quote:

ORIGINAL: intenze

I cannot believe evolution and God are being drawn in together. They are not mutally exclusive.  Evolution and fundamentalism are.  Show me a bunny fossil from the Precambrian age and I will dissolve my belief in evolution and renew my faith in the exact wording of the Bible, whatever the hell that is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
he was simply talking about an argument between mathematicians regarding how long it should take for the eye to evolve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
You can see for yourself here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pbZT5wV_6awC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Darwin%27s+Black+Box&ei=1hB7StyXD6G8zgS6q5m8DA#v=onepage&q=eye&f=false

quote:


page 29 isnt in your link

quote:


"The eye is a famous example of a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in Darwin's Black Box. Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency."

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

No, he was simply talking about an argument between mathematicians regarding how long it should take for the eye to evolve. It says nothing about the eye being irreducibly complex, nor was Behe making any argument regarding the eye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


page 29 isnt in your link

If you scroll down you 'll see it. Pun intended.

quote:


"The eye is a famous example of a supposedly irreducibly complex structure, due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another. It is frequently cited by intelligent design and creationism advocates as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe used the "development of the eye problem" as evidence for intelligent design in Darwin's Black Box. Although Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained, he claimed that the complexity of the minute biochemical reactions required at a molecular level for light sensitivity still defies explanation. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati has described the eye as evolutionary biologists' "greatest challenge as an example of superb 'irreducible complexity' in God's creation", specifically pointing to the supposed "vast complexity" required for transparency."

You do realize though, that that is not referring to the eye itself, but to the biochemistry of light sensitivity that lead to the development of the first proto-eye, the 11-cis-retinal, which he does say is irreducibly complex. As the quote says:

"Behe acknowledged that the evolution of the larger anatomical features of the eye have been well-explained"

The quote completely contradicts your first claim.

quote:


A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong.

quote:


Stop playing semantic games. It is the FUNCTION of the eye and VISION that is at the center of his claims. That encompasses all of its anatomical and chemical features. It doesnt matter if he admits SOME of them could have evolved, he argued that SOME of them COULDNT have evolved, and he is wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

In other words, his focus is on the molecular pathway that makes light sensitivity possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

[quote
Could you quote the relevant excerpt please?

quote:


A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
his claim was that the biochemistry of light sensitivity is irreducibly complex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

The mathematician was an idiot.

quote:


That's funny. He doesn't say "molecular pathway" or "light sensitivity" anywhere on that page...

quote:


Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Exactly. Far from a straw man, it is the crux of the matter. ID's claim is that evolution couldnt happen in the time frame of the existence of the earth because "random mutations" are too low probability an event.

quote:


The other problem with intelligent design is that it just doesn’t work in the same way natural selection does i.e. do you favour the prey or the predator? Improving the design of one means an imbalance that must be addressed in the design of the other. Why would a designer even give one set of animals an unfair advantage over another? You see the only way forward is for the development of animals to happen by chance without design. It is the only way that would ensure all creatures didn’t instantly die out in terms of predators having an unfair advantage over the prey and then eating them all and eventually dying out through starvation. No one can decide such numbers and who should and shouldn’t die, the process has to be random and balanced not driven through sentient design choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
The molecular pathway is called the 11-cis-retinal. The light sensitive spot that got the whole eye thing going needs this machinery to work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection.

You got that from Wikipedia, not Behe. Behe only talked about molecular systems. He never talked about organs as examples of irrducibly complex systems. He did that for a reason, it's because evolution of organs depends on evolution of molecular systems.

quote:


The satement is correct regardless of the source...if it isnt then dispute it, AND it clearly isnt attributed to Behe but ID supporters in general.