Posted on 10/18/2005 9:31:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Presumeably, since you are here to post this, he must have been well fed before your visit!
Did you swing over by the Fremont Bridge and visit the "Waiting for the Inter Urban" statue afterward?
True enough.
MB: I said, I said that the function of the system is missing. I'm happy to admit that similar proteins can have other functions in the cell, but the system loses its function.
And the context was blood clotting.
Behe claims that all the 14 or so factors are required beforehand to create a blood clot, -- if any are missing the fuction fails (blood doesn't clot). That is "irreducibly complex" by his argument.
Miller points out that the Hagemann factor is absent in Cetaceans (Whales and dolphins), yet their blood clots just fine.
Thus blood clotting is not "irreducibly complex".
"Did you swing over by the Fremont Bridge and visit the "Waiting for the Inter Urban" statue afterward?
"
I don't think so, but who knows. I might have. I drove all over Seattle that day, with a local resident. Saw lots of stuff...
You obviously don't understand Behe's argument: he means to say that "All truly irreducible clotting systems ARE irreducibly complex." See how well that works?
< /No True Scotsman mode>
It was (lame) humor from the York Daily Record columnist.
Hah! Call that a tagline. SmartCitizen was running out of epithets by the time he got to Ichneumon.
What do you mean by 'common descent'? As for the age of the Earth; I personally don't give much weight to any extreme as to the age of the Earth.
Based on the explanation found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent
I would not have a real problem with 'common descent'. Universal common descent would be an entirely different matter. I suspect Behe means common descent rather than universal common descent. Universal common descent would hardly be any different than Darwinian evolution in its most extreme form.
The really odd thing is that the star witness for the defense agrees with mainstream science on both of these issues.
I have been asking for a couple months now and have not been able to get a single freeper ID advocate to agree with Behe on these two points.
Depending on your definition of common descent, I could very well be one.
The article is humorous, but because of the "" I assume he actually was quoting.
Beat me to it. I have more pics, though.
Neener!
Lol, "some"??
Behe comically trying to compromise on an issue that can't be compromised on...
Don't know why he's hedging -- his "friends" in the scientific community already regard him as a heretic.
****I don't think so, but who knows. I might have.****
http://www.whatrain.com/seattle/publicArt/interurban.jpg
The most interesting part of the statue is the dogs face. It's a bearded human. And there's a very long amusing story as to whose face it is, and why it's there.
Neener!
Well, I've seen the troll face-to-face, so THERE!
(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box).
I'm told by the ID'ers that it is a really good book, but most of the Freeper ID'ers seemed to miss that sentence.
Nope. Missed it. I'd remember that.
The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years, give or take a percent or two. Agree or disagree?
Common descent gets a bit fuzzy in the transition from single celled to multi-celled organisms. Even among living things there are transitional critters.
But common descent means to a biologist that all the complex, multicelled, sexually reproducing organisms share a common lineage, a single family tree.
Agree or disagree?
Behe takes these things for granted.
Hmmm, Weasel words. Are you saying that it is 2 billion years old then? ie halfway between the biblical statement and the physicists belief? Let's hear from Behe again...
For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. (Michael behe)
Behe has almost nothing in common with the majority of Freepers who claim to espouse ID.
Sagebrush slowly rolling across thread placemarker.
The word "cause" is problematic. Months ago I read a short biography of Newton which gives a fascinating view of his intellectual development. He was a precious child, as many like him are, and from an earlt age he was fascinated with patterns. He tried to make sense of them. As he grew older he acquired the mathematcal tools to do so. I think that in this digital world we have forgotten that Newton's world was geometric. In our world the billard ball model seems to prevail. Do we forget the debate in the world ofmathmatics about the nature of that knowledge, since without there is no modern science? What is the significance of pattern? Is it real or is it an illusion? We can kick rocks all day and not answer that question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
