The Three Musketeers vs D’Artagnan

Every few years the world of the supporters of Intelligent Design becomes ecstatic when the founding father of their thought liberating movement – Dr. Michael Behe – publishes a new book against Darwinism…Due to that, apparently some churches’ records show an increased mass attendance, confessions, donations…etc. It is almost as if one the apostles of Jesus Christ wrote another book of the Bible even though Behe clams his publications are not religious but rather scientific…

But not everyone is celebrating… Does this mean the end of evolution?

The Intelligent Design movement has many powerful enemies who not only represent the opposite to ID, or atheistic (materialism), views of life origins. Some even claim to support intelligent design…of sort, as long as that design also includes evolution…Confused? Wait until the debate gets heated… 😉

So, what’s this book kerfuffle all about, one might ask?

Well, in short: some of most profound world views are colliding…again… as Behe and many of his comrades at the Discovery Institute also had published many books and papers in the past.

The Three Musketeers of neo-Darwinism, or some sort of theistic evolutionary theory, involved in the upcoming debate are represented by:

Dr. Richard Lenski – an experimental scientist who claims to have achieved an equivalency of millions of years of human evolution by growing bacteria in the lab for the last 25 years…

Dr. Nathan Lents – Professor of Biology, John Jay College; Admin, The Human Evolution Blog; Blogger, Psychology Today; Author of “Not So Different” and “Human Errors.”

Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass, MD PhD, a professor at Washington University in Saint Louis, the confessing scientists and a Christian, who some believe became “the devil’s advocate” in order to defeat the enemy of true science (in this case represented by neo-Darwinism or evolution) the intelligent design movement and its founding father Michael Behe…

Today, February 7th at 2 pm, of unknown time zone, “the circus” (as Swamidass described it) of the differing worldviews will have begun; the three musketeers against the lone ranger, Dr. Michael Behe, PhD- Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

What’s at stake? Some might agree that everything…

The subject of the first stage of “the circus” and the major speck in the eyes of the three musketeers representing evolution is the book by Michal Behe:

Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution

This article criticizing Behe’s book and the discussion blog will appear at Science Magazine:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6427/590

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/02/07/darwin-devolves/

It should be entertaining 😉 I hope to be a small part of it… Some of my colleagues promised to join in as well…

Let the hunger games of Evolution vs ID begin!!! 😉

453 thoughts on “The Three Musketeers vs D’Artagnan

  1. Alan Fox: Have you stopped beating your wife?

    I have. I’ve stopped beating your wife too.

    Art Hunt made a claim about Behe’s work that was not true. A real gent would correct and retract, but he never has. Lents otoh doesn’t have time to review his own error and correct it but he does have time to blast the DI. Another real gent.

  2. Mung,

    I suspect this was rather an attempt to respond to Allan Miller’s challenge to discuss the science in relation to the evolution of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum.

  3. Mung: I have. I’ve stopped beating your wife too.

    Art Hunt made a claim about Behe’s work that was not true. A real gent would correct and retract, but he never has. Lents otoh doesn’t have time to review his own error and correct it but he does have time to blast the DI. Another real gent.

    Chloroquine resistance is an embarrassment for Darwinists but it has no teeth…
    All Darwinists can do about it is to twist the data or make false accusations…

    To me personally what buried Darwinism was the discovery of antibiotic resistance in life system dating back to before antibiotics were even developed…
    I was thinking of doing an OP on the theme but what responses would it generate other than from loonies venting their anger?

  4. J-Mac: To me personally what buried Darwinism was the discovery of antibiotic resistance in life system dating back to before antibiotics were even developed…
    I was thinking of doing an OP on the theme but what responses would it generate other than from loonies venting their anger?

    I don’t think we need an OP. Consider this: antibiotics existed long before they were developed. The first few antibiotics were naturally occurring compounds like penicillin, chlortetracycline, & cephalosporin.
    Sad to learn that this is what buried Darwinism for you.

  5. J-Mac: All Darwinists can do about it is to twist the data

    What does “twist” the data mean? Explain what that means and give an example.

  6. J-Mac: Chloroquine resistance is an embarrassment for Darwinists but it has no teeth…
    All Darwinists can do about it is to twist the data or make false accusations…

    In what way? Can you summarise the arguments for and against Behe’s viewpoint, and explain why we should defer to him on this? You know … discuss?

  7. J-Mac: I was thinking of doing an OP on the theme but what responses would it generate other than from loonies venting their anger?

    That’s hardly in the spirit of TSZ, J-Mac. You (and perhaps mung) and I appear to have different perceptions as to whether chloroquine resistance evolved by natural processes in P. falciparum. I’d be interested (maybe even surprised) if you could articulate a coherent explanation as to the impossibility of evolution having a hand in chloroquine resistance.

  8. Mung: Art Hunt made a claim about Behe’s work that was not true. A real gent would correct and retract, but he never has. Lents otoh doesn’t have time to review his own error and correct it but he does have time to blast the DI. Another real gent.

    Perhaps I haven’t been paying enough attention at Peaceful Science. I see there is a thread with comments from Art Hunt. And I see that references an unattributed article in Evolution News and Views. Still not clear to me what it is that Art Hunt is supposed to have written that requires a retraction as mung claims.

  9. J-Mac,

    I was thinking of doing an OP on the theme but what responses would it generate other than from loonies venting their anger?

    Maybe Moderation Issues will keep them busy?

  10. DNA_Jock: I don’t think we need an OP. Consider this: antibiotics existed long before they were developed. The first few antibiotics were naturally occurring compounds like penicillin, chlortetracycline, & cephalosporin.
    Sad to learn that this is what buried Darwinism for you.

    You googled it.?!
    Tell us more …maybe I will do an OP on this 😉

  11. Alan Fox: That’s hardly in the spirit of TSZ, J-Mac.You(and perhaps mung) and I appear to have different perceptions as to whether chloroquine resistance evolved by natural processes in P. falciparum. I’d be interested (maybe even surprised) if you could articulate a coherent explanation as to the impossibility of evolution having a hand in chloroquine resistance.

    Natural processes….naturally occurring compounds…natural selection…
    It seems natural for Darwinists to hide behind nature…or..it’s not impossible, so it naturally evolved…we have no choice but to believe….it naturally takes a lot of faith to be a Darwinist, neo or not…

    btw: How about sophisticated arithmetic calculation done by plants OP?

  12. DNA_Jock: I don’t think we need an OP. Consider this: antibiotics existed long before they were developed. The first few antibiotics were naturally occurring compounds like penicillin, chlortetracycline, & cephalosporin.
    Sad to learn that this is what buried Darwinism for you.

    It just hit me!
    Why don’t you do the OP on the antibiotic resistance evolution of naturally occurring compounds?
    I will be more than glad to contribute…😉

  13. J-Mac: You googled it.?!

    Oh, for Pete’s sake, no J-Mac. Jock, and quite a few others here at TSZ knew this. The story of the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming happens to be a famous anecdote:

    The discovery of penicillin was much more than just a lucky accident, although it did start with a mistake. In 1928, after returning from holiday, Alexander Fleming, a bacteriologist working at St. Mary’s hospital in London, noticed that one of his petri dishes containing staphylococci that he left on a bench was contaminated [1]. He observed that a fungal contaminant was affecting the growth of the nearby bacteria. The fungus turned out to be Penicillium notatum, and the antibacterial molecule that it produced was named penicillin.

  14. J-Mac: Why don’t you do the OP on the antibiotic resistance evolution of naturally occurring compounds?
    I will be more than glad to contribute…😉

    Perhaps he is a little dissuaded by the prospect of “loonies venting their anger” in the comments section.

  15. Corneel,

    Our lecturer at uni used to say Fleming made his name through sloppiness. Lysozyme, he claims, was discovered because a drip from his runny nose landed on a Petri dish.

  16. Corneel: Haha, I missed that story!

    Possibly apocryphal, but I have seen it elsewhere. Greatness, of course, comes from noticing, and following through.

  17. Alan Fox: You (and perhaps mung) and I appear to have different perceptions as to whether chloroquine resistance evolved by natural processes in P. falciparum.

    No. No. No. No. No. I can tell you’ve been reading this same misguided anti-Behe material. Chloroquine resistance has evolved it is within “the edge of evolution.”

    Behe never claimed that it could not have evolved.

  18. Mung: No. No. No. No. No. I can tell you’ve been reading this same misguided anit-Behe material.

    I haven’t read much on the subject, other than ENV and Peaceful Science.

    Chloroquine resistance has evolved it is within “the edge of evolution”.

    If Behe doesn’t dispute that Chloroquine resistance developed in P. falciparum by an evolutionary process, why the fuss?

  19. J-Mac: 1 announcement

    J-Mac: It just hit me!
    Why don’t you do the OP on the antibiotic resistance evolution ofnaturally occurring compounds?
    I will be more than glad to contribute…

    Why not give the book “Big Chicken”by Mary McKenna a read. You’ll get a twofer:

    One a description and documentation of the development of antibiotic resistance to the naturally occurring antibiotics and, two, learn something on the history of the development of the poultry industry and the how the hybrids that are the mainstay of that industry were developed….OK that was a therefor no charge for the extra knowledge!

    https://www.amazon.com/Big-Chicken-Incredible-Antibiotics-Agriculture-ebook/dp/B01N1TQDSC

    ETA: spelling errors

  20. Mung: No. No. No. No. No. I can tell you’ve been reading this same misguided anit-Behe material. Chloroquine resistance has evolved it is within “the edge of evolution.”

    Behe never claimed that it could not have evolved.

    Yebbut:
    1) He grossly underestimates the probabilities, by ignoring drift and recombination.
    2) He assumes that census size is the measure to take when extrapolating to large multicellular species. The mode of transmission of P. falciparum is significant here – populations in each infection are severely bottlenecked, giving them an effective population size much closer to our own, not many orders of magnitude greater.

  21. Alan Fox: If Behe doesn’t dispute that Chloroquine resistance developed in P. falciparum by an evolutionary process, why the fuss?

    Because people claim that he does dispute it and in doing so they misrepresent him.

  22. Corneel: Oh, for Pete’s sake, no J-Mac. Jock, and quite a few others here at TSZ knew this. The story of the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming happens to be a famous anecdote:

    Is this some kind of a joke?

  23. Mung: No. No. No. No. No. I can tell you’ve been reading this same misguided anti-Behe material. Chloroquine resistance has evolved it is within “the edge of evolution.”

    Behe never claimed that it could not have evolved.

    Stop it!

  24. PeterP:
    Why not give the book “Big Chicken”by Mary McKenna a read.You’ll get a twofer:

    One a description and documentation of the development of antibiotic resistance to the naturally occurring antibiotics and, two, learn something on the history of the development of the poultry industry and the how the hybrids that are the mainstay of that industry were developed….OK that was a therefor no charge for the extra knowledge!

    https://www.amazon.com/Big-Chicken-Incredible-Antibiotics-Agriculture-ebook/dp/B01N1TQDSC

    ETA: spelling errors

    Jesus!

  25. Corneel: Perhaps he is a little dissuaded by the prospect of “loonies venting their anger” in the comments section.

    Why don’t you do it?!
    Don’t you have faith?

  26. J-Mac: Jesus!

    What a stunning rebuttal! Are you afraid the book will force you to think your basis for rejecting ‘darwinism’?

    J-Mac: Is this some kind of a joke?

    the joke is that you are obviously ignorant in regard to the history of antibiotics: their discovery, source, history, isolation, and production. The story of the penicillins, cephalosporins, and tetracyclines, derived from molds (fungi) and bacteria species, is a fascinating piece of history. When do you think those organisms ‘developed’ antibiotics?

  27. J-Mac:

    Can anyone point out his nonsese? Byers???

    You seem incapable of dealing with this – or indeed any – issue yourself.

  28. PeterP: J-Mac: Is this some kind of a joke?

    Peter: the joke is that you are obviously ignorant in regard to the history of antibiotics: their discovery, source, history, isolation, and production. The story of the penicillins, cephalosporins, and tetracyclines, derived from molds (fungi) and bacteria species, is a fascinating piece of history. When do you think those organisms ‘developed’ antibiotics?

    Perhaps the real joke is that J-Mac is genuinely surprised by the fact that others are capable of reproducing rather basic knowledge without googling.

  29. Corneel: Perhaps the real joke is that J-Mac is genuinely surprised by the fact that others are capable of reproducing rather basic knowledge without googling.

    Lol
    I guess I have another theme for the OP…😉
    Please make sure you keep your comments in mind so that you can quote them on my OP…
    You do have faith that antibiotics resistance evolved, right? 😂

    ETA: In light that many have come to their senses and agree that Darwinism is dead, the “evolution ” of antibiotic and chloroquine resistance looks so much better…😂

  30. It looks like Jerry Coyne now joined the three musketeers and decided to repeat the same nonsensical assumptions the authors of the original article in Cell made…

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/02/23/lenski-continues-his-demolition-of-michael-behes-new-book/

    Can’t these people read? Nobody even bothered to look up other papers just make sure that the assumption about ApoB protein are correct?
    How can these people call themselves scientists? Is this some kind of a joke or is it a conspiracy?

  31. J-Mac: Can’t these people read? Nobody even bothered to look up other papers just make sure that the assumption about ApoB protein are correct?
    How can these people call themselves scientists?Is this some kind of a joke or is it a conspiracy?

    How much work have you put in to verify Behe’s claim, rather than just swallowing it whole?

    You’re doing a fine service linking to the extensive criticism of Behe, anyway.

  32. Behe’s book is officially published tomorrow and many of some of the greatest sceptics of it have already succumbed to reason and admitted that Darwinism is dead…
    Since Behe’s book is about the details not only why Darwinism is dead, but more so why it should stay 6 feet under, should people still buy the book and review it anyways?

    Should I review it?

    I have some very interesting thoughts not only on the bear devolution…There is also an unanswered by Behe question:
    If Darwin Devolves by breaking and decreasing gene functions, what makes common descent possible?

    Behe believes in common descent (but not by Darwinian mechanism obviously) by some kind of guidance, but he doesn’t explain whether it is by the direct intervention or that there is a source of information beyond DNA that allows change within the boundaries of that information?

    Another question is: Can Behe’s guidence be tested?

  33. Great News! PS will not allow any unnamed names unless they have been verified by Swamidass’ militia which obviously means Swamidass himself… He must see people like Mung a threat to his becoming a successful scientists…Who can blame him?

    This is a great opportunity for TSZ to become a venting duct for all those who do not wish to identify themselves…If TSZ had an participating owner, it would take advantage it this great opportunity…

  34. I hope that many here remember that I don’t necessarily agree with Behe on more than few issues, one of them being common descent…
    Another one is the ApoB protein; or the interpretation of the original paper by Cell…
    Behe simply interpreted the data one way…The Cell authors interpreted it another way… But who is right? Are they both wrong? 😉

    As some people here realize the inference of data regarding mutations; whether they are beneficial or not, in most cases is not an easy task as Jerry Coyne pointed it out himself…

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/02/23/lenski-continues-his-demolition-of-michael-behes-new-book/

Leave a Reply

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