Re: [asa] flagella

From: David Buller <bullerscience@gmail.com>
Date: Tue May 22 2007 - 19:23:10 EDT

On 5/22/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect someone like Behe would say " *yeah, I don't reject common
> descent, so I'm not surprised that these genes derive from a common source;
> my point isn't about the lineage of the underlying genes, it's about the
> unique assemblage of the components built from the proteins expressed by
> those genes *." Or maybe my lack of facility with this literature is
> clouding the significance of this paper for me?

I doubt that Behe would be very comfortable with conceding this. He
certainly doesn't in Darwin's Black Box. Besides, where Behe accepts common
descent he pretty much accepts evolution (as far as I understand).
Therefore, it seems to me that he would object to "common descent" of the
genes in the flagella. The similarities continually discovered in the
components of the flagellum is constantly weakening his argument; I think
the future of "irriducible complexity" and ID is looking pretty bleak.

-David Buller

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 22 19:23:36 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 22 2007 - 19:23:36 EDT