You brought up neutral theory while the slide about the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism was up which reads:
"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
You said that when you learned more science you realized “everyone actually agrees with this”, and started talking about Kimura and neutral theory. The audio of this video is hard to hear but you very clearly said that Kimura showed that “while natural…positive selection driven change could not account for molecular machines, could not account for changes in DNA and that neutral mechanisms could.”
You went on to mention molecular machines again. I remember this part of the debate very clearly because I immediately almost jumped out of my seat. Did you misspeak?
Right about 1:45 of this video.
Now for those who say this wasn’t a debate, the event details describe it as both a “spirited discussion” and a “debate” quite clearly here. Click on “view details”. This is what every single attendee saw during the process of getting their ticket, including me.
Do you understand “Darwinism” hasn’t been the scientific consensus for close to 70 years and the DI’s “Dissent from Darwinism” is just worthless political propaganda?
I would agree with that statement, and I accept the theory of evolution. I think there are more evolutionary mechanisms than just random mutation and natural selection, and those are included in the modern theory of evolution. I also agree that we should carefully examine every single theory in science, since that is what science is all about.
Do you see the problem? Scientists can agree with that statement and not reject evolution, and it certainly doesn’t indicate an acceptance of intelligent design.
No, I did not misspeak. It is well known that positive selection alone cannot account for molecular machines. You also need constructive neutral evolution: Constructive Neutral Evolution. If I recall correctly, I said “Neutral Theory as described by Kimura” does not explain new functions, which is entirely accurate, but Constructive Neutral Evolution does, as do many other mechanism.
Don’t forget: X-Men Constructive Neutral Evolution.
So your claim is that the bacterial flagellum can be explained by Constructive Neutral Evolution?
I’d love to hear this.
Try reading what I wrote and comparing it with what you wrote. If you can’t paraphrase such a simple statement without adding additional superfluous claims, I can’t help you.
Behe brings up the flagellum, as expected.
You say you agree that Darwinian evolution cannot account for it, then you say neutral evolution can.
Now you are claiming you never claimed that. Do you have an alternative explanation for the flagellum or not?
Wow, really? That is not what I said. Please reread what I wrote, perhaps several times.
It doesn’t matter if we have an explanation or not. You can’t jump from “I don’t know” to “God did it”. There is no logic that gets you from one to the other. If Behe can’t show us how God made the flagellum, can we use that as evidence for the evolution of the system?
Do you have an explanation for the bacterial flagellum or not?
Please show me where I claimed to have an explanation for the bacterial flagellum at the detail required to satisfy Behe or you? Please show me where I even claimed to have any explanation for the bacterial flagellum?
Why would you make stuff up like this @BenKissling?
This is supposed to be where you explain stuff in further detail. But you won’t even answer a simple question.
Are you presenting Constructive Neutral Evolution as a possible explanation for the flagellum?
If not, why did you bring it up?
If yes, why do you refuse to just say that?
If you would like me to explain in more detail, I suggest a question such as: “Would you explain in more detail please?”
I never claimed to present an alternative explanation for the flagellum, let alone one you would find satisfying.
You claimed neutral evolution explains molecular machines and changes in DNA. Are you not including the bacterial flagellum in the category of molecular machines?
Trivially false statement.
There’s video evidence.
I already posted two papers with evolutionary explanations. I can post dozens more. Papers Behe lied about and claimed don’t exist. Go back and read the thread.