Hi Eddie -
As I am about to explain, you have so vastly misrepresented my stance and the information in this thread that I do not feel in the least respected.
You have removed key context from my post and from the posts that followed. For the sake of anyone who might not have read carefully, I repeat what I stated:
I know my limits, so I asked those more knowledgeable than I to correct any mistakes I might have made. I was not asserting my own authority. Consequently, there is no tension.
Why did you omit that important context, Eddie?
But that was not the only serious omission you made. Can you seriously claim that you did not read the posts by members of the scientific community before you posted “with due respect”?
Steve Schaffner agreed with my post. He has co-authored several key papers in primate evolution.
T_aquaticus, a biologist, also agrees with my post.
And John Mercer, a molecular biologist, agrees with me.
And as I am writing, Art Hunt chimes in to support what I have written.
You don’t want to believe what I say about biology? Fine. If you want to claim that you respect the opinions of the scientific community, you should start giving due respect to what @glipsnort , @T_aquaticus and @Mercer, and @Art say.
I did check with biologists. Right here in this thread. In full, public view.
Speaking of tension… You have spent hundreds of hours writing hundreds of posts defending a biochemist who writes popular books about evolution that are uniformly dismissed by evolutionary biologists such as @NLENTS and Richard Lenski. And yet you opine that a Ph.D. biologist in academia like T_aquaticus is unqualified to speak with authority?
Apply the same standard to Behe that you apply to @T_aquaticus, my friend.
Having admitted the expertise of Steve Schaffner to speak on the subject in the thread, will you actually listen to him? Before you wrote your “due respect” post, he had already written this:
If you had really paid attention to what @glipsnort wrote, you would not have tried to launch a diversionary attack on my credibility. It is a common tactic of those who know they have lost an argument to try to shift focus to some irrelevant point. As Carl Sandburg says,
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
The biologists have overwhelmingly refuted you and agreed with me. Why are you pretending that they have not addressed the subject, Eddie?