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
Tribune7: You're the one making assumptions about my motivations.
No, that was a critique of the horse-donkey-zebra/camel-llama argument. The author described a very logical consequence of evolution as "freakish" and invited the reader's incredulity. If it's not the bulk of a large article, the rest is no better. "They're still just (lizards/guppies/finches)!" "The progression wasn't logical and directed!" (I.e., it undid itself later.) Arguments of this latter sort are based upon hidden, false assumptions that might slip past the uncritical reader. Evolution has no goal. If the environmental pressures whip you back and forth, back and forth you go.
From Behe's mousetrap article:
(1) McDonald's reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap I showed; (2) intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps; (3) if intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell.I haven't had time to read the whole article, but I'm not impressed with what he claims will be proven in the details. The injection of intelligence anywhere is cited to invalidate evidence against ID/creationism. ("But it took intelligence, a designer, to set up the experiment!") Now we see that it apparently takes intelligence to rebut a creationist argument.
Yeah, but only so much.
That's what I'm getting at. The point cited is a minor part of the article. -you-
Hate to disagree with you on this point, however, there was a point in the author of the article pointing to the interbreeding of these animals. It shows some important points:
1. speciation is not as the evolutionists claim, specifically, long periods of isolation of two groups do not result in sufficient genetic change to prevent interbreeding.
2. genetic change is very slow if it occurs at all. This ties with the conclusion on the finches that while there were phenotype changes occurring in these finches in a very short time, these changes wavered back and forth, a disproof of evolution.
3. evolutionists have claimed that these finches are different species. The author is showing that isolation does not prove speciation. In fact, during this research, some of the so-called different species were seen interbreeding and producing mixed young that could also breed.
The whole article is a very strong disproof of evolution and that is why the evolutionists here do not wish to talk about it and have been avoiding discussion of it since the thread started.