RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:17   

Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip.

The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency).

According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.  

You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary.

To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim.

The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works.

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]