Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Behe doesn't really address things like wings. He's dealing with the molecular level, the bottom level of building cells from biochemicals. He's saying, there's stuff there crammed into the cell that could not have evolved step-by-step from some simpler thing.Behe doesn't consider the case where stuff crammed into the cell that could have evolved step-by-step from some more complex things. The 40 protein parts in the flagella motor might be an example of an IC system, as Behe claims. But Behe never addresses the possibility that the motor might have evolved from a 60 protein system in a proto-flagella.You'll ask: "But that only pushes the problem back. Where did the predecessor come from?" IT DOESN'T PUSH THE PROBLEM BACK. You are redefining the problem. The 'problem' at hand is whether or not the flagella was designed or evolved. Behe claims, because of IC, the flagella could not be a result of evolution. Yet it could have evolved from a more complex system. I'm not trying to prove the flagella evolved, only that it is possible to have evolved. I only need to show that IC doesn't eliminate evolution, therefore isn't sufficient to prove ID.Here's another way to look at it. I think everyone here (YEC, OED, Darwinist, etc) believes in the possibility of mutations. Can a 60 protein non-IC flagella motor mutate into a 40 protein motor? What does that do to Behe's 'proof' that the 40 protein flagella was designed?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |