Would it count?

[Deamiter]

i do not believe in micro or macro evolution so here is a question for you all to answer as i am only interested in what people think on this topic.

is it consistant or hypicritical to one's faith to believe that one exists but not the other?

don't worry, all i am after are people's opinions, i have no plans to rebut ayone.

Sounds like a great new thread topic to me as it's not on topic here and you'll get more on-topic responses in a new thread.

To answer the question though, it depends on what faith you're talking about. If you're talking about faith in God, then no it's absolutely unrelated. I can't imagine what other type of faith you might be wondering about.

Basically micro-evolution is usually understood as mutations that cause variations like different breeds of dogs -- pretty easily demonstrated. Macro-evolution is less well defined and generally addresses the creation of new species or kinds (depending on who you talk to). The acceptance or rejection of one or the other should really be based on evidence and not faith -- especially since the only faith that would contradict these ideas would be faith in your personal interpretation of the Bible, not faith in God himself.

 

[Deamiter]

No, he absolutely has not dropped the irreducible complexity argument. The new book details even more cool specifics about the ol' flagellum that add to that argument. He also had a link to this cool video -- specifically check out the one about the flagellum replicating. http://www.npn.jst.go.jp/movie5.html

I think we can all agree -- its totally amazing. All the pieces working together so wonderfully. wow.

It is pretty amazing. I keep wondering though -- how can Behe possibly argue that the flagellum could not have evolved when it's been shown repeatedly to be made up of numerous structures that exist and are used elsewhere in bacteria?
(see here: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html )

It seems that he argues repeatedly that because we cannot show how it DID happen, plausible explanations of how it COULD have happened are not worth considering.

I mean, when you have bacteria that can evolve an entirely new metabolic pathway including a novel enzyme (to metabolize nylon or TNT for instance) what's the huge deal with even simpler structures mutating and being used in related systems in cases such as the flagellum?

 

[laptoppop]

Sorry bro - read the book.

 

[philadiddle]

i do not believe in micro or macro evolution

So, after the conversations we've had lately, this statement just solidifies the fact that you have no idea what evolution is. You really should figure out what you're arguing against.

Didn't you say you've been involved in this discussion for 30 years?

 

[shernren]

Does Behe quote some papers on the evolution of the malaria parasite? And what conclusions does he draw from them? Trying to follow up on something seen by an Amazon.com reviewer.

Also, does Behe describe flagella in his new book, or cilia?

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, the book goes into a great amount of detail on the malaria parasite and drug resistance and sickle (sp) cell anemia. It is a primary topic. Another primary topic is HIV.

He discusses in some depth single-gene mutations versus dual-gene mutations. The malaria parasite is a prime example, because of the huge populations involved.

It also goes into more depth regarding the flagellum, in particular the replication mechanisms and what it takes to make them work and the difficulties in how the mechanisms were formed.. I don't recall it talking about cilia.

 

[shernren]

Which specific scientific papers does he quote about the malaria parasite? You could find this in the appendices or footnotes. Does he use them to draw any conclusions?

Also, are you sure he talks about flagella? Most reviewers mention cilia but not flagella - curious.