quote:
Despite all the expressed incredulity that is so common among Behe's critics, he has indeed contributed to science by forcing scientists like Thornhill & Ussery to classify routes of evolution thus showing that 50% of the possible routes can't generate IC machines.
According to you, then, we Darwinists are guilty of incredulity. A material mechanism is capable of creating design in nature, and you admit that half the possible routes to IC systems are accessible to this mechanism. What is the basis for believing that a mechanism like Intelligent Design, that can only be inferred and has never created a natural organism or structure, is a better explanation for the origin of natural IC systems?
quote:
But the two evolutionary pathways that Thornhill & Ussery describe as capable of producing IC systems amount to nothing more than chance, luck, coincidence etc. One of these is co-option.
I don't care what Mike Gene says, you're wrong here. You have been informed repeatedly that co-option is what turned reptilian jawbones into essential parts of the mammalian middle ear. This process is Darwinism plain and simple, and has absolutely nothing to do with coincidence.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.
™ Version 4.2