Stop being paranoid Sybil.
I don't have a science background. I took Biology and Geology in college, but I think that's about it? Cannot remember. I never claimed to be a scientist. That's why I read what other Scientists, like Behe have to say. I've read a book and posted comments from the book. You and your multiple personalities, on the other hand, have critiqued a book you've never read, while trying to sound like you have a science background, when in reality you don't know squat. Frankly, I could care less about the links you post. My kids can do that.
It's funny how posting comments from a scientist like Behe has you and your multiple personalities to panic.
Since we are going around in circles, I will keep reposting my arguments until you decide to respond to them.
1.) Irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. A familiar paradox arises, "if God created IC organisms, then who created God?"
2.) How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. I showed you how a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC.
3.) Michael Behe argues that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced by evolution. However, there are 4 possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.
- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve
4.) Several, more prominent chemists, geneticists and biologists, have read Behe's book and they all say he is wrong. They include Oxford, Harvard, and Yale professors.
I didn't even need to read Behe's book for arguments 1 and 4. I wouldn't say his comments have us in a panic since his book was refuted by the scientific community a while ago. It's just frustrating arguing with an impressionable fool with an anti-evolution agenda.
