Anyway, he's still confused about burdens of proof, so we'll have to take a
different tack, and attempt to get him to answer the question he's avoided for
weeks.
Glenn, no one is asking you to prove a negative. All we are asking is that you
carry the burden of your assertion beyond mere opinion. You have this opinion
that there is virtually no limit to natural, genetic change. Why? You can't
come to the table, make a claim, then sit back and do nothing. That's the way
it's been for weeks now.
No scientific paper supports your opinion. In court, you would lose on what is
called summary judgment. You haven't got any goods to proceed forward on this
one.
So that's the question, again: What scientific paper explains, in testable
detail, that complex biochemical structures arise by purely natural means?
I'd like to know. Maybe Terry can help out here. And then maybe we can get
Mike Behe to comment on the article.
Jim