Comments on Coyne's Introduction

Well I welcome Dr. Coyne too . the attrition of truth demands free discussions and lots of it.
I watched EVOLUTION IS TRUE on youtube but was not persuaded it was true or a biological case was made for a biological hypothesis/theory.
Of coarse if evolution is not true ONE could not make a scientific biological case.
A line of reasoning.
Anyways evolutionists need some help here. Actually evolutionism needs help as another ID book(Behe) wins MVP in 2019 once again.

Yea, @swamidass, @NLENTS, @Art were losing so badly to Behe, we brought in @Jerry_Coyne for support. We are saving Richard Dawkins for emergencies. :sunglasses:

4 Likes

If I’m remembering correctly from the Behe response, @NLENTS is “he who shall not be named” and @Art is the “other guy”.

4 Likes

It may be a good idea to read the book, when it is available, before assigning it MVP status.

3 Likes

Imagine!

Finally, a real scientist. :smiley:

Oh, not going to let you get a way with that one. PS has a lot of highly accomplished and highly acclaimed scientists in many subject areas. This is the major strength of PS. I have just nominated @NLENTS for “PS Scientist of the Week.” Award.

3 Likes

I disrespectfully recline.

3 Likes

it already did it before anyone read the book if one bring analysis.
Behe is a famous ID thinker , in his case, because he is not a YEC creationist.
he , as a scientist, denied selection on mutations could create the complexity of biology. So a creator is demanded. As a scientist he aims at how mutationism could not possibly bring complexity.
He attacks on many fronts and is so successful he is a game changer in these matters.
Thats why it matters about this , minor, angle of attack he used. I understand he is saying only a atrophied mutation, and selected on, is the origin of the polar bears traits. not a healthy mutation that was selected on!!
its a other point about how mutations can not create good things but only a defective one did. IF I GOT IT RIGHT.
Then the already struggling evolutionists smelled he made a mistake. the studies he quoted for a defective gene, the mutation selected on, was not defective. he read the studies wrong.
yet the greater issue is the attrition of Behe on IF mutations can create the glory of biology.
regardless of these skirmishes this driving attrition moves forward and frightens bad guys everywhere.
They are watching him. sure they are!

I can’t follow any of this.

2 Likes

Join the club.

1 Like

I understood it.

Would you care to summarize, then? Would it be beneficial for the conversation?

I somehow doubt it.

Sorry. That was harsh.

1 Like

In this case his post does have a point that I expect to be raised by ID advocates often, “maybe he was wrong on the Polar Bear detail, but his overall argument still stands.”

2 Likes

ouch. i don’t know he was wrong but you got it right about the greater picture.
YEC does not need atrophy of genes to create new species.
yet mutations creating new species is impossible especially from fish to rhinos etc.

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.