SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: gao seng who wrote (573)5/11/2001 1:01:19 PM
From: Mitch Blevins  Read Replies (1) of 1112
 
As I said in my previous post, I like Behe (although I don't agree with him). Demski is another story. Any nut with an axe to grind and a keyboard can create a "mathematical explanatory filter" that gives whatever results are desired.

Behe's argument is a new version of the "irreducible complexity" argument. Stated in its original question form: "What good is half an eye?", means that an eye could not have gradually evolved because half an eye would not be adaptive, and is too complex to have simply jumped into existence, therefore... blah, blah.

What we have found is that prototypical eyes are indeed very adaptive (compared to no eye) and it is therefore likely that eye-like features will develop in living things. I am confident that as we learn more, it will become apparent that the same incremental improvements can be found to lead to the complex biochemical structures we see today, and we can then answer Behe's question of "What good is half a <insert_favorite_biochemical_structure>?"
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News