Back to irreducible complexity (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 14:52 (5190 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Behe testified under oath that he "did not judge [the asymmetry] serious enough to [have revised the book] yet."[34]
> 
> Four years isn't enough, eh?-
I don't think that the asymmetry problem is serious. I've been aware of the parallel approaches for quite a while, and they mirror each other. From my book experience I doubt the publisher wants to put in a minor correction, unless the book is under major revision.
> 
> The judge in the Dover trial wrote "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity..."
> 
> What's a good refutation of exaptation that DOESN'T try to remove it via definition?-The problem is that the entire phenomenon of exaptation is totally unexplained by Darwin. Why should a morphologic change appear 100,000 years before it is finally used? Why is it maintained if it provides no function at the time? The judge in his final opinion quoted up to 2/3rds of the winning side's brief. I am sure he didn't have the background knowledge to raise the questions I've raised. And finally exaptation is not a refutation of Behe. To me it has always looked like pre-planning in the genome.