Stephen Meyer

[ManMachine]

I have some ques about this scientist
1.could any onetprove that he was wrong in the debate?
2. His book about darwin .. Could any one prove that it include fulse information or any thing like that ??
3. do u think he could prove that evolution is false ?

1. His PhD is in the history and philosophy of science, he's not an expert in any other area
2. See above
3. See above

MM

[Mudhammam]

Pickup,

the criticism they do offer concerning complexity is, according to real evolutionary biologists, amateurish. How do you gather that the IDers have something valid to criticize that isn't already better addressed by the pros?

Well, the only ID argument I have taken the time to examine is Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. Apart from the fact that I agree with Peter Atkins' review (http://infidels.org/library/modern/peter.../behe.html), I do think it highlights some challenging issues regarding exactly how chemistry evolved in such a manner on the basis of natural selection. Of course, one could throw in abiogenesis here, but granting life, I'm still not aware of an account that satisfactorily resolves how these mechanisms took shape.

Also, that's not to say I doubt Neo-Darwinism is correct, but given my understanding of its current formulation, I wonder if it is a theory that can resolve all of our questions about evolution or if on certain facts it is analogous to attempting to explain quantum gravity using Newtonian physics?

[popeyespappy]

Pickup,

the criticism they do offer concerning complexity is, according to real evolutionary biologists, amateurish. How do you gather that the IDers have something valid to criticize that isn't already better addressed by the pros?

Well, the only ID argument I have taken the time to examine is Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. Apart from the fact that I agree with Peter Atkins' review (http://infidels.org/library/modern/peter.../behe.html), I do think it highlights some challenging issues regarding exactly how chemistry evolved in such a manner on the basis of natural selection. Of course, one could throw in abiogenesis here, but granting life, I'm still not aware of an account that satisfactorily resolves how these mechanisms took shape.

Also, that's not to say I doubt Neo-Darwinism is correct, but given my understanding of its current formulation, I wonder if it is a theory that can resolve all of our questions about evolution or if on certain facts it is analogous to attempting to explain quantum gravity using Newtonian physics?

Which unresolved questions are you referring to, Pickup? The mechanisms for the molecular changes that drive evolution are fairly well understood. Behe himself published a paper on the subject of the mechanisms in 2010. In the paper he draws some questionable conclusions based on limited data, but he explains how changes lead to evolution fairly well. In his paper Behe describes “Loss-of-FCT” mutations, “Modification-of-FCT” mutations, and “Gain-of-FCT” mutations. These mutations are what drive evolution, and Behe admits as much. We also understand how these mutations happen. Point mutations, deletions, doubling and horizontal transfer are the mechanisms for change.

No, we will probably never know the exact sequence of the changes that led to a particular function or organism because much of that happened in the distant past. However the mechanisms that allow for the changes are understood.

[Mudhammam]

Well, the only ID argument I have taken the time to examine is Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. Apart from the fact that I agree with Peter Atkins' review (http://infidels.org/library/modern/peter.../behe.html), I do think it highlights some challenging issues regarding exactly how chemistry evolved in such a manner on the basis of natural selection. Of course, one could throw in abiogenesis here, but granting life, I'm still not aware of an account that satisfactorily resolves how these mechanisms took shape.

Also, that's not to say I doubt Neo-Darwinism is correct, but given my understanding of its current formulation, I wonder if it is a theory that can resolve all of our questions about evolution or if on certain facts it is analogous to attempting to explain quantum gravity using Newtonian physics?

Which unresolved questions are you referring to, Pickup? The mechanisms for the molecular changes that drive evolution are fairly well understood. Behe himself published a paper on the subject of the mechanisms in 2010. In the paper he draws some questionable conclusions based on limited data, but he explains how changes lead to evolution fairly well. In his paper Behe describes “Loss-of-FCT” mutations, “Modification-of-FCT” mutations, and “Gain-of-FCT” mutations. These mutations are what drive evolution, and Behe admits as much. We also understand how these mutations happen. Point mutations, deletions, doubling and horizontal transfer are the mechanisms for change.

No, we will probably never know the exact sequence of the changes that led to a particular function or organism because much of that happened in the distant past. However the mechanisms that allow for the changes are understood.

That's interesting that he would write that and still push his updated watchmaker tripe. Thanks for the link. Unless I misunderstand modern evolutionary theory though, isn't RNA at a minimum required since we're talking about genes that get selected?