The Edge of Evolution - Responses and Scientific Criticism

Responses and Scientific Criticism

Behe has replied to some of his critics on his blog at Amazon.com. Behe's critics have suggested that these responses have sidestepped scientific criticisms and have on one occasion employed sexist ad hominem attacks.

In response to criticism by Abbie Smith and Ian Musgrave, Behe agreed that his claim that HIV had evolved no new protein binding sites was incorrect and that at least one such binding site had evolved on the Vpu viroporin protein but Behe argued that the mistake did not alter the validity of his argument.

On The Panda's Thumb blog Ian Musgrave has stated that the book's "core concept ... that protein–protein binding sites are extremely unlikely to have developed by natural means" is undermined by a recent Science article whose authors were "able to produce strong protein–protein binding in many cases with a single mutation." Musgrave concludes:

Behe greatly overestimates the difficulty of developing a binding site, ignores the fact that the majority of 10,000 binding sites in modern vertebrates are duplicate copies of each other, with there being only a much smaller number of basic binding motifs and ignores the fact that most of these basic binding motifs were developed in rapidly dividing single celled organisms with very large populations.

Far from protein–protein binding pointing to an unknown designer, protein binding sites point directly to descent with modification and the "tinkering" of natural selection.

While the book has had some positive reviews from creationists and non-biologists, reviews by certain scientists, especially those working in the field of biology, have been highly critical of Behe's methods, information and conclusions in the book.