The issue of chance... (My own introduction) (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, June 05, 2009, 17:54 (5648 days ago) @ Matt S.

If you want refutations of Behe's arguments, talkorigins is probably the best place to start. It's run by scientists--people who actually do the research into evolution. 
 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html - Thanks for the reference. I've looked at Dorit's and Orr's reviews of Black Box. 
> Their refutations of Behe are incredibly thorough and they cite every source and theory to a fault, his arguments are defeated on his science alone. - They have refuted Behe in the same way Ernst Mayr refuted mathematicians (who were claiming Darwin theory did not work)at the Wistar Institute Symposium 1966 by saying: "We are comforted by knowing that evolution has occurred". Of course evolution has occurred, which many IDer's deny. I pick and choose from the ID playbook, what I think is appropriate. Dorit and Orr and Mayr are the same breed of cat. There are alternate evolutionary explanations to complex biochemistry and complex organs. Chance hunt-and-peck, step-by-step did not occur in the Cambrian Explosion. CE is saltation. Examples of exaptation (Gould) appear later in complex organisms, to explain jumps like CE.
 
> And as for Behe's scientific output:
> http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Michael_Behe - Have not looked at this just yet. Anything WIKI is often biased from individual input and therefore bias.
 
> Look at the section "What kind of scientist is Michael Behe." There's two excerpts from a paper published by another researcher comparing Behe's scientific output to those of a scientist universally considered as "top-notch." - I'm not noted as a 'top-notch' anything, but I can think and I'll match my IQ with anyone. This is spurious stuff. It doesn't help your point of view. Everyone has the right to interpret scientific results of other top-notch folks. Being top-notch doesn't mean they have the right conclusion. Read Thomas Kuhn. - Kenneth Miller's discussion of the human blood clotting cascade is filled with misstatements and errors, in my opinion. By the way, the feedback mechanism that stops clotting at the right moment for the type of injury has just been found. When I was in medical school there were ten clotting factors, now over 17+. All the feedback loops are still to be worked out.I'll find the reference I just mentioned and post it later.