Select Page
There is an old joke that goes like this: Question: When does "damaging" not mean "damaging"? Answer: When a peer-reviewed paper in a top scientific journal says over 40 times that mutations are predicted to be "damaging," but then an ID guy comes along and cites the paper to suggest the mutations are probably damaging. Actually that's not an old joke, but maybe someday it will be. Anyway, it perfectly describes what is going on right now with critics of Michael Behe and his argument about mutations in polar bear genes. In Darwin Devolves, Behe cites a paper in the journal Cell, Liu et al. (2014). He does so as evidence that the adaptive mutations in the polar bear gene APOB were "very likely to be damaging - that is, likely to degrade or destroy the function of the protein" (pp. 16-17). Two ID critics, biologists Nathan Lents and Arthur Hunt, object that Behe is wrong because only "some" but "[d]efinitely not all of them or even most of" the mutations in the gene were probably...