evolution?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robert:Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago writes:"We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."[/B][/QUOTE]From http://www.dontveter.com/notes/scifaith.html (a creationist site):

quote:

---

The catch is that the articles cited by Catalano and Ussery do not address the issue that Behe is talking about. Lots of papers can
contain the words "molecular" and " evolution" and still not address the issue of how irreducibly complex systems can evolve. Some honest analysis by other believers in evolution show how deceptive Catalano and Ussery are. In Behe's response to critics: Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: - Response to Critics Behe writes:

​

For example microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago declared in National Review that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Shapiro 1996). In Nature University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne stated, "There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel. . . . [W]e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways." (Coyne 1996)

​

In a particularly scathing review in Trends in Ecology and Evolution Tom Cavalier-Smith, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, nonetheless wrote, "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity. The problems have indeed been sorely neglected--though Behe repeatedly exaggerates this neglect with such hyperboles as 'an eerie and complete silence.'" (Cavalier-Smith 1997)

​

So the experts who believe in evolution agree that Behe is right while other believers in evolution spin the facts to deceive the public. It is yet another indication that they know evolution is in trouble.

---

This quote (from Coyne, J. A. (1996). God in the details. Nature 383, 227-228) is still outside of the broader context. It seems to be a concession that documenting the details may indeed be difficult, but it is not a condemnation of the theory of evolution, in general.Maybe someone can track down that Nature issue, and see what the entire article looks like. I'll try to do such, on my next visit to the University. (I'm sitting in on a class covering Precambrian Geology).Moose

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-07-2002]

A Scirus search for "Coyne God in the Details:
http://scirus.com/search_simple/?frm=simple&query_1=Coyne+God+in+the+Details&wordtype_1=all&dsweb=on&hits=10Comments from Jerry Coyne, from http://www-polisci.mit.edu/BR22.1/coyne.html :

quote:

---

I am painfully and personally acquainted with Behe's penchant for fiddling with quotations. On page 29 of Darwin's Black Box he writes:

​

Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, arrives at an unanticipated verdict: "We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

​

Apparently I am one of those faint-hearted biologists who see the errors of Darwinism but cannot admit it. This was news to me. I am surely numbered among the more orthodox evolutionists, and hardly see our field as fatally flawed. The paper in question (actually by Allen Orr and myself)3 addresses a technical debate among evolutionists: are adaptations based on a lot of small genetic mutations (the traditional neo-Darwinian view), a few big mutations, or some mixture of the two? We concluded that although there was not much evidence one way or the other, there were indications that mutations of large effect might occasionally be important. Our paper cast no doubt whatever on the existence of evolution or the ability of natural selection to explain adaptations.

​

I went back to see exactly what Orr and I had written. It turns out that, in the middle of our sentence, Behe found a period that wasn't there. Here's the full citation, placed in its context:

​

Although a few biologists have suggested an evolutionary role for mutations or large effect (Gould 1980; Maynard Smith 1983: Gottlieb, 1984; Turner, 1985), the neo-Darwinian view has largely triumphed, and the genetic basis of adaptation now receives little attention. Indeed, the question is considered so dead that few may know the evidence responsible for its demise.
Here we review this evidence. We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.
We hasten to add, however, that we are not "macromutationists" who believe that adaptations are nearly always based on major genes. The neo-Darwinian view could well be correct. It is almost certainly true, however, that some adaptations involve many genes of small effect and others involve major genes. The question we address is, How often does adaptation involve a major gene? We hope to encourage evolutionists to reexamine this neglected question and to provide the evidence to settle it.

​

By inserting the period (and removing the sentence from its neighbors), Behe has twisted our meaning. Our discussion of one aspect of Darwinism--the relative size of adaptive mutations--has suddenly become a critique of the entire Darwinian enterprise. This is not sloppy scholarship, but deliberate distortion.

​

Perhaps I unduly belabor this point, but we know what they say about God and the details. Can anyone who alters quotations be trusted to give an unbiased view of the scientific data?

​

One of the blurbs on the cover of Darwin's Black Box was contributed by Peter Van Inwagen, a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame (Behe apparently had trouble finding biologists to endorse his book): "If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory. If they can successfully answer Behe's arguments, that will be important evidence in favor of Darwinism."

​

Behe has been answered. Can we now expect him to retract his views? I'm not holding my breath.

---

See the cited link for the entire article.I was unable to track down any on line version of the Nature article. Will have to resort to looking at things on paper. Hopefully I will get that done this coming monday.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Thank you CS.I agree that Behe's response has considerable truth to it. The question is: When quotes are taken out of context, are the being used to be a blow to evolutionary theory in general, or are they being used mearly to illustrate that there is scientific debate over the details of evolutionary theory.I think that everyone recognizes that the state of the art of evolutionary theory extends beyond Darwinism. Is that "state of the art" what is being termed as "neo-Darwinism"? Or is it beyond neo-Darwinism?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

You may wish to look at some of the geology topics. The first two are ones I started, and are not too many pages long.Back to the fundamentals
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=14&p=12Uniformitarianism
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=54&p=12The following have more pages.The Geologic Column
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=13&p=12Is the Global Flood Feasible
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=7&p=12I've seen the John Woodmorappe article before. Please consult the Geologic Column topic listed above. Also, I believe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ may be a direct response to the Woodmorappe article.And by the way, the B.S. degree is a fairly lowly degree. And Whatsamatta U is something out of a Marx Brothers movie. ( Whatsamatta U )MooseEdited to correct spelling of "Whatsamatta".Added by edit:

quote:

---

In reading your answers it seems that you are already biased in favor of evolution, but I will ply you with a question nonetheless.

---

I am certainly an old earth evolutionist. That's what the worldly evidence indicates. I am also very anti-young earth (and the related 6 literal days) creation. I am agnostic about old earth/long period of time creationism.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-08-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-08-2002]

Quote of myself:

quote:

---

I was unable to track down any on line version of the Nature article. Will have to resort to looking at things on paper. Hopefully I will get that done this coming monday.

---

Note: Responding under the influence of 2 large beers.The Coyne quote in question seems to have been atributed to the wrong source. I grant this an being an inatvertant mistake by Behe, of no real significance (see my previous post for the true source). [ADDED BY EDIT: ERROR ON MY PART - The information on the source of the quote was actually further back. If anyone really cares, see the cited article in message 33.]The Nature article turns out to be a review of Behe's "Darwins Black Box". Reviews of this nature seem to be redilly (damn beer ) available, so I won't try to reproduce it from a photocopy I made (unless someone insists).Figured I should do a reply, before I lost track of things.Best wishes to all,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
Brain cells currently impaired - CertainlySignature modified by edit

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-09-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-10-2002]