…and this is a 
One of my favorite examples of the step-by-step evolution of molecules has been the work coming out of Joe Thornton's lab on glucocorticoid receptors. It's marvelous stuff that nails down the changes, nucleotide by nucleotide.
It's also work that Michael Behe called "piddling", despite the fact that it directly addresses the claims of irreducible complexity. Have you ever noticed how the creationists will make grand demands (show me how a duck evolved from a crocodile!) and then reject every piece of fossil evidence you might show them because there are still "gaps"? This is the converse of that argument: when you've got a system where you can show each tiny molecular/genetic change, they dismiss that as trivial. You really can't win.
Well, Thornton has been working hard and coming up with more and more details, while Behe is still sitting there, eyes clamped shut and ears stoppered, insisting that IT CAN'T HAPPEN LALALALAALALALALAAAA. Behe threw together some dreck claiming that not only didn't Thornton's work demonstrate evolution, but it actually supported Intelligent Design creationism!
Boy, did he make a mistake.
Remember how when the creationists started playing games with his work, it roused Richard Lenski to slap down Conservapædia hard? We've got a similar situation here.
Joe Thornton has written a beautiful response to Michael Behe.
Read it. Really. It's a whole lesson in important principles in evolutionary theory all by itself. It exposes the ignorance of Behe through and through, and demolishes the premises of Behe's latest foolish book. And it made me feel soooo gooooood.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 16, 2009 1:05 PM
The glaring problem for Behe, though, remains the fact that he can't explain why no evidence of design exists, and that adaptations all appear to be what non-teleological evolutionary theory predicts.
I hate for that lethal problem for his lying position to be forgotten, as his far more numerous but smaller mistakes get fisked by those who can do, and actually practice, science. Which is what he can't do with his appalling anti-science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: daveau
|
October 16, 2009 1:19 PM
I like his baseball and personal history analogies. Makes it very easy to see the flaws in Behe's arguments.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 16, 2009 1:22 PM
That was another slice and dice to a fine powder, then a gust of wind taking it away, of Behe's arguments. Nothing left but some stains.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 16, 2009 1:24 PM
I sympathize with Thornton's point about his dilemma over whether to actually bother addressing Behe or not, for fear that doing so would somehow lend credence to the viability of ID as a useful argument against evolution.
And I love his summation of the reason for deciding to address it:
Beautiful. I'm doubting we'll see Behe directly address anything from Thornton's letter, though.
Posted by: recovering catholic
|
October 16, 2009 1:33 PM
I used to think that Behe was well-intentioned but misguided, and kept expecting him to see the light soon and cross over. Obviously this is not going to happen...he just keeps making a bigger and bigger ass of himself.
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 16, 2009 1:41 PM
Its a very nice answer by Thornton but he really isn't going to have the slightest effect on the IDiots. Behe, Wells et al aren't interested in a real scientific debate. They'd have to produce real peer reviewed evidence to engage in that sort of interaction. What they are interested in doing is (literally) preaching to the converted. I guess a lot of us here have at some or other point in time tried debating biological evolution with a creationist either online or in person.
Ask yourself this.
"What effect do you think Thorntons argument would have on them?" I suspect the answer to that is "no effect whatsoever" because their knowledge of biology is far below what is required to actually understand Thorntons point.
I suppose his argument is a useful teaching moment for those not up to date with the contingency-adaptation question but as for combating creationism I think it is of limited use.
Behe and Wells have been destroyed in arguments so many times in the past all we are left with are intellectually bulletproof zombies ("send more brains").
Posted by: marcus
|
October 16, 2009 1:51 PM
I remember picking up Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" right after reading Dennett's excellent "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". "Great",I thought, "another popular book on evolution." I got about two paragraphs in before the "Wait...what? What?!" moment hit me. It started with that stupid "how did you get here" analogy with the chasm and the eroding stepping pillars (don't ask). Then the "irreducible complexity" of the flagella diatribe. The question that still comes to mind is how could someone qualified, I presume, to be called a molecular biologist be so fucking stupid?
Posted by: Zifnab
|
October 16, 2009 1:52 PM
YES. THIS.
Because, fifty years down the line, no one suffering from Parkinson's Disease or Progeria is going to look back on Behe's work and say, "Thank you, Doctor, for demonstrating that Jesus is magic and we can't explain genetics through modern science, because now I'm all better."
There is no work product in Behe's science. I confronted him with that issue when he was on the University of Texas campus, and he was happy to shrug it off. But it's the fundamental problem with his "research". It doesn't conclude anything useful. It is purposeless and meaningless.
His favorite pet project - irreducible complexity - shows what, exactly? That any base life form must be assembled by elves in Santa's Workshop? Which vaccine are you producing with this startling insight? What ecological implications do you conclude? How does that - in any way - advance the field of modern biology in the freak'n slightest!
Posted by: kopd
|
October 16, 2009 2:05 PM
Behe makes me wonder. If I understand the conspiracy correctly, scientists only advocate this evil evolution thing so they can continue to milk the rest of us for crucial research grants. Well, is Behe doing any research? Is he getting grant money for research that's either not being done, or is completely useless? I can't help but wonder if he isn't closer to that conspiracy theory view of scientists than most "real" scientists are. I'm no scientist or researcher and I don't work for a university. I'm just a layperson trying to figure out what his angle is.
Posted by: Keith M
|
October 16, 2009 2:20 PM
I'm going to be honest, I don't understand a lot of this stuff. I have some science education, but really not that much. But I'm OK with that, I recognize my limitations. I've just always felt the rational thing to do is to realize that there is a huge body of knowledge out there, and that the scientists contributing to this have devoted a good portion of their lives to learning and understanding this science and building on the work of others. I just can't understand why all these people are so adamant that because they are ignorant of something it just can't be. To really understand evolution I imagine I would have to spend years studying the field. Do these people do that? And can you reasonably expect to understand it if you start with the premise that it is all wrong?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren
|
October 16, 2009 2:23 PM
As Penn Jillette says, if there's nothing one can say to convince the fraud they're wrong, they are not credible. Period, end-of-story. Thornton's response (which is Guinness-level BRILLIANT!) will go right through Behe's empty head.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 16, 2009 2:28 PM
@ Sigmund
First, I think it's a mistake to undervalue the importance of "his argument as a useful teaching moment". If that was the only value in it, it's enough as far as I'm concerned.
And second, I think it was Thornton's very point that if his response was solely an effort at combating 'creationism' as a meme, he wouldn't have bothered. He took the time to respond directly to the factual errors and misinformation presented in Behe's post mainly in order to, as he put it, "set the record straight" and make sure there was a factual response to this misinformation for those who would wish to know... and even if that target audience is graduate-level academics it's still worth pointing out the factual errors.
Posted by: Didac
|
October 16, 2009 2:29 PM
Thornton's work is valuable well aside of the so-called "ID debate". The understanding of the detailed evolution of steroid receptors and the relationship of sequence and function, of structure and ligand responsiveness, is a key piece. Of course, the picture is incomplete without an understanding of the biosynthesis of corticoids (the diversification of glucocorticoids from mineralcorticoids, and so on).
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
October 16, 2009 2:44 PM
Yes, if you start with the premise that "it's wrong, but I want to find out exactly where the flaw lies", and if you're ready, upon finding that there is no such flaw, to actually change your opinion instead of lying to yourself.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 16, 2009 2:45 PM
Thanks, PZ, for posting this. Joe Thornton's response was a bit of a slog for me, and I had to read it three times, plus some of the related links, but I did get the gist of it, proving that a non-scientist can be educated in about an hour or less when it comes to step-by-step evolution of molecules as illustrated by glucocorticoid receptors. I particularly liked the clear explanation of neutral mutations, of changes that "float" in a population for awhile before another change affects function. Not that I'm "educated" in the field, of course, but I have an overview now that is useful. And I have a foundation to which I can add more useful information.
So, if I can get this far, what is Behe's problem?
I noticed that on the other site, Glen had posted a comment about Behe taking the stance that if he can't see how the evolution of molecules is possible, then it must be impossible. So if he doesn't understand how something works, it can't work? Therefore, Intelligent Design, and pass the buck to some form of Sky Daddy? That stinks.
It's a damned good thing most scientific fields of inquiry do not rely on my comprehending them.
Posted by: TheChemist
|
October 16, 2009 2:56 PM
Billy Bob? That I'd pay to see.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 16, 2009 2:57 PM
Jesus
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
October 16, 2009 3:36 PM
His problem is that the intelligent, well-researched and detailed answer does not appeal to his religious prejudices, and therefore (in his worldview) should be rejected.
But you really weren't asking a question, were you? ^_^
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | October 16, 2009 3:50 PM
@ Keith #10
It's the Dunning-Kruger (sp?) effect. They actually think they're good because they actually suck so badly at it. So to answer your questions: no, they don't do that, and, no, because they won't admit their premise is wrong because they think they're good at what they do.
It's a cycle really... They think they're good, but they suck so bad they can't even self-evalute to understand they suck. You can't convince them to learn more because they already think they're good. To top it off, even when you show them with test scores and such that they really do suck, they won't change their minds about how bad they are.
Until you can convince someone they suck, they aren't going to improve. Ignorance is bliss as they say. If you already think you're good, why admit you're wrong and force yourself to work to be knowledgable? It's much easier to stay ignorant and suckle at the teat that pays you to stay that way (DI and AiG).
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 16, 2009 3:51 PM
I think I see the problem. You have just as much chance of "winning" this argument as Sisyphus had of getting the rock to the top of the mountain. Not gonna happen. I'm sure everyone has heard the invidious comparison between arguing with people on the internet and participating in the special Olympics. I won't suggest that engaging in such a debate would categorize one as a Special Olympian but we'd all be better off realizing that we are engaged in coaching these benighted creationist individuals in the grand 1.5 meter dash towards true enlightenment and away from fear.
Posted by: SteveM | October 16, 2009 4:20 PM
The purpose of a (public) debate is not necessarily to convince your opponent, but to convince the audience. No, Behe will never be swayed, but it is necessary that his opinion not go unopposed and unaswered.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
October 16, 2009 4:22 PM
As Penn Jillette says, if there's nothing one can say to convince the fraud they're wrong, they are not credible. - Paul Lundgren
Pity the glibertarian fuckwit doesn't apply this logic to the AGW-denialists.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 16, 2009 4:26 PM
I'm sure Behe also gets paid quite well for his lack of contributions to science. It is not in his interests to learn, he only needs to be smarter in science than his fellow believers.
His world is cosy and pleasant, he can ignore/misinterpret anything and will be believed.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
October 16, 2009 4:41 PM
So, if I can get this far, what is Behe's problem?
Jesus.
And needing to support nine kids.
Posted by: Paul | October 16, 2009 4:50 PM
He doesn't have one. It's just that if he doesn't admit he's wrong, and tells good Christian kids what they want to hear, there's money and influence to be had. I mean honestly, this is the guy who insists it's impossible to write a non-locking genetic algorithm to randomly arrive at the sentence "methinks it is a weasel" even though it would take him 20 minutes to write code to test it. He's not trying to understand, he's trying to obfuscate to where a subset of the population (mostly impressionable people lacking critical-thinking abilities) will take him seriously and buy the persecution complex to keep from actually trying to learn for themselves if he's right or wrong.
Posted by: mythusmage
|
October 16, 2009 6:53 PM
Professor Thornton isn't really addressing people like Behe, except in the sense that sometimes there is hope for the hopeless. No, Thornton does it more for those who don't know all that much on the subject, but show a willingness to learn. We address ignorance on behalf of the unlearned in the hopes it can lead them to knowledge and insight. And to keep Behe and his kind from dominating the discourse.
So when a biologist addresses evolution he's more addressing his remarks to the general public, in the hopes his knowledge can counter the malevolent ignorance of the creationist.
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 16, 2009 7:04 PM
Beautiful logic, beautiful writing.
I understood things I'd only half-grasped before, and will never forget now.
Posted by: BlindWatcher | October 16, 2009 7:22 PM
I'd also like to mention Keith Miller's book "Only a Theory" which thoroughly demolishes ID while quoting "BoneHead" (Behe) and "Dumbski" (Dembski).
It's beautifully written and starts by "taking it seriously". It uses points that have been mentioned in the comments already and has pictures!
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 16, 2009 7:23 PM
mythusmage #26
I hadn't read your post when I posted #27, but maybe my comments show how you hit the nail right on the head there.
Posted by: BlindWatcher | October 16, 2009 7:25 PM
I meant Kenneth Miller not "Keith"
Posted by: Zmidponk | October 16, 2009 7:58 PM
You know, that is the most beautifully written bitch-slap I have ever seen, yet it still connected solidly enough that I heard it over here, on the opposite side of the Atlantic.
Well done, that man.
Posted by: maddogdelta | October 17, 2009 6:25 PM
@zifnab "There is no work product in Behe's science."
Actually, I will go one step further. Has Behe done any science since the 1990's? A very rapid (in other words, not at all thorough) search for papers with Behe as the author doesn't bring up any publications since the 90's. There are some letters to the editor, but that hardly counts as published research.
Now, I am fully aware that there is a value to a "teaching professor" on a college campus who may not perform research, but instead concentrates on teaching (my father was one of those, and I went to a college where there were plenty of teachers as opposed to researchers). I am not using this to impugn Dr. Behe's potential contributions, but rather his standing as a critic.
If he performs no research, who is he to criticize published researchers? He places himself as the anonymous critic, harping about those in the arena...
If he does perform research, is it in relevant fields to what he is criticizing? And if that is the case, why doesn't he simply perform research to disprove his rivals claims? That is, after all, how science works.
Posted by: eyespy | October 19, 2009 2:16 AM
Just my usual friendly reminder that Behe teaches at Lehigh University.
Parents and prospective students take heed.
It is indicative of the quality of education in the rest of the university.
Friends don't let friends go to Lehigh.