Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tribune7
You're more impressed with that main article than I am. This, for instance:

So why can these animals interbreed? [Horses, donkeys, and zebras in one case, camels and llamas in another.] Is it a freakish evolutionary fluke or the result of an event popular science fails to recognize?

Freakish evolutionary fluke? What's freakish about finding recently speciated populations? Populations that haven't quite speciated completely? Evolution predicts this!

Cs fail to reason like a E, then try to beat Es over the head with their misunderstanding.

That Behe has to defend himself is not surprising. He left himself open to many different charges with his book, ignoring much of the research that contradicted his claims. In fact, one of his claims is that there was no research in molecular evolution. Ow!

734 posted on 04/07/2002 12:13:30 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
You're more impressed with that main article than I am. This, for instance:
So why can these animals interbreed? [Horses, donkeys, and zebras in one case, camels and llamas in another.] Is it a freakish evolutionary fluke or the result of an event popular science fails to recognize?

That's what I'm getting at. The point cited is a minor part of the article. What the author is emphasizing is that the evolution of Galapagos finches is not unidirectional and that genetic drift actually works against a species ability to survive a calamity.

What would be effective would be to refute the observations i.e. the finches beaks did not become longer in the first drought nor smaller after the second one.

One claim by Craig McCarron is that MY-evolution is predicated on "slow, steady change". Is this true?

Cs fail to reason like a E, then try to beat Es over the head with their misunderstanding.

You're the one making assumptions about my motivations.

That Behe has to defend himself is not surprising. He left himself open to many different charges with his book, ignoring much of the research that contradicted his claims. In fact, one of his claims is that there was no research in molecular evolution. Ow!

That's fine, if that's what he's being beaten up about. He will soon end up on the ash heap of science if his theory is based on wild, easily discredited claims.

However, it's his mousetrap analogy that his opponents seem to be directing their energy at attacking. And most damningly, they failed. mousetrap thread

758 posted on 04/07/2002 12:42:47 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
That Behe has to defend himself is not surprising. He left himself open to many different charges with his book,

I wonder if any of his peers reviewed it?

831 posted on 04/07/2002 4:02:42 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson