Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 10:40:38pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: I never said the problem was ignored, but... Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 10/ 9/04 1:24pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Not quite you haven't." on 10/ 3/04 1:32pm >Sorry Wade. You asked for it. Have I read all of >these? No. Have I read some completely? Yes. Have >I read many of the abstracts? Yes. At any rate, here >you go... > > >skipped list< >Hope this convinces you that your claim that we're >"ignoring" Behe's clotting cascade problem is false. I never said the problem has been ignored, but what Behe claims is that it hasn't been satisfactorily accounted for, that there does not (yet?) exist rigorously developed explanation of how blood cascading could have evolved or how the problems of gradualistic development could be solved. I am not a biochemist, so I likely wouldn't know a rigorous explanation of it if I saw one (I just know the basics). Nonetheless, I've seen would-be rebuttals to the "publish or perish" section and they--in my experience--miss the point. Comparing biochemical similarities of course exists like crazy. But a thorough and rigorous explanation of how (e.g. the blood cascade) could have developed is apparently lacking in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I don't remember if it was you or not but someone directed me to a certain paper on RNA regarding the alleged DNA-enzyme "chicken and the egg" type problem. After several weeks of effort in finally obtaining it, it turned out to be a dud. It didn't answer the relevant matter at hand. I've seen critics make the same blunder against Behe. Part of his support ironically comes from his critics, that disagree with his ID conclusion but admit that the systems are indeed very complex and currently unexplained. This leads me to believe that Behe was correct in at least this matter (the biochemical systems are complex and not yet explained by the current paradigm). Nonetheless, what I'm really trying to argue is that ID can at least in principle be rationally accepted, and that "short-cut" victories are unsound. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date BLAST! I posted it in the wrong area. Wade A. Tisthammer 10/ 9/04 1:27pm Mousetraps Damoclese 10/ 9/04 10:14pm RNA world Damoclese 10/10/04 11:43am RNA world -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 10/16/04 3:35pm RNA thoughts -- Damoclese, 10/16/04 6:00pm More thoughts. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 10/31/04 1:53pm Brief Hiatus... Duane 10/12/04 2:57am