don’t see the contradiction in your own statement there. If after 50,000 generations they are still thriving then where is the devolution? How can you have a “long term” experement if in the “long term” everything is devolving?

    However I can see that having massive contradictory pieces in your worldview is not a problem for you. Which is nice!

    J-Mac: Are the taxpayers money used prudently?

    Out of interest, do you pay for your own care or is it state sponsored?

  21. And what about Ursus maritimus? If climate change continues as rapidly in the Arctic, it’s curtains for polar bears.

  22. Why are there different colors at all? What does the Intelligent Designer get out of it? Is it just coincidence white is found at the poles?

  23. I never understand why a designer helps his designs combat his designs. Falcons are exquisitely designed to catch rabbits and rabbits are exquisitely designed to run away.

  24. In recent decades many good studies have demonstrated the reality of natural selection – Michael Behe

  25. Mung: In recent decades many good studies have demonstrated the reality of natural selection – Michael Behe

    But muh tautology…

  26. Allan Miller:
    Alan Fox,

    We just had 5 days with temps in the low 20’s (Celsius). That would not be unreasonable for July. Bees on flowers, daffs out, February records broken 4 days before it finished. Of course, as climate change deniers might suddenly decide to parrot, ‘it’s just weather’. 🙄

    I see it’s payback time with snow forecast for the North tonight. 😱

  27. Jerry Coyne engages in thorough bashing of Behe, “Intelligent design gets even dumber” https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/intelligent-design-gets-even-dumber/2019/03/08/7a8e72dc-289e-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html

    A brief excerpt.

    Perhaps Behe’s most ludicrous claim is this: Evolution within the lowest levels of biological classification — genera and species — might be purely Darwinian, but the origin of higher-level groups — families, orders and so on — requires designed mutations. Yet as every biologist knows, groupings above the level of species are purely subjective. That is, whether you call a group a family or a genus is arbitrary, depending on the tastes of the scientists who work on that group. For example, a given difference in a trait like color or size might help define a new family of birds but only a new genus of frogs (ornithologists tend to be “splitters” while herpetologists are often “lumpers”). This arbitrariness means there’s no reason to suppose that the bird mutations are designed while the frog ones are natural and random. To make things worse, Behe gives not a single example of a family-level mutation that he thinks required the help of a creator.

    The theory of evolution is a belief in that modern species (and genera and phyla and whatnot) descended from common source(s) of origin by natural selection of mutational variations. IDists seem to have stepped in to argue that some mutations are so big and significant that there must be some “intelligent design” involved instead of an unguided or self-guiding process. The ID argument would still leave e.g. humans and chimps having common descent, except that some designer intelligently helped the otherwise natural process along.

    The more appropriate stance would be: No. Lesser gods, angels, and plumbers may tinker, but God does not tinker. Creator creates.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.