quote:
NO ONE has been able to show that mutations culled by NS could create a vision system. Nillson & Pilger did NOT use real genes or even computer generated copies of the genes involved. Behe shows how difficult it is and NO ONE has refuted or even rebutted him. Please by all means show that statement to be incorrect.
People have rebutted Behe,
here is one example. A quote from that page: "When it comes to biochemical processes we are a bit pushed to find intermediates. Behe knows this. It is his trump card. That's why he's discussing biochemistry and not whole organisms where so many intermediates have been found." In other words, biochemical pathways don't fossilize and that is why it is difficult to find intermediates. We do see single celled organisms with a workable vision system (Euglenia) as well as simple visions systems (Planaria). In fact, in nature we see a wide assortment of simple to complex vision systems. What we don't have is a fossil record of biochemical pathways. What Nillson and Pilger put forth is a step by step pathway with increasing fitness or visual acuity. This process of improved fitness over time can be seen in the fossil record with respect to middle ear ossicles, for example.
Another quote from the site above: "Nonetheless the evolution of the proteins of vision from ancestral proteins previously engaged in other activities is no more extraordinary than that of the bones. Anyone prepared to accept that evolution has occurred and natural selection has been operating in the one case should feel able to accept that they also work for the other." That is, fossils quite obviously show a change in morphology over time, why should biochemistry not do the same? Show us how biochemistry in cells does not change even though morphology does and you might have a shot.
If you want more refutations and rebuttals of Behe's work, here are a few:
Jerry A. Coyne,
Don Lindsay, just to name a few. Or you can go to
this site for a large list of rebuttals.
™ Version 4.2