Re: The Topic shadow, do you have anything related?
But the evidence does not support evolution, it supports natural selection. Darwin merely suggested that evolution could have used this mechanism. Natural selection does not support evolution, in that species today tend to adapt into their changing environments, rather than evolve. Though it does seem plausible that the ToE does use this mechanism, it is yet unproven. Even with the divine power of God, natural selection would take it's course naturally, so natural selection proves nothing for either theory
Perhaps if you actually knew anything, you'd be aware that natural selection by definition supports the fact of evolution.
Natural selection is the change in frequency of alleles in the population driven by the fact that some alleles express an advantage over others. Those which confer some advantage are more likely to be passed onto the next generation. See that underlined part? It's the definition of evolution. You know what the full name of 'natural selection' is? Evolution by natural selection.
If you are basing your faith on natural processes simply because divine ones are difficult to understand, then you are not basing your opinions on anything scientific, which makes you no less a believer than I.
If you are basing your knowledge on science, then you by definition require the processes to be natural, because science cannot and does not address the supernatural. We don't accept the fact of it being entirely natural on some assumption. We do so because it is demonstrably entirely natural. Science is not a belief system. We trust science, we don't believe it. Stop trying to conflate trust with faith.
Also assuming that you are right, simply because I am wrong is a fallacy in itself. A baseless arguement.
Funny that you mention it, because it's exactly what you're doing. "You can't prove I'm wrong, therefore I'm just as right as you." Except for the fact that evolution has support in reality, and your favourite brand of Goddidit doesn't.
And you too need to be clear on what you mean by 'evolutionary processes'. It's difficult to respond when you generalize
If you don't know what is meant by "evolutionary processes" then you don't know enough to comment on the subject. Probably better to sit back, shut up and let those that do understand it have a discussion. Incidentally, the processes that PaulK is most likely referring in this context are a) natural selection and b) random mutation. There are many others, of course, that get involved, but anything except the former is off-topic here.
Unless you want to do what the original poster hasn't done: present us with evidence that there is something other than just nature involved in selection processes, or alternatively present some form of experiment or possible data which would validate one hypothesis over the other.
That's a pretty long explanation. I'll shorten it for you, while maintaining the same ideas:
1. Observation/ Question
Error of fact. Strawman burning follows.
Further strawman burning. "We don't know". Further strawman burning.
Misinterpretation of mainstream scientific research. Further strawman burning.
Non sequitur. Internal contradiction of facts. False dichotomy.
Complete and utter lack thereof. Standard ID/creationist excuses.
This is my take on his Hypothesis from reading his book. I took notes from the book and this is where this information comes from. I may even have direct quotes in this presentation, but Idid not note them in my notes so forgive for not quoting exactly material or noting that this was a quote.
His book is largely nonsense, supported by further nonsense and mixed with a bit of pseudomathematics, to reach a preconceived conclusion. Here's some advice: don't bother reading ID/creationist literature, including websites. They don't know enough about their own hypotheses, let alone about evolution, to start claiming it as a scientific breakthrough.
That is the best I can do. I do not understand the science of the research into molecular biology.
Just like you leave your lawyering, your accounting, your medicines, your house's construction, your car's work done by professionals, perhaps you should also leave biology to people who are actually involved in the research too.
It appears to me that Behe is qualilfied as a Biologists from his CV.
Indeed, Behe gained a PhD from UPenn (and before that, a BSc from Drexel) for research on sickle-cell disease followed by some work on DNA structure. He's one of the few -- if not the only -- ID/creationism supporters to have a proper degree from a recognised institution. However, his work on ID is no more biological science than the average bloke's DIY fence is engineering expertise. He doesn't follow the method (as pointed out previously) and relies on arguments from incredulity combined with his religious beliefs.
Let me know what your thoughts are, but be gentle.
It would probably be best for you all to read his book to fully understand his position.
He's been countered by much more educated people than I before. And that was when the book got published. You've brought nothing new here. We know what his position is. People like him have been trying to get it into schools since before my dad was born. Behe just tidies it up a little. I'll follow my own advice, and stick to reading what actually counts as science as determined by scientists. Perhaps you should do the same.
Edited by Nij, : Missing sentence. Correction of stages of method.