From Newsgroup: talk.origins
On 8/3/2026 2:52 PM, RonO wrote:
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/08/mighty-darwin-has-struck-out- thirty-years-of-darwins-black-box/
It's been 30 years since Behe published Darwin's Black Box and the book
has been demonstrated to be totally worthless.-a Nothing in the Book
about the need for an intelligent designer has been verified.-a Zero
impact on the science of evolutionary biology.-a This is what the ID
perps have to lie about.-a The bait and switch had to go down because of
the failure of all the IDiotic claims that the ID perps started with in
the mid 1990's.-a If there hadn't been complete failure they would have likely met their Wedge goals of having the ID scam junk taught in the
public schools of 10 states by 2003.
They are also claiming that their "shy revolution" took down Darwin, but that never happened.-a ID was found to be no science worth teaching in
the public schools in Kitzmiller so how could they have succeeded in
doing any such thing?
https://scienceandculture.com/2026/08/irreducible-behe-the-shy- revolutionary-who-took-down-darwin/
It should be noted that Behe was never able to demonstrate that his type
of IC systems exist in nature.-a Behe admitted at the turn of the century (over 25 years ago) that IC systems could evolve, but that his type of
IC systems could not evolve.-a IC was dead at that time, but the ID perps kept scamming the rubes with the junk.-a Behe has never been able to demonstrate that his type of IC systems exist (the type of IC systems
that could not have evolved by natural mechanisms).-a He came up with his
3 neutral mutations having to have occurred within a specific amount of
time in a cell lineage to evolve a new function, but he never looked for those 3 neutral mutations in his IC systems, and no such examples have
ever been documented to have had to occur to evolve any new function. By Kitzmiller Behe had been reduced to admitting that he had no evidence
that his type of IC system existed, but that as long as there was no
step by step path for the evolution of his systems understood by
science, that there was still a chance that his ID scam IC systems were
his type of IC that could not evolve by natural mechanisms. That
admission should have been the end of IC's usefulness as bait, but bait
is all that it is still being used for at this time.
The ID scam has amounted to nothing in the over 30 years that the ID
scam unit at the Discovery Institute has existed.-a Zero validation and
no positive science demonstrating the existence of their type of design
in nature has ever been produced by the ID perps.-a Behe has even claimed that whale evolution could have happened by Darwinian mechanisms because
his designer would not have had to create whales by breaking genes that
had been functional in their terrestrial mammalian ancestors (it was bad design).-a Behe really did claim that whale evolution was just the type
of evolution that would be possible by Darwinian mechanism.-a He
denigrated it as being devolution, but that doesn't change the fact that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals.-a Why don't they admit to that
Behe foible in the article?
Ron Okimoto
https://scienceandculture.com/2019/10/darwin-devolves-evidence-keeps-rolling-in/
Behe was hawking his book "Darwin Devolves" and he shoots intelligent
design in the head by claiming that whale evolution occurred by
Darwinian mechanisms. He cites a paper where the authors note that they identified 85 genes that had been functional in the terrestrial
ancestors of whales, but cetaceans lost those genes. They could be
found as broken genes still where they were supposed to be in the
genome, but they had suffered deleterious mutations as part of the
evolution of whales. The authors had noted some adaptive benefits to
loosing some of those genes. These gene loss adaptations had occurred
over a long period of time during the evolution of whales from their
land mammal ancestors.
QUOTE:
2) As I explain in Darwin Devolves, adaptation by breaking or blunting
genes is expected to be very much faster than constructive evolution, so
it should dominate all evolutionary time scales. As the current paper
helps to show, the evidence for that is growing. Not only is devolution
the dominant mode in microevolution we observe in real time in lab
experiments today, but also in the macroevolutionary change that we
infer from genome sequences over geological ages rCo punctuated by bursts
of new information.
END QUOTE:
Behe does clearly claim that the evidence exists that Darwinian
mechanisms have been working not only as in the scam "microevolution" creationists claims, but it has been documented to be occurring over geological ages at a macro scale. He is claiming that whales evolved by Darwinian mechanisms, and all the scam artists want the rubes to take
home as the message is that it is a bad type of evolution. Behe calls
it devolution.
Nyikos and Glenn once claimed that I was lying about Behe making this
claim, but all I had to do was put up this evolution news article and
Glenn ran as Glenn usually did, but Nyikos eventually agreed that Behe
had made the claim that Darwinian mechanisms had been documented to have
had occurred over geological ages. Behe is really claiming that his devolution is not limited to recent microevolutionary changes, but that devolution has been occurring for a very long period of time and worked
during the evolution of whales from their terrestrial mammalian ancestors.
Behe has always thrown the ID scam under the bus. The other ID perps basically only pull Behe out of the closet when they want to impress the
rubes with their idiot savant, and after the performance they push him
back into the closet. Behe's 3 neutral mutation claim can only be
verified by using molecular phylogeny and deducing the ancestral
sequence and then determining what had to occur in order for that
sequence to have evolved the new function. If biological evolution is
not a fact of nature, Behe would never be able to demonstrate that his 3 neutral mutations had ever been required during the evolution of any of
his IC systems. This is likely the main reason why Behe has never
looked for his 3 neutral mutations in any of his IC systems. No matter
what he finds anti-evolution Biblical creationism loses.
Ron Okimoto
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2