Well, since it is such common knowledge, then you should have no problem posting a refutation of intelligent design. As I have told you, I have seen nothing but slimes of it. Your post while sounding reasonable, does not in any way give a refutation of it. It is just an excuse for not giving the proof requested.
As to the proof you gave - the quack Dawkings, is no biologist, he is just a nutcase atheist whose books are full of ridiculous statements such as that natural rock formations show as much design as Mt. Rushmore. Such as that descent is the same as adaptation only more so. He even wrote a phony program to "prove" chance mutation by phonying up the solution.
You have read the book, you say it has a refutation of Behe, post it here. Else, your statements are just a slime. Further if the "proof" against Behe has been given so many times, you should have absolutely no problem in copying and pasting such proof here.
The evolutionists here always claim that the proof is elsewhere or has been given many times before. Give the proof against Behe, give the proof against intelligent design. Do it here - if you have it.
</marquee up></marquee up></marquee up></marquee up>
Looking for survivors.
After all, in '98 alone, in NYC alone, 'Doctors' aborted over 98,000. Therefore the new folks ought to fit into the empty spaces left behind.
[In the light of THESE facts, just WHY are we, as a Nation, so upset over losing over 6k 'grown' people?]
As to the proof you gave
Proof has nothing to do with natural science, and I certainly did not give one.
- the quack Dawkings, is no biologist, he is just a nutcase atheist whose books are full of ridiculous statements such as that natural rock formations show as much design as Mt. Rushmore. Such as that descent is the same as adaptation only more so. He even wrote a phony program to "prove" chance mutation by phonying up the solution.
The book I referenced is not by Dawkins, it is by Ken Miller, one of the authors of our principal introductory college text on micro-biology. Here are three referenced examples from the book:
• In 1997 John M. Logsdon and Ford Doolittle reviewed, in detail, how these same mechanisms could have produced, in strictly Darwinian fashion, the remarkable "antifreeze proteins" of Antarctic fish (JM Logsdon & WF Doolittle (1997) Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution. PNAS 94: 3485-3487.). The novelty of this study is that it contained examples of how evolution could recruit introns, the non-coding regions found in the middle of many genes, to produce dramatic changes in the characteristics of proteins.
• In 1998, Siegfried Musser and Sunney Chan (SM Musser & SI Chan (1998) Evolution of the cytochrome C oxidase proton pump. J. Mol. Evol. 46: 508-520.) described the evolution of the cytochrome c oxidase protein pump, a complex, multipart molecular machine that plays a key role in energy transformation by the cell. In human cells, the pump consists of six proteins, each of which is necessary for the pump to function properly. It would, once again, seem a perfect example of irreducible complexity. Take one part away from the pump, and it no longer works. And yet, these authors were able to produce, in impressive detail, "an evolutionary tree constructed using the notion that respiratory complexity and efficiency progressively increased throughout the evolutionary process."
• In 1996, Enrique Meléndez-Hevia and his colleagues published, in the Journal of Molecular Evolution, a paper entitled "The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution."(J Mol Evol 43: 293-303.) As every high school biology student learns, the Krebs Cycle is a extremely complex series of interlocking reactions that release chemical energy from food. Nonetheless, its evolution by Darwinian mechanisms is now well-understood.
We have been down this track before. You didn't deserve this much help, just as you didn't deserve it the last time we went through this, and, predicting your future requests, I won't be copying Journal articles from JofEMB for you to object to their footnotes in turn.
Give the proof against Behe, give the proof against intelligent design. Do it here - if you have it.
Give the proof against Darwin--give the proof that all the missing transitional species creationists like to hang their hats on are not, in fact, a reality which we have not yet stumbled on in the dirt. Do it here, if you have it.