Closed "question"

deist · Sep 30, 2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

In his new book, Behe acknowledges that the theory or irreducible complexity no longer stands against current research. What he was showing was too simplistic and gave too much leeway. The real situation, based upon the latest research is far more complex and less possible than "Darwin's Black Box" indicated. He has updated the information in the new book. There is a new more precise way of determining the feasibility of a mutation based upon the work of three other scientists.

You need to keep up with the times!

For a review of Behe's new book, Edge of evolution, see Powell's Books - Review-a-Day - The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe, reviewed by The New Republic Online. This book is no better than Darwin's Black Box. Also ID is Creationism wrapped in a new name, as the review will show, if you care or have the gumption to read it.

Tj3 · Sep 30, 2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deist

For a review of Behe's new book, Edge of evolution, see Powell's Books - Review-a-Day - The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael J. Behe, reviewed by The New Republic Online. This book is no better than Darwin's Black Box. Also ID is Creationism wrapped in a new name, as the review will show, if you care or have the gumption to read it.

I took the time to actually read the book rather than just reading a couple of reviews of it.

I stand by my statements.

deist · Sep 30, 2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

I took the time to actually read the book rather than just reading a couple of reviews of it.

I stand by my statements.

Of Behe's theories, in a 2005 ruling made against Behe, Judge John E. Jones, a churchgoing republican, ruled that Intelligent Design is not only unscientific, but a doctrine based firmly in religion. So much for Behe.

Tj3 · Sep 30, 2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deist

Of Behe's theories, in a 2005 ruling made against Behe, Judge John E. Jones, a churchgoing republican, ruled that Intelligent Design is not only unscientific, but a doctrine based firmly in religion. So much for Behe.

You are changing the subject. I already said that I disagree with some of his conclusions, and specifically with respect to what he says regarding Intelligent Design. However it is hard to discuss with you if you have only read reviews and don't know what he actually said.

The fact is that there are many scientists trying to sort out the answers, but the one thing that the evidence is showing is that macro-evolution is in deep trouble.

StuMegu · Sep 30, 2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tj3

You are changing the subject. I already said that I disagree with some of his conclusions, and specifically with respect to what he says regarding Intelligent Design. However it is hard to discuss with you if you have only read reviews and don't know what he actually said.

The fact is that there are many scientists trying to sort out the answers, but the one thing that the evidence is showing is that macro-evolution is in deep trouble.

Could you give us an example please?

Tj3 · Sep 30, 2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuMegu

Could you give us an example please?

Due to time / space constraints, I am going to have decline on that at the moment, at least going through it in any detail, because the explanations get fairly involved into the DNA makeup and how the proteins interact with each other - and to be honest, I don't think that I could compress the explanations and do it justice.

StuMegu · Sep 30, 2007, 01:53 PM

Let's not use it for the basis of an argument just at the moment then

I am always happy to comment on actual material, not just hearsay.

Tj3 · Sep 30, 2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuMegu

Let's not use it for the basis of an argument just at the moment then

I am always happy to comment on actual material, not just hearsay.

Buy the book or go to a library. I'd scan it but that is illegal.

StuMegu · Sep 30, 2007, 02:01 PM

So many books, so little time!

I wish you well convincing people without a single example to refer to!

Tj3 · Sep 30, 2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuMegu

So many books, so little time!

I wish you well convincing people without a single example to refer to!

Thank you ... I don't know how much you have gotten into micro-biology, but if you have ever managed to cross paths with it, you would understand the conplexity.

On the other hand, we could turn this around quite easily and ask the cilia on a single celled animal evolved. That gives you an opportunity to provide an example.

Closed "question"

Check out some similar questions!