Being famous is not a scientific accomplishment. So we agree then that he is not a particularly accomplished scientist. His fame is comparable to Bill Nye, in that both have spent about equal time doing scientific work over the last 20 years, even though Nye is more famous.
no, i do not confuse, fame with accomplishments, i said he has raised questions that all scientists around the world trying to find the answer and they are hopeless already 23 and so on experimentally to demonstrate that he has been wrong., I am not saying he is famous, i am saying that he raised valid scientific questions that 23 and so trying to prove him wrong, as Behe puts
I showed in the Appendix that no evidence beyond handwaving has been published since Darwin’s Black Box
Except we have shown that he is wrong. Are you claiming there is some sort of award for being stubborn?
Does he even mention the evidence other than “handwaving”? If he doesn’t, that would be clear demonstration that he avoids evidence against him.
i am not an expert, but at least I was following the debate was not able to see how you have shown that he is wrong. Yes, there was a time that I saw strong argument made by Lenski over polar bear, but Behe’s answer turned it down…nobody said anything after that, as a «layperson» what to think?
Did you not see Lenksi’s response? Behe ignored the critique against him. He did not admit he had misrepresented the paper.
This is Lenski’s review,
and this is Micheal Behe’s response to Lenski Lessons from Polar Bear Studies | Evolution News
is there something else that I missed?
Did you read our two subsequent responses to it?
Where is Behe’s response to Lenski’s Part IV critique (see OP of this thread) where Lenski described in detail an experiment which directly refuted Behe’s IC and Edge of Evolution claims? Lenski’s Part IV review has been out for almost a week and Behe has been dodging it like his pants are on fire.
i guess yes, you made surprise statement
«He does provide an interesting reference to how a knock down can reduce cholesterol. I’m not sure if that relates to survival, or how it relates to reduced function».
Nathan H. Lents admitted that Behe made serious counterargument and promised in future to handle it.
«He does manage some speculation of the science, so I’d say that’s progress on returning to a serious discussion»
Yes, we did say this. What else did we say? (and why does this require spoonfeeding?)
because I did not see anything substantive other than this 2 sentences, and I guess the conversation stopped after Nathan’s comment.
How in the world did you get “made serious counterargument” from the words “does manage some speculation”???
As the author of the comment sees it as
«progress on returning to a serious discussion»
of course, in this case, we do not take into account that the author of the comment is biased against Behe in the first place, but he admits, that even he saw the seriousness in the argument made by Behe
Er…no. Saying someone is speculating as progress toward a serious discussion is not saying the speculation was serious discussion.
I’ll assume the nuances of English as a second language confused you.
Edgar are you going to address this discrepancy since you earlier claimed Behe has responded to all criticism?
What did @art say. What did I publish later about his Back Cover?
It seems to me that Behe is now arguing that the putatively damaged APOB in polar bears lacks between 50 and 70% of the activity of its ortholog in brown bears (or maybe humans - it is not entirely clear from his use of the paper by Farese et al. just what the standard or control might be). Of course, he doesn’t offer any data to support this hypothesis, or otherwise, argue that this explanation is better than that discussed by Lenski and Lents.
as I said nothing substantive, there is nothing that refutes Behe
Behe’s refusal to address his blatant misrepresentation of Table S7 of the paper by Liu et al.
Behe addressed the issue of the program predicting possibly, probabably damaging, bengin,
as Behe said
Benign means simply that, as far as the program can tell, no damage has been done to the protein by that change; it does not mean the change is constructive.
i did not see anyone raised any serious question about the table
why does book back cover matters on polar bear gene being damaged. You can also have the picture of Santa Clause book cover, from that the gene of polar bear does not recover from being damaged.
This is the first in a series of posts responding to the extended critique of Darwin Devolves by Richard Lenski at his blog
wait more will come in the coming days…
Except for the fact Behe deliberately removed the parts of the table which directly contradicted his claims. Was that something an honest scientist would do?
A book cover with quote-mined deliberately misleading statements casts the same doubts on the contents of the book.
So when you claimed Behe has addressed all the critiques you were wrong.