Is Behe’s acceptance of common descent confusing?

Posted on by

In his recent video Michael Behe explains the reasons for his acceptance of common descent.

Do you find it confusing?

Most members of the Discovery Institute find the idea of common descent lacking. Behe, ‘for the sake of the argument’ , is willing to accept it and, instead, focus on the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, natural selection and random mutations, as insufficient to explain evolution.

Here is an example of what I mean:

If a five pound land walking mammal is an ancestor of a 50 ton whale, through common descent, and the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on variations is insufficient to explain their ancestry, as per Behe’s own admission, isn’t his acceptance of common descent confusing, or even contradictory?

If the mechanism of evolution can’t account for common descent, why would anybody accept it?

Watch the video and judge it for yourself…

ETA: Larry Moran is using Behe’s acceptance of common descent as evidence that he (Behe) accepts evolution…https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/evolution-is-fact-and-theory.html?showComment=1581708597421#c1276531141808451482

253 thoughts on “Is Behe’s acceptance of common descent confusing?”

  2. colewd: You’ve got it. He thinks the mechanism is limited to the genus level. Thats the data he accumulated in Darwin Devolves.

    And this is where the problem is, which had prompted me to do this OP.

    If Behe thinks that evolutionary mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can only explain, or is limited to, evolution within genus level, and not beyond, why would he accept common descent?

    Can you see my problem, Bill?

    Because, I gotta tell you Bill, unless Behe brings in some kind of devine intervention into the picture of evolution beyond the genus level, his acceptance of common descent remains contradictory to me…

  3. Rumraket: In the same way, we can infer how planets form from supernova remnants in protoplanetary discs in astronomy. We can only see tiny changes in luminosity and morphology of protoplanetary discs even when monitoring them for decades. But we can see the many different stages in the evolution of planets by observing many different protoplanetary discs at various degrees of formation.

    Ten years of evolution in the Crab Nebula:

  6. J-Mac,

    If Behe thinks that evolutionary mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can only explain, or is limited to, evolution within genus level, and not beyond, why would he accept common descent?

    He accepts common descent as a limited claim. He considers is a trivial claim without a change mechanism associated with it. 70% of Americans do not accept unguided evolution but 30% of those do believe in guided common descent.

  8. colewd: He accepts common descent as a limited claim.

    Limited claim, unlimited damage. Look at Larry Moran! Unless he has Alzheimer’s he is totally misrepresenting Behe.

    colewd: He considers is a trivial claim

    Why give Darwinists any ammunition to shoot with? Larry is certainly using it; not the first time and not the last time…

    colewd: without a change mechanism associated with it.

    That’s exactly my point!
    Unless Behe is purely stubborn, why would he accept common descent without the mechanism to explain it?

  10. J-Mac: Unless Behe is purely stubborn, why would he accept common descent without the mechanism to explain it?

    Keep asking yourself that question….

  11. phoodoo:
    timothya,

    Yea, the stars and planters that were most fit (produced the most offspring), produced the most offspring.

    Do you imagine that life (as we might recognise it) exists anywhere inside that object. If you do, why do you think so?

  13. phoodoo:
    timothya,

    I doubt it.

    Then I grant that you must understand how at least some of the laws of physics work (though the laws of biology seem to be beyond your comprehension).

  14. colewd: He considers i[t] a trivial claim without a change mechanism associated with it.

    Nah, he is just indifferent to common descent, so doesn’t resist the scientific consensus. And since you lean so heavily on the opinion of your champions, you are clearly rattled by that.

    Time to choose sides, Bill: Either Behe is wrong, or you are. Keiths won’t stop teasing you until you make a decision, you know.

    J-Mac: If Behe thinks that evolutionary mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can only explain, or is limited to, evolution within genus level, and not beyond, why would he accept common descent?

    Since John spends most his time at PS now, let me be the one to repeat his mantra: The concept of common descent is completely independent of the mechanism of evolutionary change. Every novel character can be lovingly crafted by the Designer in her super secret laboratory outside time and space, and still whales and hippos can be descended from a common ancestor.

    And why is that so hard to accept? If the Designer can create completely new species, why would transforming a “five pound land walking mammal into a 50 ton whale” suddenly be a stretch?

  15. phoodoo:
    timothya,

    Yea, the stars and planters that were most fit (produced the most offspring), produced the most offspring.

    The planters that did the most planting … 🤔

  16. timothya: Then I grant that you must understand how at least some of the laws of physics work (though the laws of biology seem to be beyond your comprehension).

    Laws of biology? That has some relevance here? Like all living organisms consist of membrane-encased cells, for instance? Are you trying to copy Alan’s Fox’s technique?

    I have no idea what the rest of your post is supposed to mean.

    The total energy radiated from a black body is equal to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.- Is that what you wanted to say?

  19. J-Mac,

    That’s exactly my point!
    Unless Behe is purely stubborn, why would he accept common descent without the mechanism to explain it?

    The real question is…is Behe better off accepting common descent for the. sake of argument or fighting it. Fighting it drags him into conversations that stray from his main arguments for design. Don’t misjudge his intellectual horse power.

  20. keiths to colewd: Have you come to grips with Behe’s position, or does your head still explode when you’re reminded of it?

    Today we find out:

    colewd: The real question is…is Behe better off accepting common descent for the. sake of argument or fighting it. Fighting it drags him into conversations that stray from his main arguments for design. Don’t misjudge his intellectual horse power.

    I guess that means he has not come to grips yet.

  21. Corneel: Since John spends most his time at PS now, let me be the one to repeat his mantra:

    John Harshman?

    Corneel: let me be the one to repeat his mantra: The concept of common descent is completely independent of the mechanism of evolutionary change. Every novel character can be lovingly crafted by the Designer in her super secret laboratory outside time and space, and still whales and hippos can be descended from a common ancestor.

    I didn’t know Harshman is willing to accept Designer guided evolution…

    Good for him!

    I personally would never buy the idea that a five pound land walking mammal could evolve into a fifty ton whale by breaking genes…

    Corneel: And why is that so hard to accept? If the Designer can create completely new species, why would transforming a “five pound land walking mammal into a 50 ton whale” suddenly be a stretch?

    It’s not, if you believe in the Designer guided evolution…
    Fortunately, I’m not one of those people, and for more than just obvious reasons…

    ETA: glad to see Harshman coming to his senses…
    I’m wondering if his bible study had anything to do with it…
    He encouraged me to read the bible, you know…

  22. I don’t see how you can fault colewd for anything here. Behe really is being quite mealy-mouthed about his acceptance of common descent when he says he does it “for the sake of argument”. If that isn’t a dog-whistle for creationists, I don’t know what is. And I don’t buy for one goddamn second that Behe isn’t aware that he’s doing it.

  24. colewd: The real question is…is Behe better off accepting common descent for the. sake of argument or fighting it.

    I personally feel that the time has come for Behe to overcome his stubbornness and fight it! Or, more and more people, like Larry Moran, will continue to misrepresent him.
    Not many people, even scientists, are diligent enough to figure out what argument Behe prefers in the discussions about evolution, I fear…

    colewd: Fighting it drags him into conversations that stray from his main arguments for design.

    I get that but where have those conversations got him? Has he ever reflected? Have you?

    colewd: Don’t misjudge his intellectual horse power.

    I don’t. But even someone like him has to look back and do an analysis…
    Is clinging to common descent, for the sake of the argument ONLY, good for me and DI? Or, is it perhaps dividing?
    Maybe, it’s causing more damage than good overall?

    The latter is my fear…

  28. J-Mac,

    I don’t. But even someone like him has to look back and do an analysis…
    Is clinging to common descent, for the sake of the argument ONLY, good for me and DI? Or, is it perhaps dividing?
    Maybe, it’s causing more damage than good overall?

    The latter is my fear…

    I used to think like you that he should state skepticism for common descent but now I see that his strategy is smart. Common descent is a bag of worms because you are constantly fighting the latest discovery that is either evidence for or against.

    How important is it that Larry misrepresents him. Most all anti design guys mis represent the design argument either because they don’t understand it or because they believe the public won’t understand the use of straw-man fallacies.

    I recently contacted Mike to see if he would back me up in an argument about his CCC calculation. He sent me his final response to an argument with Larry Moran and I realized Larry was using a straw-man argument, Based on this I realized there was not need to continue.

  29. Here’s Behe when he isn’t blowing creationist dog whistles:

    Behe, from The Edge of Evolution, p. 65:

    Over the next few sections I’ll show some of the newest evidence from studies of DNA that convinces most scientists, including myself, that one leg of Darwin’s theory — common descent — is correct.

    Behe, from The Edge of Evolution, p. 71:

    The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    Behe, from Darwin Devolves, p. 188

    Some religious groups are opposed in principle to the idea of common descent. I am not. As I explained in earlier books, I think the evidence supporting descent is strong, and I have no reason to doubt it.

  30. Poor colewd writes:

    I used to think like you that he should state skepticism for common descent…

    Bill,

    Why should he state skepticism when he fully accepts common descent?

    He couldn’t be clearer:

    I think the evidence supporting descent is strong, and I have no reason to doubt it.

    No reason to doubt, no reason for stating skepticism.

  31. keiths,

    Your funny Keiths :-).

    I think the evidence supporting descent is strong, and I have no reason to doubt it.

    What do you think this means exactly?

  32. If he has no reason to doubt it, then he doesn’t doubt it.

    That’s backed up by the other two quotes.

  33. Let’s not forget the Bill’s other hero, gpuccio, also accepts common descent.
    Poor Bill, his cognitive dissonance must be killing him.

  34. keiths: Here’s Behe when he isn’t blowing creationist dog whistles:

    Behe, from The Edge of Evolution, p. 65:

    Over the next few sections I’ll show some of the newest evidence from studies of DNA that convinces most scientists, including myself, that one leg of Darwin’s theory — common descent — is correct.

    Behe, from The Edge of Evolution, p. 71:

    The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    Oh, no! Lol
    What mutation WAS Behe talking about ages ago?

    keiths: Behe, from Darwin Devolves, p. 188

    Some religious groups are opposed in principle to the idea of common descent. I am not. As I explained in earlier books, I think the evidence supporting descent is strong, and I have no reason to doubt it.

    Did Behe repeat the mutation claim in Darwin Devolves? Please say it is so…😉

  35. I’m willing to bet that if someone was to contact Behe pretending to be a creationist that accepts common descent, his response would be very different to the one given to guys like Bill or J-Mac.

  36. colewd: I used to think like you that he should state skepticism for common descent but now I see that his strategy is smart.

    Really?

    colewd: Common descent is a bag of worms because you are constantly fighting the latest discovery that is either evidence for or against.

    I’d like to focus on the evidence for the mechanism for a moment…
    I hope you are not bluffing, Bill? Because same say you are friends with Behe…

    colewd: How important is it that Larry misrepresents him. Most all anti design guys mis represent the design argument either because they don’t understand it or because they believe the public won’t understand the use of straw-man fallacies

    The latter is likely true but I’m willing to concede ignorance on Larry’s part.

    colewd: I recently contacted Mike to see if he would back me up in an argument about his CCC calculation. He sent me his final response to an argument with Larry Moran and I realized Larry was using a straw-man argument, Based on this I realized there was not need to continue.

    Another example of how math can be cooked…

  37. dazz:
    I’m willing to bet that if someone was to contact Behe pretending to be a creationist that accepts common descent, his response would be very different to the one given to guys like Bill or J-Mac.

    Actually, Behe has been consistently saying the same thing and confirmed it to me…
    He probably didn’t know who I am, and could have known my stand on common descent…

  41. keiths: The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

    I have feeling that this is referring to the famous GLO mutation for the synthesis of vitamin C.
    And since keiths has no actual books, but probably copied it from some anti ID site, we will never know…😉

  42. J-Mac,

    I’d like to focus on the evidence for the mechanism for a moment…
    I hope you are not bluffing, Bill? Because same say you are friends with Behe…

    Behe believes the mechanism of common descent ie reproduction and associated variation alone are not adequate to explain evolutionary innovation.

    What he does not want to get muddled down into are arguments like the vitamin c pseudo gene discussions.

  43. Very good question J-Mac.
    Yes indeed, Behe and other ID proponents are making a big mess out of the movement and are shooting themselves in the foot.

    I mean, WTF is this: “evolution works, but not a well as Darwin imagined”?!? It either works or it doesn’t. And of course it doesn’t.

    http://nonlin.org/microevolution-fallacy/

    ”
    1. Some (including the ID crowd) accept microevolution defined as observable adaptations in populations, while rejecting macroevolution defined as the never observed and very much doubtful Darwinist “common descent”. The problem is that micro and macro are just generic qualifiers that come in pairs, while evolution – the word retained – is in fact the concept in question.
    2. Accepting microevolution creates confusion and is self defeating for those that reject Darwinist macroevolution. A better choice than microevolution is adaptation – an ancient concept (predates evolution), and an observed feature of all living organisms.”

  44. Since keiths is continuing to search for answers regarding the famous DNA mutations preserved by evolution in both humans and chimps, let’s prepare ourselves for the inevitable:

    1. Why would natural selection presereve it?
    2. What’s the evolutionary advantage, if fitness is decreased?
    3. What happens to humans and our ancestors who have no access to vitamin C, like Yupik?
    4. Can natural selection reverse the mutation to improve fitness?
    5. Other questions are welcomed, as I have forgotten all the inconsistencies…

  45. colewd: Behe believes the mechanism of common descent ie reproduction and associated variation alone are not adequate to explain evolutionary innovation.

    Why discuss then?

    colewd: What he does not want to get muddled down into are arguments like the vitamin c pseudo gene discussions.

    Maybe he should?
    The line of reasoning is inconsistent with common descent in regards to vitamin c “pseudo gene”… Did you know that? Does he?

  46. Nonlin.org:
    Very good question J-Mac.
    Yes indeed, Behe and other ID proponents are making a big mess out of the movement and are shooting themselves in the foot.

    I mean, WTF is this: “evolution works, but not a well as Darwin imagined”?!? It either works or it doesn’t. And of course it doesn’t.

    http://nonlin.org/microevolution-fallacy/

    I share your frustration that’s why the OP…👍

  47. J-Mac,

    He’s not merely talking about GULOP. This pattern is found throughout the respective genomes, not just at one site.

  48. J-Mac,

    Maybe he should?
    The line of reasoning is inconsistent with common descent in regards to vitamin c “pseudo gene”… Did you know that? Does he?

    I realize some of the early evidence for common descent is fading. Paul Nelson and Winston Ewert are the guys to work on this issue. Better to let Mike stay focused on his arguments.

  49. colewd: I realize some of the early evidence for common descent is fading.

    We realize you’re a scientific illiterate who will say anything to prop up your weak religious faith. Someday you may realize what a fool you’ve been making of yourself.

  50. J-Mac,

    Do you know Adapa’s education level or his work experience in the sciences.? He seems to claim lots of authority for an internet troll.

Leave a Reply