Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Monad · 09-01-2005, 06:48 AM

Interesting - I love the irony that if you substitute more realistic assumptions for Behe and Snoke's biased ones you end up demonstrating that the chances of small multi-residue features evolving are highly probable, not improbable. Maybe some thanks should be extended to Behe and Snoke for having shot themselves in the foot so effectively (in other places too) and saving the biological community much time and effort

RBH · 09-01-2005, 08:32 AM

WK wrote

Quote:

It doesn't. That didn't stop the DI claiming that it did though. Beha and Snoke recognise this problem themselves.

Quote:

We subscribe neither to triumphant views in some circles that our paper disproved Darwinism, nor to overwrought ones that it supports some grand anti-science conspiracy.

TTFN,

WK

As noted Panda's Thumb, Behe wasn't quite that reticent at DDD-V:

Quote:

So the point is that, whenever you have an apparatus that needs three or more proteins in order to work, that’s essentially beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection to produce. Even when you have something that only has two proteins stuck together, that’s a very very rare event in the history of life on earth. So the tentative conclusions from this—and there are a couple of caveats that I haven’t gone into but which I’d glad to talk about if you wanted to—two tentative conclusions: that is that the formation of new protein-protein interactions would be very rare in the history of life, and the formation of two such interactions in an irreducibly complex complex is practically impossible. So what I think is going to turn out to be the case—although we will be required to do it—is that design is going to be seen to extend very deeply into the cell and perhaps beyond that as well.

Not triumphalist, but not modest, either. For another technical dissection of BS, see here.

RBH

Monad · 09-01-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBH

BS

:rolling:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-01-2005, 06:48 AM	#31
Monad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,127	Interesting - I love the irony that if you substitute more realistic assumptions for Behe and Snoke's biased ones you end up demonstrating that the chances of small multi-residue features evolving are highly probable, not improbable. Maybe some thanks should be extended to Behe and Snoke for having shot themselves in the foot so effectively (in other places too) and saving the biological community much time and effort

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.