Want to see some real science? An article in the NY Times summarizes research in the evolution of glucocorticoid receptors. This is really cool stuff, where the investigators do step-by-step changes in the protein structure to determine the likely sequence of evolutionary changes — it really does describe the path of evolutionary history for a set of proteins at the level of amino acids.
Now, if you want to see some junk science, Michael Behe flounders disgracefully to try and dismiss the work. This is a genuine embarrassment: Behe is a biochemist who has done legitimate work in protein structure, and this kind of research ought to be right up his alley, where he could make an informed analysis. Instead, it's ugly and sad. A sensible creationist would simply admit that sure, here's one case of the evolution of a receptor that is solidly made, but hey, look, over there — here are all these other proteins that haven't been analyzed to the same level of detail. It would be pathetic and avoiding the issue, but Behe has a different and worse strategy: he denies the work shows anything at all. Because the researchers intentionally inserted mutations into the gene, they can't argue that natural processes of mutation could have done the same thing. But of course we do know — point mutations happen all the time.
Behe continues his long slide into tendentious irrelevance and lunatic obsessions. Jason Rosenhouse digs into this step in Behe's descent into unreason in much more detail.
- Log in to post comments
Gack. It's horrible to watch a guy who was once a respectable scientist continue to publicly degrade himself this way. I continue to think it's got to be about the $$.
Behe could be the subject of a play, "Death of a Scientist." All that is needed is an Arthur Miller writing program.
He really is an embarrassment to his department, shown by the statement on their website at Lehigh that they don't agree with him but he has tenure.
A good example of deadwood with tenure. One of my previous departments had the same problem.
1. One guy had a nervous breakdown, joined a hindu cult, and never did another experiment again. There was a very expensive piece of equipment half unpacked in his lab. A year later it was still half unpacked and covered with dust.
2. Another one got tenure, and made a "joke" that now he never had to work another day in his life. Some joke, he never did. A drinking problem promptly turned into a horrendous drinking problem and he spent his time being either drunk or hungover or getting drunk.
That is part of why G. Gonzales never got tenure. The trajectory of his career was rapidly declining science and rapidly rising crackpottery. Departments can't prosper with these sorts of place holders. They had every right to consider his probable future state and it was looking like another Behe.
Anyone else notice that the reply is turned off for Behes blog??? Whatsamattah? Is he afraid that a bunch of rational people will shred him.....again???
Why did Lehigh promote Behe to full? He was a tenured assoc. prof. when he published his first junky book. This means that he got promoted based on the merit of "Darwin's black box", right? Why oh why?
Why, oh why did you have to say it that way? How about "a more sensible creationist" ?
Why does professor Behe not allow reactions to his comments regarding the Ortlund et al. study?
More puzzling, in my opinion, is the question why the professor did not have these devastating observations published in Science Magazine, in the first place, the only place in fact, where such a reaction would cut wood. An Amazon blog is definitely not the appropriate medium for such apparently urgent and important reflections.
This episode fits the fringe behaviour that Behe has adapted on previous occasions where he is reflecting on matters that, according to widespread legend, he is supposed to be 'knowledgeable'. Thus last 1 February on DI's Evolution News and Views he 'reviewed' a paper on E. coli traveling fitness landscapes: "The January 25th issue of Nature carries a "Progress" paper by Poelwijk et al. that's touted on the cover as 'Plugging Darwin's Gaps,' and cited by its authors as addressing concerns raised by proponents of intelligent design. This last clause actually refers to only one or two sentences in the paper, towards the end of the discussion, but it may have triggered Behe's cramped response. His 'review' does not tell you what the paper is about. And nowhere in Behe's foaming 'review' is there any indication that he has understood or seriously read the paper. That is, he succeeds in summarizing it the following way: "The evolutionary puzzle becomes more complex at a higher level of cellular organization. No kidding."
And all this fits in with his casual dismissal of a two foot pile of studies put in front of him at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial... a really painful landmark moment in the trial.
How long can someone pass for an academically qualified biochemist on just the merits of long past performance?
Poelwijk,F.J., Kiviet,D.J., Weinreich,D.M., and Tans,S.J. 2007. Empirical fitness landscapes reveal accessible evolutionary paths. Nature 445:383-386.
I'm confused. If this research really does in fact demonstrate intelligent design, then why haven't we covered it up already?
I mean, if we're hiding the data that disprove evolution, then this research that Michael Boohoo claims demonstrates ID would never have been published. If it is published, then it must not show ID or else we're not the conspirators the creationists claim we are.
Sorry kids; you don't get to have it both ways.
I'm confused. If this research really does in fact demonstrate intelligent design, then why haven't we covered it up already?
I mean, if we're hiding the data that disprove evolution, then this research that Michael Boohoo claims demonstrates ID would never have been published. If it is published, then it must not show ID or else we're not the conspirators the creationists claim we are.
Sorry kids; you don't get to have it both ways.
I'm doubly confused, apparently.
Nobody could blame you after reading Behe's doubletalk. ;)
Is there such a beast as a sensible Creationist? And where can we find this mythical beastie?
Well, after reading Behe's article, it seems that his biggest complaint is that the mutations involved were neutral mutations, not beneficial. So, since those mutations conferred no advantage, it seems very unlikely that they would have become fixed in the populations.
I don't know whether they were actually neutral, and if my understanding is correct, genetic drift could explain that, anyway, but it should at least be his main argument that gets addressed.
You already did address it. It's an observed fact that there are neutral substitutions all over the place. The fixation rate for these = the mutation rate which is certainly not negligible. The disgusting thing is that Behe cannot possibly be unaware of this.
"Perhaps one of these days Behe will explain to us precisely what ID does, and does not, predict about nature."
Well, I guess ID predicts that, whatever happens will be "intelligently designed" by god, and therefore, by definition either :
1. unpredictable by man.
2. gradually predictable by man
So, if it 1. ID makes it really easy, it basically posits that we, humans, have reached, this year 2007, a maximum knowledge.
PZ, stop working ! Science has finished its task.
So, if it is 2. we are back to doing science again, because so far I know, it has been the only way that we have found on this planet with our limited brains, to understand how god "intelligently designed" this universe.
So, Mr Behe, is it 1. or is it 2. ?
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." A. Einstein
sorry, small changes...
"Perhaps one of these days Behe will explain to us precisely what ID does, and does not, predict about nature."
Well, I guess ID predicts that, whatever happens will be "intelligently designed" by god, and therefore, by definition either :
1. uncomprehensible by man.
2. gradually more comprehensible by man
So, if it 1. ID makes it really easy, it basically posits that we, humans, have reached, this year 2007, a maximum knowledge.
PZ, stop working ! Science has finished its task.
So, if it is 2. we are back to doing science again, because so far I know, it has been the only way that we have found on this planet with our limited brains, to understand how god "intelligently designed" this universe.
So, Mr Behe, is it 1. or is it 2. ?
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." A. Einstein (sorry, just couldn't resist in quoting him again)
Tenure? I like tenure old scotch. :) :)
Does he not understand what an experiment is?
Gravity lab with Behe: "Sure, you can measure objects accelerating at a constant rate, but only if someone drops them on purpose! You need to prove that g is the same for things that fall naturally!"
I dont get why THIS NYT article doesnt put an end to this stupid "debate"
no inserting of genes...no designing... Just increasing the mutation rate to get BENEFICIAL mutations and NEW species in a natural way. The forces of natural selection here are humans taking what we need.
http://tinyurl.com/2nu7vh
aren't we done now? What am I missing?
Windy, I was thinking the same thing. I guess Behe thinks automobile crash tests are useless because the cars were crashed on purpose rather than by accident.
This is typical of creationists of course, whenever they get proven wrong they stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la I can't heeeeear you" and and then they commence moving the goalposts.
How he managed to get a biochemistry degree when he's such an idiot I don't know. He makes me regret my goal to become a biochemist because I don't want to be associated in any way with a crackpot moron like that.