Joined: July 2011
Barry "Free Speech" Arrington flails at science:
|Hypothesis: CSI and IC have never been directly observed to have arisen though chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two.|
Shockingly, Barry fails to define his terms or to show how one might calculate CSI for a real biological artifact. I'm sure he'll rectify that oversight real soon now. Even without that pathetic level of detail, his hypothesis is readily rejected based on the 2006 Science paper
Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation by Bridgham, Carroll, and Thornton. This is summarized in a press release for anyone who can't download the full paper.
And yes, I saw Barry's weasel words "directly observed." He needs to learn that scientists are more concerned with correspondence with reality than are lawyers.