[[Of course the changes are discussed. And if you read journals instead of creationist websites you would be familiar with the discussion.]]
I don’t simply read creationist articles contrary to your claim- I read whatever material is available on subjects we discuss, and quite frankly, ALL I see from Evo-firnedly scientific journals and publications are oversimplification hypothesis’ that try to justify their beleif.
[[a large stack, along with hundreds of journal articles were introduced as evidence at the Dover trial.]]
Yes they were- and not a single one provided the evidence that the changes needed a lamprey clotting system, or simpler ones, could be accoutned for via natural process’- ALL they did was posit what they felt ‘might have happened’ without explaining HOW these changes could take place without damaging hte species-
You have your opinion on hte matter, and that’s fine- so do a lot of scientists- however, their opinion relies on scenarios that simply defy biology.
That's how forensic science works. It's how all forensics works, even in criminal trials.
I find it odd that conservatives find the methods of forensic science adequately trustworthy to convict and execute criminals, but doubt it when "the glove don't fit" their religious beliefs.
I might point out that forensics doesn’t rely on just one line of evidence. You have been defending Behe, but if you read his books and articles you would know that he accepts evolution, common descent and an ancient earth. For all the same reasons that convince mainstream biologists.
His theoretical objection does not deal with speciation, which seldom involves new complex structures. His work is concerned with a few instances of evolution. The flagellum is the primary one.
Behe doesn’t concern himself with complex structures like the bones of the inner ear, because the fossil evidence for gradual evolution is detailed and overwhelming.
Instead, he chooses a mechanism too small to have left a fossil record. But even there his objections are failing.