Re: Op-Ed: Science's fast pace undercuts allure of intelligent design


"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2a8Re.1018$la.198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:4N6Re.1157$Kk1.53@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>John Harshman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jason Spaceman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>From the article:
> >>>>
> >>>>>---------------------------------------
> >>>>>More than 10 years ago, my Lehigh University faculty colleague Michael J.
> >
> > Behe
> >
> >>>>>asked me to read a chapter of a manuscript that was later published as
> >>>>>''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.'' In this
book,
> >>>>>Dr. Behe suggested that biochemical systems inside of cells are
''irreducibly
> >>>>>complex'' and cannot have evolved without the hand of a supernatural
> >
> > designer.
> >
> >>>>>Over the past decade, I have had considerable time to ponder the ideas Dr.
> >
> > Behe
> >
> >>>>>put forward in his book, and time and again I concluded that his arguments
> >
> > lack
> >
> >>>>>scientific credibility and are equally offensive to religious faith.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Dr. Behe's idea of irreducible complexity suggests that certain structures
> >>>>>inside a cell are too complex to have evolved by step-by-step modifications
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>>>must therefore have required a designer to make them. Cells do contain
> >>>>>seemingly complex biochemical structures, formed of many protein parts, but
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>>>it necessary to invoke a supernatural designer to explain their existence?
> >>>>>-----------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Read it at
> >>
>
>>>>http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-quote-c-a-aaug28,0,1604242.s
t
> >
> > ory?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed
> >
> >>>>>or http://tinyurl.com/d8t35
> >>>>
> >>>>This part amused me the most: "It is not that long ago (1994) that Dr.
> >>>>Behe suggested that whale evolution could not be explained because of
> >>>>gaps in the fossil record. That argument collapsed when three fossil
> >>>>intermediates were discovered within the next year."
> >>>>
> >>>>Does anyone have documentation for this suggestion by Behe? It would
> >>>>make a great addition to some FAQ, though I don't know which one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>H'yeah. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/metaphors/#r7 .
> >>> "Experimental Support for Regarding Functional Classes of Proteins to
> >>>Be Highly Isolated from Each Other." In Darwinism, Science or
> >>>Philosophy? (Buell, J., and Ahern, eds.). Mike seems to have ranged
> >>>rather far from his title topic.
> >>>
> >>>But you knew all this, right?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Nope. Behe's entire article can be found here:
> >>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter6.html
> >>
> >>There are some fascinating admissions.
> >
> >
> > Here are a couple more, in response to the above bull***.
> >
> > From your cite Behe: "Finally, most glaringly obvious, if random evolution is
> > true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the
> > Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they?"
>
> Passing over the question of what Behe thinks he means by "random
> evolution",

Why, do you need an education in basics?

>the humor is that many of those transitional forms have now
> been found.

"Those"? LOL! Transitional forms are not found, John, they are imagined.
You claimed your reference was the "documentation" for the Behe "source". Let me
know when you interpret what he actually said, and what he was referring, as
"whale evolution could not be explained because of gaps in the fossil record."
Let me know when you post some of these transitionals between mesonychid's and
whales as well. In the meantime, maybe a dose of reality might (long shot) do you
some good. Gaps in an inferred fossil record would not evidence that an
evolutionary process could not be explained, or is not explained. Evolutionists
seem to do just fine with a sketchy record. But the question of where the large
number of transitional forms are is something that has to be reckoned with, and
not waved off.
>
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11565023&dopt=Abstract
> > "Morphological cladistic analyses have shown cetaceans to be most closely
related
> > to one or more mesonychians, a group of extinct, archaic ungulates, but
molecular
> > analyses have indicated that they are the sister group to hippopotamids. Our
> > cladistic analysis indicates that cetaceans are more closely related to
> > artiodactyls than to any mesonychian. Cetaceans are not the sister group to
(any)
> > mesonychians, nor to hippopotamids. Our analysis stops short of identifying
any
> > particular artiodactyl family as the cetacean sister group and supports
monophyly
> > of artiodactyls."
> >
> > snip rest of the bull***
> >
> You seem to have increased the net bull*** quotient.

LOL! My comments have had that effect, for sure.

>But perhaps you
> can explain why this quote is at all useful in responding to anything.

Perhaps you can explain why you think anything is useful except for your
fantasies, John. This abstract should be quite revealing to you as one who runs
around claiming transitional forms being "found" and "are". And you should realize
that these inferences might change in the next ten minutes, but that there is no
way of testing the inferences in any case.

> So mesonychians turn out to be a bit farther from cetaceans than some
> people thought. Old news. By the way, cetaceans *are* the sister group
> of hippopotamids. Thought you'd like to know.
>
That you are likely deluded and run around claiming things "are"? I already knew.





.