evolution

This is the first of five posts in which I reply to Professor Ian Musgrave’s “Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe” on the Panda’s Thumb blog. Musgrave: Dear Dr. Behe I have recently read your response to Abbie Smith’s article on the HIV-1 protein VPU. Ms Smith showed how Vpu’s recently evolved viroporin activity directly contradicts your statement that HIV has evolved no new biding sites since it entered humans (Edge of Evolution, page 143 and figure 7.4, page 144 ). I was greatly disappointed in your response. I must admit to having a special involvement in this case. Firstly, I drew the illustrations for Ms Smith’s article, and its follow up. But secondly, as a member of my professional Read More ›

Dear Readers, Usually I use this space to address reviews of The Edge of Evolution that have appeared in print in journals, newspapers, or magazines. The reason is that usually print media recruit leading figures in evolutionary biology to write a review, and so those reviews represent the thoughts of some of the best minds in the field. Examining their thoughts, then, can quickly give us a good understanding of whether there are ready answers to the challenges and arguments posed by The Edge. After all, if reviews by the likes of Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne fail to engage the arguments of the book, and instead rely mainly on bluster and non sequiturs, then that’s solid evidence that no good replies exist. Read More ›

Dear Readers, The latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE) carries a tediously disdainful review (1) of The Edge which revisits the blunders of previous reviews while adding new ones. This is the third of a three part series concerning the review. At the end of his essay our reviewer suddenly reveals his skill at mind reading: “It is clear that Behe is driven not by a truly scientific investigation, but instead metaphysics.” And this: “He is obsessed with ‘randomness,’ which he incorrigibly associates with ‘Darwinism’ and cosmic purposelessness.” Now, wait a darn second. Wasn’t it Darwin himself, we are constantly assured, who based his theory on “random” variation? So it’s “incorrigible” to associate with Darwin’s theory something which Darwin Read More ›

Dear Readers, The latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE) carries a tediously disdainful review (1) of The Edge which revisits the blunders of previous reviews while adding new ones. This is the second of a three part series concerning the review. Like other Darwinian reviewers, the one for TREE questions the number I specify of 1 in 1020 for the origin of chloroquine resistance, citing a recent interesting paper on the development of CQR in India, which showed different strains of malaria with various numbers of mutations in their pfcrt genes. (4) Yet such field studies, while very valuable, can be fraught with uncertainty. For example, another recent paper (cited by the first) on CQR in Cambodia (5) reported data showing that the Read More ›

Dear Readers, The latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE) carries a tediously disdainful review (1) of The Edge of Evolution which revisits the blunders of previous reviews while adding new ones. This is the first of a three part series concerning the review. (References will be attached to the third part.) Like almost all reviews by Darwinists, this one begins with a genuflection to the Dover trial, where a former-head-of-the-Pennsylvania-Liquor-Control-Boa rd-appointed-judge, showing no evidence he actually understood the academic arguments of either side, copied almost word for word the document handed to him at the end of the trial by the lawyers for the complainant. This was his “decision.” For signing off on a document castigating intelligent design the apparently Read More ›

Dear Readers, Yesterday I responded to Jerry Coyne’s review of my new book, The Edge of Evolution.  Today it’s Sean Carroll’s turn. Sean Carroll in Science Almost the same day that The Edge of Evolution was officially released Sciencepublished a long, lead review by evolutionary developmental biologist Sean Carroll, whose own work I discuss critically in Chapter 9. The review is three parts bluster to one part substance, which at least is more substance than Jerry Coyne’s essay. Here I’ll ignore the bluster and deal with the substantive points. Carroll first covers his rhetorical bases by warning readers that “Unfortunately, [Behe’s] errors are of a technical nature and will be difficult for lay readers, and even some scientists (those unfamiliar with molecular biology and evolutionary Read More ›