Can anyone here defend Darwinism? (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, January 02, 2011, 01:23 (5052 days ago) @ romansh

From what I have read of David's posts he claims the complexity we observe is irreducible. Ken Miller in the video I posted showed otherwise.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
> Then we have comments like In my view Miller is dumb, dumb, dumb from David. I understand personal attacks are unwarranted on this site. But I gather if you are not here to defend yourself they're OK?-I've apologized for the above comment, but I've looked back in Miller's book to see what was one of the things that annoyed me. He discussed lobster 'blood clotting'. He talked about lobster 'blood vessels'. Full disclosure: I worked in the State of Maine Sea and Shores lobster hatchery in Boothby Harbor, on the mechanism of lobster molting; they have to shed that hard exoskeleton to grow. The work produced my senior honors thesis for Bates College graduation. As a biologist Miller should have known that lobsters do not have blood vessels. There are tissue spaces between their muscles and other organs, which are bathed in a 'tissue juice' that is moved about by the movements of the muscles contractions, and is the equivalent of blood. It does have a two part clotting cascade, very simple because it is not under any pressure. On the other hand we use a different set of unrelated proteins and have well over 20+ steps, including complex feedback biochemical loops, with our blood pressure measured in millimeters of mercury, 13 times water. He tries to equate the two circumstances to prove that Behe is wrong and human clotting is not irreducably complex. He does not recognize the property of evolution known as'convergence', which is easily explained by the development of six different types of visual organs. Lobsters can not be compared to humans in the clotting mechanism. Each is very different and developed under different convergent mechanisms.