quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

No, it does not. (Heck, it has been six years since I extensively studied this pathway and wrote a chapter about it. Still have to finish that book.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

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.

I already disputed it (and refuted it

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

He starts the discussion on page 18. 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.

• Suggest sentience
• Suggest a theistic deity
• suggest the Abrahamic judeo-christian deity

quote:


No, you didnt. You played semantic games that ignore the entirety of the argument of IC as a counterexample to evoloution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

Huh? The difference between a molecular system and an organ is not semantical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

He starts the discussion on page 18. 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.

So what happens if ID would ever win such an argument (to where the notion is not summarily dismissed as pseudoscience by the vast majority of professionals in the field)?

Let's say you win! Despite all the research and studies that show otherwise, let's believe what you're saying:

Vision is irreducibly complex ---> Evolution as a whole is implausible ---> Design is the only other option

Let's forget, though, that the phrase "non sequitur" exists, though (pity, I love the comic strip) and grant this equation worth.

Please show me how design must then, necessarily:

• Suggest sentience
• Suggest a theistic deity
• suggest the Abrahamic judeo-christian deity

That's what this is about, right? [:)]
It's not like we want to empower the argument for Odin or Xenu...right?

quote:


Vision is irreducibly complex ---> Evolution as a whole is implausible

quote:


Please show me how design must then, necessarily:

• Suggest sentience
• Suggest a theistic deity
• suggest the Abrahamic judeo-christian deity

That's what this is about, right? [:)]
It's not like we want to empower the argument for Odin or Xenu...right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

The argument is that the Darwinian mechanism is insufficient to explain everything about life and how it evolved. Behe (and I) accept evolution though. We are just questioning the mechanism as the end all be all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Please show me how design must then, necessarily:

• Suggest sentience
• Suggest a theistic deity
• suggest the Abrahamic judeo-christian deity

That's what this is about, right? [:)]
It's not like we want to empower the argument for Odin or Xenu...right?

I don't think we can get from here to there using science alone. The identity of the designer isn't written in the DNA after all.Or is it....

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
I can't tell if you're joking or if you are serious, light sensitivity certainly does depend on 11-cis-retinal pathway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

There is some modern suggestion that dinosaurs just died out rather than the dying due to a meteor impact. A meteor impact throws up dust and darkens the sky leading to land based plant live dying and so everyone higher up the food chain also dying but photosynthesising plankton, the food choice of marine creatures is unaffected?

The suggestion is they were just two large and so unsustainable in terms of food mass required from other creatures, that and they supposedly didn't move far looking for additional sources of food.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
There were also many mammals that went extinct due to the impact, but none of them were a part of the lineage that lead to humans.

quote:

<snipped>
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

As Behe admits, current evidence does suggest possible evolutionary lineages for the origins of the anatomical features of the eye, for example, that eyes originated as simple patches of photoreceptor cells that could detect the presence or absence of light, but not its direction. By developing a small depression for the photosensitive cells, the organisms obtained a better sense of the light's source, and by continuing to deepen the depression into a pit so that light would strike certain cells depending on its angle, increasingly precise visible information was possible. The aperture of the eye was then shrunk so that light is focused, turning the eye into a pinhole camera and allowing the organism to dimly make out shapes—the nautilus is a modern example of an animal with such an eye. Finally, the protective layer of transparent cells over the aperture was differentiated into a crude lens, and the interior of the eye was filled with humours to assist in focusing images.

<snipped>

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

If there was such an event. In any case who is to say what other lines could have lead to what we hold sacred as intelligent life? Perhaps beings far superior to that of modern humans could have existed at an earlier stage but other unknown events wiped them out, it is all speculation. Only the human knows why god favours the human over that of the banana.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
In other words they were able to exactly simulate a human disease in a bacteria. We are essentially unchanged from the very beginning. Perhaps we were meant to evolve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Some DNA and proteins are highly conserved, others are not. Your argument is not relevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


And regardless of the page, it is clear from several internet sites that Behe uses the eye as an example of IC. It may not have been his focus, but other ID proponents have made it a key example in their arguements.

Ok, I'll wait for the right page number and quote. Thus far, there is no evidence that Behe regards the anatomy of the eye to be irreducibly complex.