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 >  
qetzal



Posts: 309
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,11:58   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 15 2011,09:33)
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.

No! Frankly, I don't understand why you and/or Ioseb keep saying this. All Behe claims to show is that G is much rarer than M+L. That is NOT THE SAME as showing that G is too rare for evolution to work, or that the kinds of mutations needed for evolution couldn't have happened.

If you want to argue that G is too rare to support evolution, you need to show that the observed rate of G is low compared to the rate needed for evolution! Comparing it to the rates of M+L is NOT RELEVANT!

  
  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]