Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,14:36) |
Again, that quote is true, Dave. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. Speculation is one thing, facts are a completely different matter.
Edit: You might also note that he is speaking of the present... he's making no claims about what may be discovered in the future. |
Let me get this straight. You are asserting that Behe's statement | Quote | | There is no experimental evidence to show that natural selection could have produced the immune system. |
is true.
Have you read that list of papers? Did you even look at Nick's bibliography? If so, did you see this other Behe quote - ""There is no publication in the scientific literature -- in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books -- that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred." (Darwin's Black Box, p. 185)"? (my bolding)
Do you want me to drag up one, or a dozen, of those papers and show how they all contain "experimental evidence" that shows how natural selection "could have" or 'even might have" produced the immune system? How about this one? | Quote | Agrawal, A., Eastman, Q. M. and Schatz, D. G. (1998). "Transposition mediated by RAG1 and RAG2 and its implications for the evolution of the immune system." Nature 394(6695): 744-751.
This study reports a major research finding that supported the transposon hypothesis for the origin of adaptive immunity. The authors found that the rearrangment-activating genes, RAG1+RAG2, could still perform both the excision and the insertion reactions, just like a free-living transposon.
Figure 7 is a nice color graphic of the transposon hypothesis.
"Our results are evidence in favour of the theory that a vital event in the evolution of the antigen-specific immune system was the insertion of a 'RAG transposon' into the germ line of a vertebrate ancestor14,41." (p. 750) |
Do you recall, just a few posts ago, you wrote this, re those papers that Behe ignored" | Quote | | We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information. |
Do you want me to post some more evidence like that? Do you understand that Behe himself, in that statement UNDER OATH, said that even these "could have" speculations are unsupported by experimental evidence? When these papers are chock full of evidence and "could have" statements?
And finally, do you understand the ramification that, when Behe repeatedly says something that is demonstrably false, he might be lying about that, or about his qualifications to discuss it?
What part of that is still unclear to you?
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
