Behe has no problem with adaptation. He argues that NS breaks and blunts genes thereby damaging them and making the organism less fit even if a temporary benefit may be seen. This devolution leads to extinction.
Hmm. Adaption up to the genus level, eh? Evolution by any other name it seems to me. Behe even calls it macro evolution. Seems like you’re stretching your definitions to fit your needs. With which I have no problem. As long as everyone knows it.Wozza:
Behe has no problem with adaptation. He argues that NS breaks and blunts genes thereby damaging them and making the organism less fit even if a temporary benefit may be seen. This devolution leads to extinction.
Behe when pressed, thinks it could be possible, but unlikely. Devolution is being experimentally observed.
Sunshine and chemicals aint gonna cut it for a food chain, try again.What did the chemotroph evolve from, and why would they be so important in evolution ?
I guess more Comets came along with more supplies…yes…no…maybe ?
Personal opinion is not evidence. Green algae survive on sunshine; they can photosynthesise the food they need. Bacteria can eat chemicals. I already gave you the example of hydrothermal vents. Here is another from an article on the wreck of the Titanic:
The evidence is against you here, so you lose the scientific argument.
Go back and read your original question above:
See that “first organisms on earth”? That answers the first part of your question.
Don’t make me drag up the quotes again. And don’t bulldust a bullduster. Behe is quoted as saying, unequivocably, that macro evolution isn’t just possible but actually does exist.Wozza:
Behe when pressed, thinks it could be possible, but unlikely. Devolution is being experimentally observed.
My tomato plants will be so dissapointed to hear that.rossum:
Sunshine and chemicals aint gonna cut it for a food chain…
Darwinists would invent an infinite number of comets in a failed attempt to “Make it happen, Charlie!”I guess more Comets came along with more supplies…yes…no…maybe ?
Cannot be denied .
The norm is devolution and lineage splitting with resulting loss of function once had.
Which we weren’t talking about. Poor attempt at deflection. Behe accepts macro evolution without any problem. You really need to discuss this with him.Wozza:
The norm is devolution and lineage splitting with resulting loss of function once had.
Macro was posited & mindlessly theorized in the extrapolative guess work manner from Micro -
Uh no, but I will so we can get a clarification.
You have been grossly misinformed. Macroevolution, the evolution of new species, happens and has been observed to happen. Whatever website you got that from was lying to you.
He’s checking with Behe. He doesn’t trust what he writes or what he says. This might be fun. I might try the guy myself. Stay tuned…buffalo:
You have been grossly misinformed. Macroevolution, the evolution of new species, happens and has been observed to happen. Whatever website you got that from was lying to you.
Do I really have to post the crayfish example again? Haven’t you seen it enough times already?
Professor Behe accepts macroevoluiton. Science has observed examples of macroevolution. Why cannot you accept what the world your God created is telling you?
Marbled Crayfish again. We have gone over it several times.
And you have no real response to the observed emergence of a new species. IIRC the last time you personally redefined ‘macroevolution’ to mean the emergence of a higher clade, well above species.
The “evo’s” at the Royal Society have no problem with evolution. If you are citing them as an authority then why do you not agree with them about evolution?
