Re: [asa] Artificial molecule evolves in the lab

From: David Clounch <>
Date: Fri Jan 09 2009 - 12:59:29 EST


You seem to be saying this report has implications. If so, I think you are

Can you point to someone who made the argument about complexity that you
claim to refute? It wasn't Behe's argument, for example. Might have been
someone else's. But who? You are probably correct that someone out there
does make such a claim but why does that matter? I'd be willing to bet that
it isn't anti-evolutionists who make this claim about complexity, but the
anti-anti-evolutionists (who arent the same thing as pro-evolutionists,
whatever that might be) who are putting words into the mouths of

This is why it is important to put the report, and it's implications, if
there are any, in the context of an actual claim about the phenomena of
complexity when one uses it.

I don't think the report has any implications that can be applied to the
claims of groups. It's a real stretch.

Am I making any sense?

Now, down to what I think of the report. I think the approach of Mike Gene
is correct. A bunch of engineers came up with a mechanism that might or
might not occur in nature all on its own. So engineering principles were

I also think of it mathematically. The reported mechanism is a vector in a
space consisting of all possible mechanisms. The engineers populated part of
that space that previously was empty. To me, thats all normal. It doesn't
address the question asked by Behe. The question asked by Behe has to do
with whether a set of curved lines in that space are all likely to
intersect at a certain point. Is there a solution? Might be. But Behe never
claimed the math proves there is no solution. He merely said it is not
likely for there to be a natural process that produces the solution. So it
is reasonable to believe that it takes engineering to create the
intersection. To refute this, and show that it is not reasonable to believe
there must be engineering, one has to show either that the solution is
necessary, or that it is likely in the absence of engineering.
The report has nothing to do with either. If anything, the report supports
Mike Gene's assertions about engineering. (but I already said that above,
didn't I?).


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Jim Armstrong <> wrote:

> This has the apparent effect of conclusively negating a pivotal
> anti-evolutionist argument to the effect that more complex entities cannot
> evolve from less complex - JimA [Friend of ASA]
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 9 12:59:58 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 09 2009 - 12:59:58 EST