David Ussery quotes Michael Behe:
However, Behe goes on to claim that there are “absolutely no studies’ to document a molecular basis for the “coherent development of a single trait in a Darwinian arms race.” But this is highly erroneous .
The following is a more complete quote from The Edge of Evolution, page 42, in which Behe challenges Richard Dawkins’s “just so” stories of “arms race” development. You can see that Ussery cobbles together two phrases from two different paragraphs, which seriously misrepresents what Behe is saying:
. . . The descendants of a slightly faster gazelle might go on to develop slightly better camouflage or slightly different feeding strategies or to slightly change any of innumerable other traits, eliminating the need for speed. If that were the case, gazelles would not keep getting faster. They would change over time in myriad, disjointed, jumbled ways. There is no reason to expect the coherent development of a single trait in a Darwinian arms race.
You may be wondering whom to believe at this point, since I am just countering Dawkins’s suppositions with my own. But consider this. Although there have been some studies showing modest arms races with smaller animals—ants, other invertebrates, and microorganisms—there have been absolutely no studies that document that large animals change in the way Dawkins supposes.
The biggest problem with the misquote is that it does not convey the overall point that Behe is presenting: the metaphor of “trench warfare” is better than the metaphor of an “arms race” to describe what we know about how random mutation and natural selection work.