
© Annie Spratt on Unsplash
After Nathan Lents and Arthur Hunt
published their objections to Michael Behe on damaging mutations in polar bear genes, Jerry Coyne wrote his own
blog post promoting their arguments, stating:
But when you examine the paper supposedly supporting Behe's claim, you find, argue Lents and Hunt, that about half of them don't seem to have any damaging mutations, and that perhaps "none of the 17 most positively selected genes in polar bears are 'damaged'."
After replying to
two objections from Lents and Hunt, we now know it's quite a stretch for Coyne, Lents, or Hunt to suggest that "none" of the polar bear genes may have been damaged, especially when Behe's authority,
Liu et al. (2014), concluded that "a large proportion (ca. 50%) of mutations were predicted to be functionally damaging," and given that Lents and Hunt themselves
admitted at least seven genes were "unequivocally predicted to possess at least one 'damaging' mutation."Behe also wrote his own
rebuttal to Coyne, Lents, and Hunt where he provided the data that he relied upon in
Darwin Devolves to conclude that 14 out of the 17 genes had experienced mutations that were probably damaging. Behe listed all of the mutations in
Table S7 of Liu et al. (2014) that were predicted to be damaging, as well as the genes they occurred in, and stated, "Below is the relevant information from Liu et al.'s Table S7. Those who can understand the table will see that it supports every actual, undistorted claim I made about the polar bear." However, Behe did not print Table S7 in its entirety; he only printed the data needed to respond to the question at hand and show those 14 genes experienced degradative mutations. He did, though, link to the full article so people could view the entire table.
Comment: