i love it how some make behe out to be some sort of rival to dawkins.. when that is the most false comparison that can be drawn.

for the record, as many (including dawkins) have stated before me: there is no actual controversy surrounding the theory of evolution in the academic field

I just love you AlGore types. "The scientific argument is over" and Dawkins "There is no actual controversy surrounding the theory of evolution in the academic field." Makes me want to lose interest in scientific inquiry and go buy a Wii and spend my life playing video games. What else is out there to do? Behe is asking legitimate questions that no biochemist is answering in the literature. He is asking Darwinists to get off their laurels and quit relying on descriptions of phenotypes, and to investigate the chemistry and provide the statistical analysis of the probability that random mutation produced life on earth. You guys remind me of the sissy that slaps the face of his rival and then uses a stand in for the duel. Your faith in Darwinism is just that until you can answer Behe's challange. Quit inuendo and ad hominum attacks and use biological investigations and mathmatics to refute Behe if you can. Now that would keep me away from video games! My favorite read - "The Deniers". Another book you guys need to read.

Melatonin, I know that you are a reasonable person. However, I can give you just one example of a situation that Dawkins glosses over with great panache and misses out the fine details. It is the detection of light in the eye.

To detect light, you need a system to convert the light energy into chemical potential energy, trigger an appropriate electrical impulse and then to regenerate the original light detection molecule. The regeneration of many molecules in the body requires energy in the form of a high energy triphosphate molecule (which behaves like a portable power supply). Such a triphosphate is needed to regenerate light detection pigment in a mammalian eye.

Let's put aside irreducible complexity of light detection for a minute. Can you come up with a plausible model for how gradualism or gene duplication and divergence can provide an organism with an ability to detect light?

Additionally, can you come up with a plausible explanation on how light detection and predator evasion could be linked either by a gradualistic or punctuated equilibrium model.

I personally find Behe's explanation on this particular matter compelling reading.

Dawkins is not a molecular biologist otherewise he would pause before making sweeping asertions on how complex systens could provide a selective pressure on a variety of the same species. Moreover, I think Hollwood11 would pose some very awkward questions for him and for other evolutionists. The stage was set for a battle on the stage of molecular genetics and it is significant that Hollwood has very few replies to his posts.

Anyhoo, hope you are well.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Moreover, I think Hollwood11 would pose some very awkward questions for him and for other evolutionists. The stage was set for a battle on the stage of molecular genetics and it is significant that Hollwood has very few replies to his posts.

Either hollywood is the guy from other forums, or just someone C&Ping many of his wacky posts, but he has replies to most of his ramblings on infidels and RDnet. I can't be bothered with him.

If you find his ideas compelling - oh well, another one bites the dust.

I'm well, hero. Hope you're too.

cheers.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by melatonin]