I don’t understand what you write. In Behe´s comclusion (10 lines above) he says that his findings are a part of the myriads facets of evolution. In the Discovery/Luskin article the conclusion (just above) says that something else than evolution is needed. The statements are contradictory.DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:14 amI have no problem with the rest of the conclusion that you quote.Nils wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:47 amI have no problem with Bele’s article. But I have a problem with your interpretation. Why do you leave out the rest of the conclusion:DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:37 amFor me the strongest arguments against the adequacy of Darwinistic Evolution come from 40 years of experimentation demonstrating what random mutation and natural selection can and cannot do at the molecular level.
In 2010 Michael Behe wrote an interesting paper for The Quarterly Review of Biology titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d ... 1536717721
From the Abstract of the ArticleFrom the ConclusionAdaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of
basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under
particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to
examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether
a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that
was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it
feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular
emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades.
I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss
or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the
prominence of such mutations.FCTs as defined by Behe are:Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing
modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.In this review, I focus on adaptive evolution by gain, loss, or modification of what I term Functional Coded elemenTs (FCTs). An FCT is a discrete but not necessarily contiguous region of a gene that, by means of its nucleotide sequence, influences the production, processing, or biological activity of a particular nucleic acid or protein, or its specific binding to another molecule.
A high level overview of Behe's article can be found here:
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/micha ... ule_of_ad/
Here are a couple of key points” In essence, what Behe means is that mutations that cause loss-of-FCT are going to be far more likely and thus far more common than those which gain a functional coding element. In fact, he writes: “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.”The bottom line is forty years of evolutionary experiments have demonstrated that at the molecular level, the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are incapable of producing either the complexity and structure that we find in the DNA of life today or the changes that we find in the fossil record.In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs.
“In retrospect, this conclusion is readily understandable from our knowledge of the structure of genetic systems, and is concisely summarized by the first rule of adaptive evolution. Evolution has myriad facets, and this one is worthy of some notice.” [italics added by me]
And nothing in your quote conflicts with the conclusion:
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."
Perhaps the Discovery Institute article accurately represents Behe’s position, but it doesn’t represent the contents of Behe’s article in The Quarterly Rewiev.DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:14 amI quote a Discovery Institute article, because Michael Behe (the author of the The Quarterly Review of Biology article in question) is a member of the Discovery Institute.Why do you cite a Discovery Institute article that misinterprets the article (without mentioning the source, Discovery Institute, which is the headquarter of the Intelligent Design movement).
If what you say is a generally accepted opinion then the problem for evolution would be widely described and analysed in hundreds of scientific articles and in current books on evolution and I don’t find anything about it in Wikipedia for instance. Do you?
And the Discovery Institute article accurately represents the position of the author, Michael Behe.
You didn’t answer my question about Wikipedia.