Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (JAM @ Oct. 12 2007,18:25)|
|Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,12:12)|
I tried to post the following but I haven't bought anything from Amazon under this name. I suggest this wouldn't be a recycled argument and might provide for putting Behe in an interesting position to answer. If anyone wants to copy and paste (or put it in your own words) be my guest....
Taking advantage of the ability to comment here, I wish to publicly ask you something that has bothered me. You have focused on the microscopic level to suggest that randomness is insufficient to explain observations. It is obvious that you are dealing at a level of detail that involves quantum mechanical effects. Experiments have shown quantum effects aren't random. Why was there so little discussion of quantum physics in your book Edge of Evolution when many scientists have been linking quantum physics to life processes. For example, Stapp, Patel and those at Berkeley lab who, this year, demonstrated photosynthesis is a quantum mechanical mechanism.
Both you and Abbie Smith could be correct. Her observations could be correct and your analysis visa-vie randomness could also be correct. Random Mutation would turn out to be impotent if, in fact, non-random quantum effects are fundamental to life at the microscopic level.
I would have thought you and CSC fellow, Henry F. Schaefer III, would have discussed something like this.
That's gibberish. You don't even get Behe's thesis right. He's claiming that mutation rates aren't sufficient, not that randomness isn't sufficient. Moreover, virtually every time he uses the term "random," he does so to obfuscate, not to illuminate.
Behe's lies and obfuscations about HIV have no connection to quantum mechanics.
Shhhhhh! Encourage him to post it. Quantum woo clashing with ID woo should have hilarious consequences.