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: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2011,12:15   

Behe can't get the maths for his own book right...
And yet CQ resistance by the (assumed!) "double mutation", with probability 1 in 10^20, is Behe's central measuring stick throughout the book! Incredible...

The only people that actually care are those like the people you are arguing with who think that this paper/book has disproven evolution or shown it can't work.

Everybody else took a look, shrugged, moved on.
Behe buttresses his argument for the improbability of protein-protein binding sites with the fact that no new protein-protein binding sites arose during the evolution of CQR, but never explains why this contradicts evolutionary expectations. He apparently thinks that evolutionary theory says anything should evolve a new binding site in response to any arbitrary situation. Behe dismisses antibodies, where new sites easily evolve to bind almost anything, on the grounds that the immune system is designed, neatly inserting his conclusion into his premises, and ignoring once again the embarrasing mountain of evidence against him [1]. Microbial toxin evolution is waved aside with “it’s relatively easy to clog a system,” which ignores the fact that such proteins often have exquisitely specific binding. Snake venom shows that even vertebrates with small populations can evolve huge gene families that specifically bind diverse proteins, with massive evidence of duplication, mutation, and selection as the mechanisms, and with intraspecific variation in regulation, sequence, and specificity. Is Someone actively designing rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus) venom in the American Midwest [7] and fine-tuning the specificity of black mamba (Dendroaspis polylepis) toxins for subtypes of mammalian muscarinic acetylcholine receptors [8]?

It is clear that Behe is driven not by a truly scientific investigation, but instead metaphysics. He is obsessed with “randomness,” which he incorrigibly associates with “Darwinism” and cosmic purposelessness. This is one of many incorrect but blindly-held assumptions common with creationists. But randomness in evolution is no more metaphysically significant than randomness in weather systems. If creationists realized this, we might finally see the edge of creationism, if not the end of it. But if Behe is any indication, that won’t be any time soon.

He's talking out of his arse but he can pull it together and get something published, unlike say KF. This makes him invaluable for the IDers but what actual impact has this paper had on the scientific community at large, the paper that according to some destroyed our understanding of evolution?

A: None.

Sure, they'll say it's because of the science establishments bias etc etc but by now you know better, right? I.E. Behe did science, Behe got published.

If Behe writes what he wrote in the Edge in a paper, Behe no get published. If he could support his claims about his designer scientifically he would already have done so. But they go in the book, not the paper...

So even if that paper proves what they say it proves it does not mean ID get's to take over by default. There is a long way to go before that barrel gets scraped.

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
Gordon Mullings

  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]