Re: [asa] Behe's debate with himself...

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Tue Apr 28 2009 - 19:12:39 EDT

I think you're neglecting the fact that a small change in a control
sequence may produce a major change in an organism. After all, there is a
99% overlap in the genetic makeup of humans and chimps. Two areas of
change, according to an article in the latest /Scientific American/,
produce (1) a massive change in the size and complexity of the brain
cortex and (2) an area producing language.
Dave (ASA)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:56:46 +1000 Murray Hogg <>
> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> > As I understand it, there's much more to biological evolution than
> "small incremental changes." There are many evolutionary mechanisms
> (random mutation, gene drift, natural selection,,, to list some of
> the many,,, also now driven by the human mind as humans modify and
> control DNA in plants and animals as well as manipulate habitats).
> >
> > If it is discovered that something happens very fast in a big way,
> do evolutionists care? No, it is still evolution. But what would
> the evolution-deniers then have to complain about? They complain
> about small changes impossible to do something, then if they are
> proven right, the big changes are then part of evolution and so what
> can they complain about next? Just go on about how Darwin was
> wrong,,, dancing on his grave? Darwin just set things in motion,
> he's not a god. Evolution should be called evolution, and not
> "Darwinian evolution" as if there's different kinds. People are
> just researching the mechanisms for evolution.
> >
> > People who are against "Darwinian evolution" can be attacked on
> their "Ham theology" (named after Ken Ham and his theology of
> literal Bible interpretation).
> >
> > So there you have it:
> >
> > "Darwinian evolution" vs. "Ham theology"
> Hi Bernie,
> MAJOR category error in the above: "small incremental changes" is
> not intended to be a description of a mechanism which one might
> place alongside gene drift, etc. Hence, "there's more to biological
> evolution than 'small incremental changes'" doesn't even make sense
> as a response to my comments.
> As to whether the notion of "small, incremental changes" is so
> easily gotten around - one has to ask why Behe's notion of
> irreducible complexity is so problematic if the sudden appearance of
> biochemical features is something evolutionists don't care about.
> Fact is that from Darwin to Dawkins the claim has been that
> evolution involves small, incremental changes and any claim of
> "jumps" is ruled out of court on principle.
> As for only two possible positions on origins...
> Blessings,
> Murray
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Earn your associate's criminal justice degree and start your career training today.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 28 19:17:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 28 2009 - 19:17:38 EDT