Michael Behe and the Common Ancestor (Repeated Deception Revealed the Most Important Theorists of Intelligent Design)

Michael Behe and the Common Ancestor (Repeated Deception Revealed the Most Important Theorists of Intelligent Design) A book of about 300 pages containing scientific opposition and heavy criticism of one of the theories, how will the proponents of that theory behave towards him? No! They will cut out only three words inside: “The common regression is real” and then claim that it does not contradict the origin of the theory, but rather opposes some of the details! What kind of trampling are you guys doing? Dr. Michael Behe in The Edge of Evolution states: "The bottom line is; co-regression is a fact, but although the explanation of co-regression – even co-regression of man and chimpanzees – is appealing, but profoundly; trivial". What if we did like you, gentlemen, and put a picture of Michael Behe and put it next to her that just says about the common regression that it is trivial?! What would you call that? Anyway, we'll tell the whole story, to whoever just wants his mind to work... First: What is the validity of Behe's statement in the common regression in general? To answer this question, we must first know that, in theory, the idea of intelligent design does not contradict the idea of the common regression of all living things on Earth from a common ancestor. “The main issue is not the affinity of all living things... The main issue is how did the biological complexity arise, and whether intelligence played a central role in its emergence and why does it exist? The fossil record is full of interruptions and cannot provide us with transitional forms, the science of evolution of molecular strains is full of methodological problems and self-interventions and then the most it can give us is the suggestion of hypothetical ancestors, the genes of living organisms are full of orphan genes (which are unlike none of the supposed ancestral genes), and the genetic codes of living organisms cannot be traced back to a single source.2 And Michael Behe is fully aware of these things, and admits that he does not find a solution to these problems, but he believes that the assumption of the existence of the intelligent designer ends the obstacles that stand in the way of accepting the hypothesis, because the differences between the supposed sons and the supposed ancestors, it is easy to explain their existence if we accept the existence of the intelligent designer, Behe says: “I don’t have solutions to the difficult problems posed by scientists who are skeptical of the common ancestor hypothesis; ORFan genes, nonstandard genetic codes, the different ways of embryogenesis between identical organisms, etc., may, of course, be less problematic if we talk about an intelligently designed ancestor rather than a Darwinian evolutionary ancestor. So, judging by the probability of co-regression, I overlook the problems that might be called "how did that come to be here?" and give more weight to the arguments for genetic "errors" and "non-functional properties." If I find a peculiar property common to two species, and we are able to say, as far as we know, that it has no function...then I see this as strong evidence for co-regression."3 The destructive problems of the common ancestor idea in Darwinian perception are not present in the assumption of the common ancestor, because of the existence of intelligent design. More clearly, there are things in life that are likely to be inherited from an ancient ancestor, and there are new things. But, the evidence behind Behe’s argument for the validity of co-regression is the pseudogenes, which, as far as we know, have no function. In fact, no. In a 2003 letter to Nature magazine, Behe wrote: "If at least some false genes have undoubted functions, isn't it possible that other biological properties we see as peculiar have functions we haven't discovered yet? ... The risk of negative arguments is that they may be based on lack of knowledge rather than positive results."(4) The problem is not only logical, but also inductive: there is mounting evidence of pseudogenetic functions, prompting a group of researchers, in a 2012 paper, to make this strong statement: "We believe that many, many functional pseudogenes will be discovered as biological techniques are developed in the future...It is certain that so-called pseudogenes are indeed functional, and that they should not continue to be considered junk or DNA fossils."[5] When we contacted Behe during the preparation of this book (October 28, 2018), and asked him if his position on the issue of false genes changed after the exit of such papers, he replied: "That although a number of false genes have been discovered to have functions, many of them have not yet been discovered to have functions, so I'll wait and see. If most of them prove to have a function, then they will no longer be good evidence of co-regression." Although the basic logical argument is weak from our point of view, and convinced of the idea, it is quite open to changing its mind in the light of recent evidence. Even in the matter in which it is wrong, it is better and higher than the evolutionary demographers, who see the common ancestor as real because it is real. Second, what is the validity of Behe's statement about the common regression of humans and chimpanzees? Michael Behe says of the beta-globin gene: "The same errors in the same gene and in the same locations in both human and chimpanzee DNA. If a common ancestor is first exposed to mutational errors and then leads to these two modern species, this very easily explains why both species have these errors. It is hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans." Here we must highlight a central point: is the lesson of what Michael Behe says? Do we, when we publish one of his books, invoke his statements because they are his? Or do we agree with his findings and see the validity of his evidence? In this matter, Behe's evidence is neither logically correct, nor scientifically correct. Logically, this hypothesis obviously lacks observational or experimental evidence. Only a faulty gene in humans and a similarly malfunctioning gene in chimpanzees has been proven, but this does not prove that we found the supposed ancestor in which the gene was a factor and then malfunctioned! Why not say that there are two separate human and chimpanzee ancestors going through the same environmental conditions that caused the gene to lose its function in each? Why is this assumption less likely? Scientifically, in a recent paper in 2013 – the book Edge of Evolution published in 2007 – a group of researchers examined copies of the beta-globin sequence genes, including the pseudogene called HBBP1, from 1092 humans from 14 populations around the world, and also studied copies of the same genes in chimpanzees. When they compared all those copies of the genes, they found that the genes, including the pseudogene, had fewer differences than could be predicted. "Recent findings suggest that HBD and HBBP1 may be involved in chromatin ring-holding in the human beta-globin cluster, a pivotal mechanism for temporal coordination of the gene expression process." However, as has been pointed out before, Behe does not give much weight to the matter, and he actually sees the thing as trivial, whether humans and chimpanzees proved to be descended from a common ancestor or not, in the end he sees the decline intelligently designed design, in the sense that humans resulted from design, and chimpanzees resulted from design, and their predecessor resulted from design, and therefore the size of the difference is huge between humans and chimpanzees Third, does Michael Behe see that man arose gradually from the wombs of animals? Only those who deliberately misunderstand or lie to a man, Michael Behe's fundamental contribution to this debate, say, is the concept of irreducible complexity, meaning someone who sees that the rotary motor of the bacterial whip cannot be created by gradualism, isn't he ashamed of being ascribed to the idea that the human mind was created by gradualism? According to Behe, wherever irreducibly complex systems exist, the concept of gradualism falls, and according to Behe too, the least of those systems are the molecular machines within the cell, the highest of which is the human mind. So how can a sane person doubt for a moment that the meaning of a man’s words can come from the animal’s womb? Above all, put Behe's statement in his article "A Catholic World Examines Darwinism" about the opinions that talk about the emergence of man in Darwinist ways: "If such speculative views directly or indirectly contradict God's inspired belief, then the demand for their recognition is by no means acceptable." (1) William Dembski and Michael Ruse, Debating Design, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p323. In the second chapter of Jonathan Wells's book, "Zombie Science," details are more detailed, and there is no room for detail here. (3) Interview with Michael Behe on The Edge of Evolution, Discovery Institute, June 18, 2007, http://www.discovery.org/a/4097, Last accessed: 24/1/2019. (4) Michael Behe, A Functional Pseudogene?: An Open Letter to Nature, May 13, 2003 http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene052003.htm, Last accessed: 24/1/2019. (5) Wen YZ, Zheng LL, Qu LH, Ayala FJ, Lun ZR. Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more. RNA Biol. 2012 Jan;9(1):27-32. doi: 10.4161/rna.9.1.18277. Epub 2012 Jan 1. PubMed PMID: 22258143. (6) Ana Moleirinho, Susana Seixas, Alexandra M. Lopes, Celeste Bento, Maria J. Prata, and Antonio Amorim, “Evolutionary Constraints in the β-Globin Cluster: The Signature of Purifying Selection at the δ-Globin (HBD) Locus and Its Role in Developmental Gene Regulation,” Genome Biology and Evolution, Vol. 5(3): 559-571 (2013). (7) Michael J. Behe, A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism, in William A. Dembski (Editor), Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, ISI Books (July 9, 2004), p.149. - Management of the Brahin Center — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-07-07 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/مايكل-بيهي-والسلف-المشترك-كشف-التدليس-المتكرر-عن-أهم-منظري-التصميم-الذكي