What's new

Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

Religion, beliefs, bah. Live and let live. Everyone has their way through life. Do what you think is best for you. Some people need to walk before they run, my friends.
 
I think after reading CJ posts I actually de-evolve.
 
Behe's material has been refuted more times than I care to count, in pretty much every way you can name.

That's what the cultists say, but a few have reluctantly conceded to preserve their scientific integrity.

Tom Cavalier-Smith (Evolutionary Biologist): For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity.
Robert Dorit (Yale Molecular Biologist): In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the blood clotting cascade.

Interpretation: We insist that natural selection can account for these things but we can't yet SHOW you how.
 
That's what the cultists say, but a few have reluctantly conceded to preserve their scientific integrity.

... a comprehensive and detailed explanation ... fully understand ...

Interpretation: We insist that natural selection can account for these things but we can't yet SHOW you how.

We do not yet have "a comprehensive and detailed explanation" of the reason different masses, separated by gravity, attract each other. We don't "fully understand" how gravity works. Yet, we do not attribute gravity to angels pushing things around.

The issue is not that it is impossible to show how these things could have happened, but that we know of so many different ways they could have happened and it is not possible to pick just one as the way it did happen.

You'll have to do better than the Behe quote-mines of critics that savaged his work.
 
We do not yet have "a comprehensive and detailed explanation" of the reason different masses, separated by gravity, attract each other. We don't "fully understand" how gravity works. Yet, we do not attribute gravity to angels pushing things around.

The issue is not that it is impossible to show how these things could have happened, but that we know of so many different ways they could have happened and it is not possible to pick just one as the way it did happen.

You'll have to do better than the Behe quote-mines of critics that savaged his work.

But can you prove it's not?
 
We do not yet have "a comprehensive and detailed explanation" of the reason different masses, separated by gravity, attract each other. We don't "fully understand" how gravity works. Yet, we do not attribute gravity to angels pushing things around.
The issue is not that it is impossible to show how these things could have happened, but that we know of so many different ways they could have happened and it is not possible to pick just one as the way it did happen.

If all "ways" are labled "evolution" of course evolution can't help but be truth.

Real scientists don't claim "any movement is gravity" in the way cultist onebrow claims "any change is evolution."

The invisible force that causes a predictable and specific type of movement is labeled "gravity."

Other movement occurs through the influence/design of an outside force...

So if we see an apple fall to the ground we don't have to insist that it was a random occurence for our observation to be considered scientific. We recognice the invisible force called "gravity" as a scientifically relevant explanation for certain movement.

Back to your insistence that you couldn't possibly pick just one cultist story for how complex organs came into existence. Darwin claimed they came into existence in a specific way, "numerous successive, slight modifications," but none of your cultist stories have yet to involve this particular "way" so none of said stories can yet be called a "refutation."
 
Back
Top