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… 😉
I have tried to keep the bear fur evolution “issue” as simple as possible for most to get involved… It is clear cut, no doubt about it…
There is more to it, which I didn’t want to include in the OP, as it would serve no purpose… There are brown bears living in Alaska feeding on the high fat, high killer cholesterol diet… Few of them have “evolved white recently”…
Could those brown bears in Alaska experience the same evolution of 400 000 years their brothers experienced in just few generations or even less? If they could, what would that mean not only for Darwinism but for evolutionary theory?
Adult polar bears have no natural predators except other polar bears.
Fail.
Blimey. I think we need some fact checkers.
Take the first sentence:
contains several unsupported assertions.
1) Some are already aware? Who are “some” (apart from J-Mac) who agree that “many have abandoned their belief in Darwinism”.
2) Is it a fact that there is a belief system which is identified as “Darwinism” in order that one can, first believe in it and then not?
3) What on Earth is a biased Darwinist? Can we find an example of such an entity?
4) Who, previously professing a belief in Darwinism (whatever that might be) has now become an apostate? Examples, again?
And that’s just the first sentence*.
*Question for the Grammar Police. Is a phrase ending in an ellipsis a sentence?
ID appeals to these people for a reason.
second sentence:
1) “one might rightly ask”? What’s “rightly” doing here? Calling Ralph Barnes! 🙂
2) Why do “we” need to review Behe’s book? Maybe to fact-check it. Maybe his intended readership may not be sceptical of claims in the book and not in a position to assess them adequately. Maybe Behe has some insights worth reading about. A review might help with all those points and give me some indication whether I should get the book and read it.
3) What does J-Mac mean when he writes “Darwinism”? Darwinism to me means one of two things. It should be shorthand for Darwin’s idea of common descent with modification by the processes of artificial, natural and sexual selection but it is often used pejoratively to indicate a belief system akin to religion. One “Darwinism” alive and kicking, the other a fiction.
4) “Why did Behe even need to write the book in the first place?” Was he motivated by needing money? He has a large family.
Alan Fox,
Alan, stop wasting J-Mac’s precious time 😉
third sentence
1) Three unsupported claims: that “Darwinism” is a belief system and that there are believers and and that there are ex-believers.
2) Richard Lenski is a Darwinist. Does he agree? With which definition?
3) LT in LTEE stands for long-term. Why shouldn’t it continue for as long as there is interest and funding?
Corneel,
I was hoping someone might grab the baton!
And what does “Darwinism Kill-Bear” mean?
“You’re kidding right?”
Oh OK, just the one.
Here is a little riddle for you:
If the other mutations have no phenotypic effect, as you claim, then how did they end up fixed in polar bears?
I find it interesting to consider how much space it took you to correct that one sentence- about 5 fold? Anyone can be wrong, but it takes a special person to be that wrong
The people who celebrate Darwin day are obviously Darwinists. 🙂
What is your assertion that Lenski hopes that Darwinism can be kept on life-support for another 31 years based on?
Why do you think at that the arctic fox, wolf, and narwhal are ovoid predators?
I’m not even familiar with that term. Does it only apply to arctic species?
If there were no predators, why would the polar bear “need to evolve” the camouflage then?
Can you see the problem, perhaps???🤔
How about this: “White” fur coats were in fashion at one point in the arctic to attract other bears? Could this idea be squeezed into Darwinism, or no?🤣
It is good to hear that -Mac accepts that brown bears and polar bears share a common ancestor. Now people have an actual example to point to to remind him.
#SilverLining
What was that common ancestor? A black bear? Or a land walking shrimp? 😉
Sneak up on it’s prey without getting spotted too early, allowing them to escape?
Hmmm. Do you think a seal is more likely to spot a large brown bear sneaking through the snow and ice, or a white one?
Thank you!!!
Moved comments to guano. Moderation issues – Moderation Issues thread.
I guess his kids are not at home. They would have told him.
Oh yeah! That’s why hunter-gather groups have “evolved” their camouflage…
“Masks” sense like everything in Darwinism…😂
Thanks kids!
Are you seriously arguing that camouflage is not advantageous to predators? Really?
No, he’s really not! And never has as far as I can see.
They did not “need” to evolve anything. Otherwise, how did the black bears they originated from survive in the first place?
Sure. Consider the Peacock. However firstly you have to pose the question in the form of a hypothesis. Can you do that?
Once you’ve done that, created a hypothesis as a starting point for further investigation, you can then see where that takes you.
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/hypothesis-testing-3.php
What say you? Willing to give it a go?
So, if these mutations prevent polar bears from producing melanin, how do they produce the melanin that makes there skin the darkest of black?
So the polar bear’s feathers really evolved to hide their black skin!
🙂
From racist seals?
You tell me. You wrote:
J-Mac,
Was the ancestor of the polar bear, some 400 000 years ago, the product of Intelligent Design? Where does the causal chain snap?
According to the OP the white bear isn’t actually white. So you have a false premise. Apart from that I’d say “it depends.” How much larger than the large brown bear is the colorless bear?
Do we have known cases of large brown bears hunting arctic seals in the arctic and performing less successfully at it than their polar bear counterparts and has this been traced to the fact that they have brown fur? IOW, perhaps you are presenting a false dichotomy.
That’s the problem with a priori arguments when it comes to evolution. They are not based on actual empirical findings and perhaps even discourage empirical investigation. Why look if we already know the answer?
It might be, it might not be. Are you seriously arguing that camouflage is not advantageous to prey? Do all predators have camouflage and do all prey have camouflage? If not then it’s difficult to establish a law by which it’s at all preferable or advantageous.
otoh, if your argument is a priori, then the facts don’t really matter.
There’s not just one melanin, apparently. So I guess the pathway for brown eumelanin could be blocked. Alternatively, there must be some developmental control as to where and how densely melanocytes are located.
Well, it depends whether you are talking about perception. Polar bears certainly look white in photos. The usual reason given is that lack of pigment in the keratin of the hair and the hollow hair shaft combine to create a white appearance to the human (and presumably seal) eye.
Ask first, is there a difference between hunting techniques? Is stalking, such as adopted by Bengal tigers, likely to be a more successful strategy if their colouring and pattern blends in to the background?
Are you seriously arguing that stalking and camouflage is not advantageous to predators? And .. and … and … and … being hungry.
It’s a rather pointless question, as the list of things that might be advantageous could go on and on and on.
Perhaps a better question would be, are you seriously arguing that having no camouflage is not dis-advantageous to predators?
J-mac
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2019 at 4:48 pm
Professor Lenski,
Are you planning to re-design your LTEE experiment, so as to “force” the e-coli bacteria to evolve more of the features predicted by Darwinian evolution?
If yes, could you be specific about the details of what you are planning to do exactly…
BTW: Just like professor Behe, I’m grateful for your work of 31 years now…
I suppose, congratulations!
https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/we-interrupt-this-program/?unapproved=1394&moderation-hash=52824ec1d617ef5e535f3aa2f4e835fd#comment-1394
Is my question reasonable?
I am going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and say no.
The seals used to be the predators, now they are the prey. As it is written, prey on the sleek.
Why? Straight answer and no more than 3 sentences…please!
Can anyone spot the polar bear in this photo?:
https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-000049077207-oktoy4-t500x500.jpg
Hint-Squint your eyes and look towards the middle.
Is the Caribbean Sea water turquoise?
Is the polar bear’s skin color at issue here or in Darwin Devolves?
400 000 years ago? Were you there?
No
Are you suggesting that professor Swamidass hasn’t done his homework?
How else would you like me to indicate the “apparently” statement when I don’t agree with it?
Ovoid predators eat spherical cows.
I’m going along with the Cell article… I don’t buy their evolutionary biased predictions but then OMagain was there… So…