Evolution again?

Question

The guy who came up with intelligent design (Michael Behe) has written another book. In it he claims that although evolution can explain a few things - notably things like virus, it cannot explain many other things - there simply is not enough time, given what we know about the frequency of mutation and the need to develop many complicated biological systems 'overnight'.

Let me ask another question then. Have they ever bombarded a mammal with enough radiation to make it ever have a successful mutation? I mean, without cheating like simply deleting a piece of genetic material. Why don't they take Chimp DNA, bombard it with radiation until it becomes human? - I know they are not direct ancestors, but you take my meaning. I would imagine it cannot be done. If anyone does this and gets the nobel prize, please don't forget about me.

Answer 1

From the wiki report of the Dover trial, at which Behe testified:

"Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible."

I have not yet read Behe's new book ... but if you look in the inside flap, you find this:

"Behe strongly asserts, to the likely chagrin of young earth creationists, that the earth is billions of years old and that the concept of common descent is correct." (This is from the quote by Snoke, Behe's co-author in Behe's 2004 paper.)

In other words, Behe does not dispute evolution. He only disputes that Darwinism can explain it.

Answer 2

Try reading Unintelligent Design, by Mark Perakh. The points
raised by Behe and others such as Johnson are simply
attempts to wiggle out of admitting evolution, by whatever
specious arguments they can find. Much is made of what is
called "irreducible complexity", something so complexly inter-
connected that it wouldn't work if even one piece were missing, and therefore couldn't have evolved gradually. Two
of the major examples cited of supposedly irreducibly complex
systems are the blood-clotting cascade of reactions and the
bacterial flagellum. Both of these have been refuted. A simpler precursor of the flagellum has been discovered, and
blood-clotting has been found to occur without all the reactions
of the complete cascade. In addition, if irreducible complexity
really exists at all it is a mark of poor design, not intelligent
design. A complicated system that breaks down completely
if even one tiny piece malfunctions is badly designed. Backups and fail-safe mechanisms need to be provided for
good design.

The frequency of mutations has very little to do with the rate of
evolution. Mutations have been building up in genetic systems
ever since DNA-based life forms appeared. These mutations
are carried along (in heterozygous form in many cases) in the
genes of all organisms. Most of the variability affected by
natural selection comes from genetic recombination during
sexual reproduction, not from new mutations.

Answer 3

As already pointed out... there's really no question here. But there are some things that need clarification.

First, Behe didn't come up with the idea of intelligent design, not even close. This modern iteration of creationist rhetoric was really structured not by Behe, but by Philip E. Johnson, but he doesn't matter either. The "term" apparently originated with another "Discovery Institute" club member, but I think here you're asking about the concept. Anyway, this concept was put into form essentially by committee as a strategy to get to court, nothing more.

The philosophical "argument from design" predates Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species actually. In "modern" times, this argument was put forth most eloquently by William Paley (1802), though he drew heavily from John Ray's work in the 17th Century. That all said, the basic, flawed, philosophy of the argument really dates back to Plato (4th Century BC), well before the "official" founding of Christianity.

Lastly, there's no difficulty with the time involved. Remember, it's not about time in minutes and seconds, it's really about numbers of generations. So taking bacteria as an example (the oldest living groups), their generation times can be less than 20 minutes! So that's 3 generations per hour, or 72 generations *each* *day*! I hesitate to do the math, but in a couple of billiion years, that's plenty of generations, and thus opportunities, for lots of evolution.

In short, "ID" is not really intelligent, not new, not scientific, and thus not worthy of significant or serious discussion.

Answer 4

Behe is earnest in his searching but typically overlooks or omits established data when trying to convince lay people that evolution is bogus. Ironically, if you substitute freedom for evolution, this is basically what religion does in general!

While typical mutation rates are very very very low E. coli sustains an error in 1E9 replicated bases. This was not only the case. High fidelity polymerases and indeed DNA based life evolved only after ALOT of time was spent as RNA based organisms with low fidelity RNA-dependent RNA polymerases and no RNA/DNA repair systems in place. The mutation rate used to be much higher than it is today in humans.

Also, organisms possess mechanisms to specifically increase their mutation rate in times of environmental stress. The Y-family DNA polymerases are low fidelity lesion bypass polymerases that readily introduce mutation into the genome. In fact E. coli possess a response called SOS, that results in the overexpression of these Y-family polymerases in an attept to survive but doing so increases the mutation rate.

Answer 5

Well, then he isn't educated as to frequency of mutation or the need to develop complicated biological systems. There was plenty of time, and evolution continues to happen in a predicted manner.

Answer 6

Such a paradox it is. It is one thing to grow a few simple cell organisms and show them evolving . And still quite another to grow mass quantity into a more complex being.

Answer 7

Maybe that's good time for you to read Dawkins' book 'The Blind Watchmaker' to see the counter arguments. Time is not a problem.

Answer 8

Yes, what is your question?

Answer 9

3.5 billion years is not enough time????