avocationist
Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
CJ,
| Quote | | . Having identified the TTSS as a possible precursor is all that need be done to put the supposed example of an IC system to bed. Because the IC argument demands that there be no such identifiable possible precursor. It's the logic of this argument that leads to Behe's goalpost shifting around the whole issue of the flagellum. |
As your response and the rest here indicate, I wasted my time. This is actually beyond astonishing. I am at a mad tea party here. Behe has not moved the goalposts - he has no need to. No one can account even in a plausible way for how a system like the flagellum can have evolved. I mean, did you even read what I wrote? In what way does coming up with 10 out of 40 proteins help? In what way does it put the sytem to bed if the Type 3 system devolved from the flagellum?
Russell,
I checked my library and unfortunately, they don't have the book. But I can probably go to the bookstore and have a look. If Spetner screwed up as you say he did, then I will write to him as I said I would.
Oh, you asked so hard for reasons why I am an IDer, but now you haven't the time.
Puck,
I failed to see how any of your points had anything to do with anything that I wrote about the flagellum papers.
GCT,
I know nothing of what Dembski may or may not say about his religious beliefs. If I see it in context, I might have an opinion. I think science may prove to be consonent with God, but not with particular dogma or religion. If he privately thinks so and says so to a religious group, then that's his business. But as with all people, it is very hard to allow truth to be what it will be, if one has inner desires.
| Quote | It [evidence for evolution] looks like projection to me...
Only because you have a priori commitments to your god. |
You have twisted this. The projection had nothing to do with evidence, it was about your assessment of the behaviors of the ID crowd that I called projection. Such as being impervious to evidence.
| Quote | | Which is why evidence is required. The fact that you and your side can produce none vs. the fact that evolution has over a hundred years of accumulated evidence and peer-reviewed journal articles is a telling point here. |
Well, you must realize that the evidence you speak of is the same evidence that IDists are aware of, and it is no doubt why most of them accept evolution as a slow unfolding of life and one or a few common ancestors (some of them?) but they do not agree with all the interpretations of said evidence.
| Quote | | Do you think that one person's ego (or even a group of people) is what makes our genetic makeup so similar to that of apes? |
I don't get what you're saying here.
I do not agree that paleontology verifies gradualism. But as for geology, I can only say that I never have thought all animals arrived at once or quickly. As Davison said over at his blog, it is the mechanism I have doubted.
|
