didymos
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008
|
| Quote (Henry J @ July 06 2010,10:22) | | Quote | I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue. I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.
thoughts? |
I recall somebody pointing out that IC (at least as it was first defined) is predicted by evolution, and so was not an argument against it in the first place. |
From Muller's 1918 paper (1918! That Behe, I tells ya: cutting edge, man. Cut-ting edge):
| Quote | | Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system” that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system. |
He then mentions all this had actually first occurred to him back in 1912. What's interesting is that you can tell that, despite the formal language, he found it rather frustrating that he couldn't really test the idea properly (or, really, at all) at that time, and that even in 1918 it was still a pain in the ass to perform the kind of experiments he wanted to. Oh, and, he was still at it in 19-fucking-38! It's a review, but still: he was actually actively pursuing the idea.
Then you have Behetard, with resources Muller probably would have killed for, who often can't even be bothered to look shit up on the google, much less read actual scientific papers, much, much, much, much less be bothered to do an experiment. Fuck that noise! Man's got books to sell, baby. And stupid hats to buy:
--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio
|
