Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)|
|Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)|
|but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.|
The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?
If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?
It would be interesting to go back to Behe's paper, count up all the things that even he concedes are "gain-of-function" mutations in lab experiments, and calculate how many organisms evolved through how many generations to get that number. Then roughly extrapolate how many new functions you'd expect from an entire Earth full of organisms evolving over several billion years.
Even with very conservative assumptions, I guarantee the number will be staggeringly high. I'm sure Ioseb and his ilk would find a way to object, but it might take them aback temporarily.
Not that I think such calculations would have any real relevance. But that's what Ioseb et al seem to value, and I doubt they realize what their own approach would show.