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: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,09:33   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 14 2011,07:00)

In essence the consensus seems to be that as a paper there's nothing particularly wrong with it, but the conclusions touted by ID supporters are not actually mentioned within or supported by the paper itself.

But isn't it skewed? I mean okay he does point out the limits of the paper calling them possible objections, but still it's all the stuff that he doesn't consider that's worring,like that the historical evidence from eukaryotes genome shows that most of the kinds of mutations that would have been important could not have occurred in the experiments.

And aren't the definitions of what is L,M,G skewed too? I mean there is no basis in the literature for these definitions so they're really arbitrary aren't they?

Lastely the law which turns to "rule of the thumb" doesn't that go overboard?

One could easily do a counter review redifine L,M,G add the stuff that Behe willingly left out and have at least a more complete paper.


"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  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]