From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 10:30:57 EDT
Michael-
It's monday, so here goes. This is a perfect case of the rhetoric that is
used too often on this listserve (if rhetoric annoys you, then we should
avoid it altogether):
>I took note of both Mills and Iain but cannot see any logical flaw in my
>argument as I simply commented on Behe's argument so clearly put on
>haemoglobin not being designed and clotting being designed.
Behe's comments in DBB:
"The question is, if we assume that we already have an oxygen-binding
protein like myoglobin, can we infer intelligent design from the function of
hemoglobin? The case for design is weak."
I haven't seen where Behe says, "haemoglobin is not designed."
I also wonder how you think myoglobin was derived. Does evolution begin
with functional molecules, and adapt their function in various ways, or do
we have to consider the derivation of function in biological systems? Your
case hinges upon the ease of the derivation of function. Abiogenesis is a
miserable scientific endeavor. I think panspermia proves that point. Its
either that or the alchemy of tricky organic chemistry that supposedly shows
us that biomolecules can spontaneously be synthesized under poorly
replicated early Earth conditions. And a RNA world supposedly preceded
proteins, yet nobody has ever synthesized RNA even in a pseudo-early-earth
scenario that stacks all the cards favorably. Not convincing.
This also goes for George who comments on the fact that IDers won't answer
whether or not carbon is designed. The explanatory filter cannot positively
infer the design of every structure. If it did, what use would it be?
Carbon is not myoglobin in terms of bits of information or complexity.
Should we ask Dembski if he thinks Gravity or physical constants were
designed, and laugh him off if his filter cannot detect it?
Finally, with all of this bravado about the utility and creative capacity of
evolution, Debbie's important question is ignored completely. We shouldn't
highlight or discuss the anomalies that create difficulty for evolution,
because evolution is what happened. If evolution was as solid as the way it
is spoken of here, the only reason controversy exists would derive from
either ignorance, stupidity or wickedness (as Dawkins puts it.)
Debbie- I have a colleague who works on muntjack deer cells studying
telomerase. He has raised the same issue to me in our discussions of
evolution quoting the fact that several closely related species of deer have
dramatically different chromosome numbers (although he believes evolution,
he at least acknowledges the problem areas.) An explanation for such
observations is beyond us at this point. But I wait patiently with you for
someone who carries a lot of rhetoric to start providing some actual
explanations.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 10:31:39 EDT