Joined: July 2006
Behe's FCT stuff has also had plenty of poking elsewhere:
|What he’s saying is this: “Yes, gain of FCTs could, and likely is, more important in nature than seen in these short-term experiments. But my conclusions are limited to these types of short-term lab studies.” Well, good, but then let us not hear Behe’s ID colleagues tout these results as giving strong conclusions about microbial or eukyaryotic evolution in nature, particularly because the lab studies deliberately exclude sources of gain-of-FCT mutations that we know are important in nature.|
| These “new genes,” then, would qualify as what Behe calls “gain-of-FCT” adaptive mutations (“FCT” = functional coded element): the kind of mutations that Behe did not see arising in short-term lab experiments on bacteria and viruses.|
Of course, Behe has responded, sort of.
| I was saying that, no matter what causes gain-of-FCT events to sporadically arise in nature (and I of course think the more complex ones likely resulted from deliberate intelligent design http://tinyurl.com/32n64xl....n64xl), short-term Darwinian evolution will be dominated by loss-of-FCT, which is itself an important, basic fact about the tempo of evolution.|
Note the "likely resulted from ID" - the man has no idea whatsoever if they did or not, it's just "likely". Pathetic is as pathetic does.
|Any mutation which confers an advantage at any time will be selected, and the large majority of those in the short term will be LOF.|
A "large majority" again. So even Behe admits that evolution can "create" as well as "destroy".
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand