And you have? Truth requires credentials that meet your standards? That's hilarious. In any event, the article is authoritative.
It is a shallow review of a handful of writers on the margin of science . . .
Well, wrong again, donh.
. . . who argue, in various ways, that because you don't understand how something happened, it must be impossible.
Another absolute misrepresentation.
They do not, in any significant manner, gainsay that Darwinian Evolution, however incomplete and flawed, is on the table, and has a track record, that exceeds random luck, of successful predictions and profitable use in industry.
And more garbage. Evidence? None in support, much against. Predictions? Silliness. Profitable in industry? More hilarity.
None of your post is true, donh, however seemingly glib, and I conclude you either crave attention or just like to hear yourself write. In any event, you have a terrible time with truth and your posts are an abuse of JimRob's good graces. They will thus henceforth be ignored.
And more garbage. Evidence? None in support, much against. Predictions? Silliness. Profitable in industry? More hilarity.
Every summer, geological paleontology students predict, based on the supposedly evanescent morphological flow, where to dig, and predict what they will find. This frequently, more frequently than chance would suggest, results in yet more filled in blanks where creationists were pointing and chortling over the "missing links" in the creationist story. This is how we went from 3 kinds of critters in the evolution of horses story, to several dozen, not occuring in random all over the historical landscape--occuring between the previously extant critters that they resemble in the mesozoic.
Oil companies follow the advancing and retreating shorelines of ancient worlds, as laid out by fossils in the geological column, to the Devonian layer, where the oil is.
The Gilder article you so venerate is riddled with well-known nonsense--I just showed you just above it 3 instances where Behe's cocksure predictions fell flat on the floor.
The article claims there are no examples of speciation, this is willful ignorance. It we weren't generating new infectuous bugs, we wouldn't be having to invent new anti-biotics. The U of Chicago, years ago, did an experiment where they sealed mealy bugs in separate bottles in the basement of the biology building, for some 30 years, at the end of which time, they could not interbreed. The report on the finches is also inaccurate--new modern patterns in finch beaks have resulted in finches that fail to interbreed in 100% of observed attempts. See "The Beak of the Finch" which just won the pulitzer.
And you have? Truth requires credentials that meet your standards? That's hilarious. In any event, the article is authoritative
If the article is "authoritative", than you have some idea of the specific details of Behe's argument? With specific names of specific molecules? You have some idea, which you can state, why Behe's thesis should be given such consideration despite having failed already in several of his key predictions, as I have quite specificially pointed out to you? Can you even name the molecules in question?
I think you don't understand what authoritative means.
None of your post is true, donh, however seemingly glib, and I conclude you either crave attention or just like to hear yourself write. In any event, you have a terrible time with truth and your posts are an abuse of JimRob's good graces.
Kindly point me to any examples where I've had a "terrible time with truth", other than by virtue of disagreeing with you, so that I can attempt to make restitution.
They will thus henceforth be ignored.
Fat chance.