Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (37454)	6/14/2013 10:38:04 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

So what research has Behe conducted on ID since Darwin's Black Box's publication so many years ago? Has any new research even been proposed? (Please feel free to post)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (37454)	6/14/2013 11:20:13 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

irreducible complexity is a fact of nature Where are these facts again? Or just blowing more smoke as usual? *Not one* of those impressively complex biochemical systems Behe said to be irreducibly complex was ever been shown to be and several are now are known not to be. Those known cases of IC you refer to are simpler and their evolution is understood, very easy to explain now. What we keep on finding out , is that evolution is much too flexible for IC to be an issue. The fact is that none of Behe's examples were ever irreducible in biochemical terms at all , his theories never posing the slightest biochemical challenge to evolution at all.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (37454)	6/14/2013 11:25:51 PM
From: 2MAR$	1 Recommendation Recommended By J_F_Shepard Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

In the case of bacterial flagellum, the last best great hope for the ID'ers , if God designed them then he certainly was responsible for millions upon millions of deaths by bacterial infection & plagues...but wait, thats right, he is very partial to destruction by plagues after floods , which was all part of the "design"? ( the loving creator at work ) You can see the flawed imposition of your logic here better than anywhere else when you try to assign design to the reality, your only escape valve being there is a design but you do not know the plan, which doesnt work in science which seeks to know & prove what it knows. If anything you should be grateful to science for expanding your understanding of the world ungrateful man!