That appears too muddled and vague an indictment to be considered evidence that Miller completely misrepresented Behe’s argument.
Miller introduces lobster clotting by stating “So far as we know, protein-based clotting systems are found only in vertebrates, crustaceans (animals such as crabs and lobsters), and other arthropods (including the horseshoe crab).” This (unless you can demonstrate that this statement is false) would seem to render lobster clotting a reasonable data point in tracking clotting evolution from its simplest to most complex forms.
The “simple Y-diagram” explicitly comes from a standard Biochemistry text. I could not track down the edition cited (4th), but can assure you that this diagram does appear in the immediately following (5th) edition. As this textbook appears to be still in print, if this diagram is in some way false, then you should bring that fact to the textbook’s publisher.
Miller does not appear to state that the human blood clotting system is “simple”, merely that it could have evolved from a more “imperfect and simple” mechanism:
A simple, nonspecific clotting mechanism like this is used today by many invertebrates, so we know that it would have worked for the ancestor’s of today’s vertebrates.
I would note that both Miller and Behe rely heavily for their claims about blood clotting on the work of Russell Doolittle. Miller thanked Doolittle for his “kind assistance” in explaining “the intricacies of blood clotting” – implying a fairly interactive and collegial relationship. Doolittle on the other hand seems less than impressed with Behe’s misrepresentation of his work.
It would therefore appear, at first sight, that your claim that Miller “completely misrepresented” Behe on blood-clotting does not hold water.
I would also note that you failed to answer my question as to why people were attempting to convince you that Behe had breen refuted before you read Darwin’s Black Box.
Exactly. So the Devonian amphibian was closer to a fish than I am. But. like my parents, it’s long since gone, and we are using relationships between present species.
PZ Myers and friends have done some digging, and have a possible explanation why the conferences haven’t been named. They included (and may have comprised):
The Notre Dame conference on Creation
The Westminster conference on science and faith
The Dallas conference on science and faith
That’s one conference explicitly about creation, and two conferences sponsored by the DI.
No, that isn’t how it works. If there were a perfect molecular clock, that method would work. But there isn’t, and most phylogenetic methods do not assume such a thing.
One more try. Dutch and Afrikaans are both descended from a language called Old Frankonian. Afrikaans split from Dutch in the 18th century. 18th century Dutch is closer than Afrikaans to Old Franconian, but modern Dutch and Afrikaans at exactly the same distance from it in time, because Dutch has continued to evolve since the split.
Amphibians and mammals are both descended from a Devonian lobefish. Mammals (to simplify slightly but that does not affect the argument) split from amphibians in the Pennsylvanian. A Pennsylvanina amphibian is closer than a mammal to the ancestral lobefish, but modern amphibians and mammals are at exactly the same distance from it in time, because amphibians have continued to evolve since the split.
Here’s where the family analogy breaks down a bit, as those organisms are likely to be contemporaneous with each other. The question is: is a salmon in a nearby stream your grandparent, or even your great-great-great-many-times grandparent? No. A salmon is your distant cousin, not so distant as a shark, not so distant as a lancelet, not so distant as a starfish, not so distant as an insect. A salmon is your contemporary. It would recognize the Devonian sea from which your tetrapod ancestors emerged as little as you would. It has evolved just as long as you have, in its own directions. It’s not your ancestor. No living species is the ancestor of humans – not even chimps, our closest cousins. The apes and monkeys from which we descend are long gone, and so while they would be slightly (very slightly!) closer to that branch point with the insects, they’re not a modern species like the salmon.
However, this represents yet another case of an IDcreationist misrepresenting empirical predictions of his/her ID hypothesis as facts–and yet another falsification.
And it also demonstrates why they get away with it. Their fans and followers haven’t the slightest clue about the most basic aspects of evolutionary theory. And that doesn’t change no matter how many explanations they receive.
He makes PSEUDOscientific arguments, classics of the genre.
There’s an obvious empirical test: have Behe’s books inspired anyone to DO any science? No, and that includes Behe. Therefore, even a nonscientist can see that your claim is false.
Also, Behe explicitly rejected the scientific method in his testimony for the Dover trial.