Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

[Siberia]

Stove pointed out how Dawkins and his ilk constantly subtly shift their positions to gain the upper hand, never mind that the whole thing becomes completely contradictory.

Just to broaden the picture: according to numerous media sources, Dawkins was among the scientists hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein at some point, allegedly for the purpose of scientific research. Also, Dawkins was repeatedly condemned by the public for his remarks about pedophilia over the years.

 

[Aeneas]

As far as the increase in complexity goes, this could have happened by means of entirely different processes. Namely, stabilisation processes, which include hybridisation. See link from my comment above.

From what I saw on the link you mentioned and admittedly, I didn't read it all, but I didn't see any explanation for how new genes and the making up of new family groups happen. Hybrids is known in farming and is useful but it has its limits.

If we go to the bacteria stage, then no amount of hybridization will end up creating a cow or a bear or a mouse. There are fluke events which has also been documented on Sott about animals born looking like different species. The site you mentioned shows a dog cow hybrid, which they also say themselves might have been faked a la photoshop. But even if we grant that it is real, then these mutant animals almost never live to adulthood and if so are commonly sterile. Let us assume that one does survive, then to now make the next generation of this new dog-cow, it will need to find another mutant dog-cow that is fertile. And will the cross produce a fertile offspring? The crossing between a horse and donkey produces a mule, which most of the time is infertile. Then comes the question why would a mule be selected over both the horse and the donkey? It is not as if the mule is an improvement. Like MI wrote in the article, then the fossil record shows no evidence of all these intermediate stage creatures.

Another point in that regard is that I think these theories also will fall apart when looked at from the molecular level the way Behe does. On paper, it all sounds nice such as in the above link, F1 hybrid mates with F2 hybrid and you get H1, but what exactly has happened on the molecular level? Did something break or get degraded or did some new genes get made which then miraculously coded for new proteins, which then worked?

Hat tip to Mandatory's article. Really great work. In book form, it could be split into two chapters with 'Evolution' being separated from 'The origin of Life'.

 

[Revolucionar]

From what I saw on the link you mentioned and admittedly, I didn't read it all, but I didn't see any explanation for how new genes and the making up of new family groups happen. Hybrids is known in farming and is useful but it has its limits.

If we go to the bacteria stage, then no amount of hybridization will end up creating a cow or a bear or a mouse. There are fluke events which has also been documented on Sott about animals born looking like different species. The site you mentioned shows a dog cow hybrid, which they also say themselves might have been faked a la photoshop. But even if we grant that it is real, then these mutant animals almost never live to adulthood and if so are commonly sterile. Let us assume that one does survive, then to now make the next generation of this new dog-cow, it will need to find another mutant dog-cow that is fertile. And will the cross produce a fertile offspring? The crossing between a horse and donkey produces a mule, which most of the time is infertile. Then comes the question why would a mule be selected over both the horse and the donkey? It is not as if the mule is an improvement. Like MI wrote in the article, then the fossil record shows no evidence of all these intermediate stage creatures.

Another point in that regard is that I think these theories also will fall apart when looked at from the molecular level the way Behe does. On paper, it all sounds nice such as in the above link, F1 hybrid mates with F2 hybrid and you get H1, but what exactly has happened on the molecular level? Did something break or get degraded or did some new genes get made which then miraculously coded for new proteins, which then worked?

Hat tip to Mandatory's article. Really great work. In book form, it could be split into two chapters with 'Evolution' being separated from 'The origin of Life'.

All of what you just said confirms that you didn't read any of it ( it's a book, take your time) and you are merely reiterating the usual myths about hybrids. I will write a short summary here when I get the time, hopefully tomorrow. Trust me, all that you said above is wrong.

 

[Aeneas]

Then comes the question why would a mule be selected over both the horse and the donkey? It is not as if the mule is an improvement.

A little bit more as a mule have some properties that are more desired than horses and donkey, so from a breeders point of view, it makes sense but not from a point of view of natural selection. There has according to wiki only been 62 documented cases of mules having offspring.

Fertility[edit]

Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile.

There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions. A few mare mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[17][18] Herodotus gives an account of such an event as an ill omen of Xerxes' invasion of Greece in 480 BC: "There happened also a portent of another kind while he was still at Sardis,—a mule brought forth young and gave birth to a mule" (Herodotus The Histories 7:57), and a mule's giving birth was a frequently recorded portent in antiquity, although scientific writers also doubted whether the thing was really possible (see e.g. Aristotle, Historia animalium, 6.24; Varro, De re rustica, 2.1.28).

As of October 2002, there had been only 60 documented cases of mules birthing foals since 1527.[18] In China in 2001, a mare mule produced a filly.[19] In Morocco in early 2002 and Colorado in 2007, mare mules produced colts.[18][20][21] Blood and hair samples from the Colorado birth verified that the mother was indeed a mule and the foal was indeed her offspring.[21]

A 1939 article in the Journal of Heredity describes two offspring of a fertile mare mule named "Old Bec", which was owned at the time by the A&M College of Texas (now Texas A&M University) in the late 1920s. One of the foals was a female, sired by a jack. Unlike its mother, it was sterile. The other, sired by a five-gaited Saddlebred stallion, exhibited no characteristics of any donkey. That horse, a stallion, was bred to several mares, which gave birth to live foals that showed no characteristics of the donkey.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule#cite_note-JHeredity-30-12-22

All of what you just said confirms that you didn't read any of it ( it's a book, take your time) and you are merely reiterating the usual myths about hybrids. I will write a short summary here when I get the time, hopefully tomorrow. Trust me, all that you said above is wrong.

Yes, I only spent 10 minutes so I look forward to what you have gained from reading the book.

The rational wiki has something about Eugene McCarthy:
[...]
Indeed, McCarthy rejects the modern Synthesis, specifically rejecting natural selection as being the primary driver of evolution, and rejecting microevolution as being responsible for macroevolution.[12] Instead, McCarthy literally turns the tree of life upside-down,[12]:189[15] and argues that hybridization between species is the primary driver of evolution, resulting in his Stabilization Theory.[12] McCarthy also rejects the concepts of convergent evolution[12]:264 and adaptive radiation.[12]:225

After claiming that armadillos may have descended from ankylosaurs, basically because they look similar,[12]:239-241 McCarthy continued with another of other examples.

“”Bats are descendants of pterosaurs. Whales came from mosasaurs. Seals are the children of plesiosaurs. Dinosaurs weren’t actually giant reptiles, they were big mammals. These ideas are contrary to all of the evidence, of course, but one thing you’ll learn from this book is that the evidence doesn’t have to be considered. It’s all about McCarthy’s belief in the fixity of species — species don’t change at all, ever, and all evolutionary novelty comes from the sudden production of new species by ‘stabilization processes’, like hybridization.

—PZ Myers[15]

The theory has had some interest from a creationist[16] and an intelligent design proponent,[17] but only because the theory is in opposition to the Modern Synthesis of evolution.

---
Again, I look forward to hear from you, what he really has to say, knowing that what one finds via the net such as above, might not reflect the truth of the matter.

 

[Cosmos]

Just to broaden the picture: according to numerous media sources, Dawkins was among the scientists hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein at some point, allegedly for the purpose of scientific research. Also, Dawkins was repeatedly condemned by the public for his remarks about pedophilia over the years.

"For the purpose of scientific research"! Sure... I would not at all be surprised if Dawkins and other people of his ilk are engaged in what can only be described as satanic/psychopathic behavior. I suspect that quite a number of high profile and outspoken Evolutionists have more than one skeleton in the closet. Dawkins being just one of them.

 

[Glenn]

On the Origins of New Forms of Life - A New Theory: Contents

The pages listed in this table of contents offer an alternative theory of how new forms of life come into being.

www.macroevolution.net

Let me just put this out there. This guy, geneticist and hybrid expert Eugene McCarthy, put together the most comprehensive theory of evolution so far. In my mind it explains well all of the observations of nature, except for the origin of life itself, which must be intelligently designed in any case. He does not go into this. In short, hybridization and other stabilization processes are able to explain the growth of complexity in the natural world in and of themselves.
Of course, it does not preclude interventions by an intelligent operator, but it explains a hell of a lot more than Darwinism or ID ever possibly could. What he says is documented and is proven to work.
It's a long read, but I find it very accessible and informative even if you're just looking for a quick overview of what the evolutionary scientists believe these days. Enjoy!

If you want something shorter, Eugene McCarthy has a Youtube video stating the basics of his theory.

(I see he has disabled comments on the video, so I guess he doesn't want to field any questions about it.)

 

[Revolucionar]

Well, what this PZ Myers person is doing is intentionally distorting McCarthy's words. He says that certain dinosaurs were in fact mammals, not all. The evidence actually supports McCarthy's conclusions.
The mule is exactly the example McCarthy gives to illustrate the myths surrounding hybrids. For now, let me just say that his theory is comprehensive and covers the fossil record, modern experiments and genetic mechanisms. It's a highly recommended read, written in plain language accessible to all.

 

[Revolucionar]

A little bit more as a mule have some properties that are more desired than horses and donkey, so from a breeders point of view, it makes sense but not from a point of view of natural selection. There has according to wiki only been 62 documented cases of mules having offspring.
Mule - Wikipedia



Yes, I only spent 10 minutes so I look forward to what you have gained from reading the book.

The rational wiki has something about Eugene McCarthy:
[...]
Indeed, McCarthy rejects the modern Synthesis, specifically rejecting natural selection as being the primary driver of evolution, and rejecting microevolution as being responsible for macroevolution.[12] Instead, McCarthy literally turns the tree of life upside-down,[12]:189[15] and argues that hybridization between species is the primary driver of evolution, resulting in his Stabilization Theory.[12] McCarthy also rejects the concepts of convergent evolution[12]:264 and adaptive radiation.[12]:225

After claiming that armadillos may have descended from ankylosaurs, basically because they look similar,[12]:239-241 McCarthy continued with another of other examples.

“”Bats are descendants of pterosaurs. Whales came from mosasaurs. Seals are the children of plesiosaurs. Dinosaurs weren’t actually giant reptiles, they were big mammals. These ideas are contrary to all of the evidence, of course, but one thing you’ll learn from this book is that the evidence doesn’t have to be considered. It’s all about McCarthy’s belief in the fixity of species — species don’t change at all, ever, and all evolutionary novelty comes from the sudden production of new species by ‘stabilization processes’, like hybridization.

—PZ Myers[15]

The theory has had some interest from a creationist[16] and an intelligent design proponent,[17] but only because the theory is in opposition to the Modern Synthesis of evolution.

---
Again, I look forward to hear from you, what he really has to say, knowing that what one finds via the net such as above, might not reflect the truth of the matter.

The above comment was meant for you, Aeneas.

 

[Aeneas]

Ok, I have now spent an hour of reading both some more of what the man says and what some others have said and so far no cigar. It sounds as if he is more about making a name for himself apart from the neo-Darwinian, but that might just be me.
About Eugene McCarthy:

Eugene M. McCarthy

earned a B.S. in mathematics, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in genetics, all from the University of Georgia.[2] His Master's thesis was on recombinational speciation,[3] and Ph.D. thesis was on computational genomics.[4]

McCarthy likes to wave his credentials in genetics and hybridization around when arguing with other scientists, even when the other scientists' own expertise is completely relevant

and

Avian hybrids[edit]

Since his doctorate work, McCarthy has focused on hybridization, publishing the book Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World with Oxford University Press.[7] The Handbook has received some enthusiastically positive academic reviews.[8][9][10] One reviewer, Gary R. Graves, who is the Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian Institution, praised the comprehensiveness of the book but also had some serious criticisms of it.[11] Graves' praise for the book's comprehensiveness is tempered by the book's lack of discrimination, "… those who cast a wide net had better be prepared to throw back the by-catch. Unfortunately, McCarthy kept it all—the good, the bad, and the vague."[11] Graves describes some types of damage caused by this lack of discrimination:[11]

• Introduction of "unsupported records in the the literature that are maddeningly difficult to eradicate once published."
• "…less savvy users may naturally assume the documentation backing the hybrid records in the book meets some quality threshold."
• "Inclusion of hybrids based on sight records and photographs of free-living birds endorses the notion promoted in many birding publications that accurate diagnosis of hybrids observed in the field is not only possible but probable."
• "The most serious problem with compilations of this nature is that synthesists may be tempted to use the data for phylogenetic or macroecological studies of hybridization."

Here is a little of the key to his theory:

Stabilization Theory

An alternative theory of evolution

Site Search

EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD GENETICS

The main claims of stabilization theory, which distinguish it from neo-Darwinian theory, can be summarized as follows:

1. The typical form treated as a species comes into being via certain well-known, well-documented genetic processes ("stabilization processes") that produce new stable forms in an extremely rapid manner;
2. These processes produce new forms that are, for genetic reasons, inherently stable from the time of their inception right up to the time of their extinction. A corollary of this claim is the theory's assertion that any given type of organism produced by such a process has a negligible tendency to change over time in response to environmental constraints.

So a new species comes into being via certain well-documented genetic processes, with a link to stabilisation processes. He must mean that the link will explain these well-documented genetic processes, but what does the link then show:

On the Origins of New Forms of Life

4.3: Stabilization Processes

A stabilization process is any series of events in which selection for a stable reproductive cycle results in the production of one or more new, stable forms of life. Such processes usually involve some type of chromosomal mutation, although certain exceptions to this rule will be discussed.

and

Because (1) they usually

require the occurrence of chromosomal mutations

and (2) chromosomal mutations are ordinarily very rare events, one might suppose stabilization processes would be too rare to have any evolutionary significance. However, stabilization theory maintains that they are, if measured in terms of the number of new forms that they produce, in no way exceptional. In fact, it will be claimed that the typicalnew form is the product of such a process. It will be argued that such processes are rare events only in the sense that the vast majority of individuals composing any given natural population do not participate in a stabilization process that ends up producing a new type of organism. But this sort of rareness does not detract from the significance of such processes -- when they do occur, stabilization processes produce a new stable form with a new stable reproductive cycle. In other words, a rare, brief series of genetic events produces a permanent change.

Ordinary experience affords examples of events analogous to stabilization processes. For example, a man throwing a ball for a dog might complete ten thousand cycles of throwing and fetching, but on the ten-thousand-and-first throw the ball might lodge in the crotch of a tree. The dog would then be unable to return it. This single, extremely rare event breaks the cycle of throwing and fetching. It produces a permanent new state of affairs. In the same way, the cycle of meiosis and fertilizationstably reproduces a particular karyotype until some rare disruptive event, such as a doubling of the chromosome number or the introduction of new chromosomes via hybridization, breaks the cycle and produces something new.

Each time meiosis produces a gamete, a chromosomal mutation can occur. Every time two gametes produced by two distinct chromotypesunite in fertilization, a chromosomal mutation does in fact occur. Each such chromosomal mutation can initiate the production of a new form via a stabilization process. But the number of such fertilizations taking place in a single year is vast. Likewise, the number of gametes produced on this planet even in a single day is astronomic. Either of these numbers must far and away exceed the number of forms of life that have existed in all the past eons of geological time. Therefore anyone wishing to assess the evolutionary significance of stabilization processes should ignore the fact that only a tiny fraction of meioses and fertilizations would be expected to initiate a stabilization process. Rather, they should consider whether that tiny fraction of such an enormous number might represent a significant number of forms. But first let's consider what different sorts of stabilization processes are known and look at some examples of each.

So the disruptive event is a doubling of the chromosone number or the introduction of new chromosomes via hybridazation, according to McCarthy. I somehow feel like have been short changed. On the next page he comes with examples, but he starts at a much higher level than cells, leaping conveniently a long jump away from the origin of life and avoids showing and explaining the machinery of the cell and how these new genes and proteins come into play. Behe has mentioned in his last book Darwin Devolves about the doubling of chromosomes. As far as I remember, it does not make any new genes or new machinery such as proteins.

I think McCarthy has chosen to deal with macro evolution because microevolution would not support what he is claiming and he is claiming a lot with little evidence.

Revolutionar, if you haven't read the three books by Michael Behe, then I can highly recommend that you do. Behe does deal with the nitty gritty at the molecular level of the cell and explains how it actually works and how extremely complex it is. I think Mandatory Intellectomy and Luc have written excellent articles on Sott, that shows just how complex this is and how Darwinism and all its offsprings have gotten it terribly wrong in their attempts to deny a higher intelligence playing a role in this and that it by no means is random. McCarthy's theory also goes by randomness and natural selection from what I gather, which is just plain stupid. If you have found a place where he says otherwise, then I will happily see it.

 

[Revolucionar]

Ok, I have now spent an hour of reading both some more of what the man says and what some others have said and so far no cigar. It sounds as if he is more about making a name for himself apart from the neo-Darwinian, but that might just be me.
About Eugene McCarthy:


and

Here is a little of the key to his theory:

So a new species comes into being via certain well-documented genetic processes, with a link to stabilisation processes. He must mean that the link will explain these well-documented genetic processes, but what does the link then show:



and



So the disruptive event is a doubling of the chromosone number or the introduction of new chromosomes via hybridazation, according to McCarthy. I somehow feel like have been short changed. On the next page he comes with examples, but he starts at a much higher level than cells, leaping conveniently a long jump away from the origin of life and avoids showing and explaining the machinery of the cell and how these new genes and proteins come into play. Behe has mentioned in his last book Darwin Devolves about the doubling of chromosomes. As far as I remember, it does not make any new genes or new machinery such as proteins.

I think McCarthy has chosen to deal with macro evolution because microevolution would not support what he is claiming and he is claiming a lot with little evidence.

Revolutionar, if you haven't read the three books by Michael Behe, then I can highly recommend that you do. Behe does deal with the nitty gritty at the molecular level of the cell and explains how it actually works and how extremely complex it is. I think Mandatory Intellectomy and Luc have written excellent articles on Sott, that shows just how complex this is and how Darwinism and all its offsprings have gotten it terribly wrong in their attempts to deny a higher intelligence playing a role in this and that it by no means is random. McCarthy's theory also goes by randomness and natural selection from what I gather, which is just plain stupid. If you have found a place where he says otherwise, then I will happily see it.

You spent an hour reading this and you think you know what he's saying? I don't understand this need to jump to conclusions. It's a very complex matter and you need to first understand all the basics that he lays out before you can understand the specifics of the processes involved. It seems you were just jumping around the website looking for the smoking gun thinking that you would know it when you found it.
Just one example. People with Down syndrome have a third copy of one of the chromosomes. In every other respect, they are identical to healthy humans genetically, but still, you get this huge difference in outward appearance. This is just an example of what a change in the karyotype can do. This is without any recombination or production of new genes.
I will attempt to explain this in more detail in a later post. Stay tuned

 

[luc]

You spent an hour reading this and you think you know what he's saying? I don't understand this need to jump to conclusions. It's a very complex matter and you need to first understand all the basics that he lays out before you can understand the specifics of the processes involved. It seems you were just jumping around the website looking for the smoking gun thinking that you would know it when you found it.
Just one example. People with Down syndrome have a third copy of one of the chromosomes. In every other respect, they are identical to healthy humans genetically, but still, you get this huge difference in outward appearance. This is just an example of what a change in the karyotype can do. This is without any recombination or production of new genes.
I will attempt to explain this in more detail in a later post. Stay tuned

The crux of the matter is this: how can new, constructive information enter the biological systems, i.e. where is the "ordering force" that alone can account for "evolution" of any kind? Me too I had a look around the website you posted, and like Aeneas, I could only find vague statements and no explanation of the basic idea and no answer to the basic question of information. My feeling is that if McCarthy had an answer, he would give it straight away and not bury it deep on his website, but maybe I'm wrong.

If you could sum up in simple, ideally not too lengthy terms what McCarthy has to say about this, that would be nice: where does the information come from that creates spectacularly complex, interdependent systems?

 

[Glenn]

You spent an hour reading this and you think you know what he's saying? I don't understand this need to jump to conclusions. It's a very complex matter and you need to first understand all the basics that he lays out before you can understand the specifics of the processes involved. It seems you were just jumping around the website looking for the smoking gun thinking that you would know it when you found it.
Just one example. People with Down syndrome have a third copy of one of the chromosomes. In every other respect, they are identical to healthy humans genetically, but still, you get this huge difference in outward appearance. This is just an example of what a change in the karyotype can do. This is without any recombination or production of new genes.
I will attempt to explain this in more detail in a later post. Stay tuned

Well, have you spent more than an hour reading this thread? Just Curious.

 

[Voyageur]

@Mandatory Intellectomy did it again: The Probability of Evolution -- Sott.net

Tip of the hat, MI, had great fun reading it - you have some good feisty analogies, too. Bravo!

 

[Revolucionar]

The crux of the matter is this: how can new, constructive information enter the biological systems, i.e. where is the "ordering force" that alone can account for "evolution" of any kind? Me too I had a look around the website you posted, and like Aeneas, I could only find vague statements and no explanation of the basic idea and no answer to the basic question of information. My feeling is that if McCarthy had an answer, he would give it straight away and not bury it deep on his website, but maybe I'm wrong.

If you could sum up in simple, ideally not too lengthy terms what McCarthy has to say about this, that would be nice: where does the information come from that creates spectacularly complex, interdependent systems?

Ok, let me try to put this in the simplest and quickest way I can.
Let's try with an hypothetical example. Say we had a dog and a donkey. A dog has 78 chromosomes (39 pairs) and the donkey 62 (31 pairs).
So the dog mounts the jenny and the jenny gives birth to this hybrid. And the hybrid is viable and it grows up. Now this hybrid is what is called heterozygous, meaning it has unpaired chromosomes. It has 39 chromosomes from its canine father and 31 from its equine (I guess that works for donkeys too) mother. Here's where the fun starts. This hybrid donkey-dog is going to start producing gametes. During meiosis, the chromosomes will be unpaired, alleles will not correspond and there will be utter chaos. Therefore, this process will be entirely unpredictable. During meiosis, a number of things might happen, such as fusing of chromosomes, splitting up of chromosomes, mutations of a multitude of genes, deletion and doubling of genes, you will get genes from the dog and donkey on the same chromosome doing god knows what. You could also get a diploid gamete with 35 pairs of chromosomes. This gamete could possibly be able to impregnate a donkey and thus create a triploid organism. The triploid organism could then be able to produce a haploid gamete of say 54 chromosomes and mate with another of its kind. Boom, you have a 54 pair diploid organism that can mate with its kind but is possibly highly sterile with donkeys and dogs and it has genes from both set into a completely novel karyotype that is reproductively stable. If you think this is just stories, all of these mechanisms have been documented and they happen all the time.
So from the perspective of the donkey, this new organism has many new genes courtesy of the dog, it has a completely different karyotype and is no longer able to reproduce with either the donkey or the dog. If this organism is able to survive within it's environment, you've got yourself a new "species"(species is a completely imaginary concept) with it's own completely novel characteristics and it all happened in only a few generations among only a few individuals, so finding the intermediate forms is near impossible in the fossil record.

This was just a really quick overview and I didn't go into detail with all the specifics. Read the book. From start to finish.

 

[Revolucionar]

Well, have you spent more than an hour reading this thread? Just Curious.

I have. I have read all of MI's articles and plenty of Behe. And I agree entirely with what has been said so far. My issue is with the fact that they're beating a dead horse. If I took the Bible and deconstructed it in a way that shows unequivocally that it's rubbish, does that disprove the existence of God? No it doesn't. Same here. ID is rightly accusing neo-Darwinism of being pseudoscientific and using the arguments against an obviously ridiculous theory as evidence that accidents don't happen. Well, as McCarthy has shown, there exist other mechanisms, completely contrary to neo-Darwinism that could allow for life to evolve without any additional input from some intelligence. Now, McCarthy skips over the very origin of life itself, and that's a good thing, because no one knows how that happened, but I agree that it must have been done by some sort of intelligence. After that, it might have not been necessary, but it still might have intervened. I don't know. Anyway, read the book. It's free, and if nothing else, McCarthy deconstructs current dogma in a very simple and accessible way.