I find it odd that you admire Behe so much and yet think he's mistaken
about common descent, when you claim that the evidence for common descent
is (paraphrasing) obvious trash to anyone who doesn't have an ideological
axe to grind.
Is Behe so stupid that he can't see the flaws in the evidence? Is he so
cowardly that he won't point them out (in spite of his bravery in writing
_Darwin's Black Box_)?
> ...The idea that man evolved from apes (which is really what you are
> saying, isn't it Rich?) is too comical to take seriously. I mean, what
> could be more irreducibly complex than the human brain?
In a very few years, we'll know the complete DNA sequences for man, chimp,
and gorilla. I'll make you a bet: There will be no human genes that are
not also in chimps and gorillas, with very minor differences. (Actually
it's just barely possible that there could be one or two genes extra in
humans, because they were deleted during the evolution of chimps, but those
would be found in gorillas. Another source of extra genes would be
retroviral insertions, but those should leave traces showing their viral
Someone who believes there is a huge gap separating man from apes should
expect hundreds of genes in man that bear no similarity to chimp genes.
Will you take this bet? The only thing at stake is that the loser has to
publicly admit that he was wrong.
See also http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/benmut.html.
> Besides, the earth isn't old enough for any real "common descent" to
> have taken place.
How old do you think the Earth is, and why?
> Or take the bombardier beetle?...
Rich Daniel firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
Internet Infidel http://www.infidels.org