Beheの新刊本にツッコミを入れるSA SmithとMichael Ruse

Nick Matzkeによれば、Beheの新刊「The Edge of Evolution」にSA Smithがとってもよいツッコミをしている。

簡単に見ておくと、Mark Chu-Carroll: "Behe's Dreadful New Book: A Review of The Edge of Evolution" (2007/05/31) on Good Math, Bad Mathをまとめ直す形で、Beheの前提を整理した

The basic argument in this chapter is the good old "fitness landscape" argument. And Behe makes the classic mistakes. His entire argument really comes down to the following points:

  1. Evolution can be modeled in terms of a static, unchanging fitness landscape.
    進化は、モデル化されることができます 静的、変わらないフィットネス景色。
  2. The fitness landscape is a smooth, surface made up of hills and valleys, where a local minimum or maximum in any dimension is a local minimum or maximum in all dimensions.

  3. The fitness function mapping from a genome to a point of the fitness landscape is monotonically increasing.

  4. The fitness function is smoothly continuous, with infinitessimally small changes (single-point base chanages) mapping to infinitessimally small changes in position on the fitness landscape.

  1. Fitness landscapes are never static. At least I cant think of a scenario where that would happen. Ever. Someone give an example if you can think of one.

  2. A peak in one dimension can be a valley in another dimension. This is clearly demonstrated in HIV, where drug resistant viruses obviously have a fitness cost. When you take the patient off the drug, drug resistant HIV is rapidly overtaken by wild-type viruses.

  3. What is it with Creationists and things always getting 'better'. Right now Im trying to determine if fitness increases/decreases/randomly changes over time in long-term drug naiive HIV patients. For all I know, HIV viruses are decreasing in fitness over time, but increasing in transmissibility. Things dont always go in one direction!

  4. Dumb, dumb, dumb. One/Two/Three base-pair changes in HIV can tank a sequence from the top of a peak in one dimension (replicative capacity) to the bottom of that dimension, and pop you to the top of the quasispecies in another dimension (drug resistance). One mutation doesnt equal a little better, another mutation equals a little better, another mutation, etc etc etc.

[SA Smith:"Good Virus, Bad Creationist" (2007/05/31) on ERV]

さらに、Nick Matzkeによれば、自他ともに認めるインテリジェントデザイン批判者である、Florida State Universityで哲学を教えているMichael Ruseが、新聞でコメントしている。
For 10 years, regular biologists have been taking Behe's claims apart. Again and again, it has been argued with massive detail that Behe's supposed examples of irreducible complexity are nothing like as irreducible as he claims. Something like blood clotting, for instance, can be explained as the result of very ordinary evolutionary processes.



I am afraid, though, that The Edge of Evolution is a bit of a sad sack. Nothing very much new, old arguments repeated, opposition ignored or dismissed without argument. What does surprise me is how emphatic Behe now is in putting a distance between himself and the older Creationists. For a start, he stresses his commitment to evolution. He thinks the world of life is as old as is claimed by any more conventional biologist. He also wants to give natural processes of change a role in life's history.

しかし、私はBeheの"The Edge of Evolution"がちょっとおバカだと思う。ちっとも新しいネタはなく、古い論の繰り返しで、何も論じないで批判を無視している。とっても驚くのは、Beheがかつての創造論者たちと徹底して距離を置いていること。まずはじめにBeheは進化論への関与を強調する。Beheは従来の生物学者たちの主張どおり生命の世界が古いと考えている。Beheはさらに、生命の歴史における[超自然ではなく]自然の過程に役割を与えようとしている。
[Michael Ruse: "Design? Maybe. Intelligent? We have our doubts" ("2007/06/02) on the globeandmail]
どうも、真剣にBeheに新ネタはないようだ。Michael Ruseは、Michael Beheが創造論から距離を置こうとしていることを驚きと表現しているが、これは違うかも。

PZ Myers准教授によれば、インテリジェントデザインの次の名前は"evolution"なのである。ネタはなくとも、Beheは新たなる創造論として"evolution"を提示しようとしている...のかもしれない。

posted by Kumicit at 2007/06/08 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Skeptic | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]