Talk:Behe: The Edge of Evolution, Interview

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)
See the history of vandalism to this article

Read a few answers[edit]

Sorry. Just read a few of his answers and thought they were good. HeartGold tx 21:21, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Welcome back, Heart! Anyways, you can always look here. It's an article that appeared in the New Republic. It's a pretty damning critique of the "book."-AmesG 21:23, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Criminy, vandalised before I could even proofread his answers! People move fast on this wiki... :) Hi Heart! humanbe in 21:25, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, thanks for a few minutes to play. I think I got the structure straight & editing easy. I started a few answers for us, but much more can be done, like fixing my crappy answers... humanbe in 21:42, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

This article is approved by RW's self-appointed culinary expert

This article has officially become awesome and should be featured prominently. That's how we do it, folks!--PalMD-yada yada 13:02, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, wow. From an offhand suggestion from Tmtoulouse to me yesterday afternoon, to this, in 24 hours! Incredible work, team RW! humanbe in 14:54, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll join in on the self congratulation here too. All this and no mention of the "Other Place". Great! --Bob_M (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Darwinism and TOE should not mean the same thing, right?[edit]

Under section 2 Behe sez: "Not at all. It is an excellent explanation for some features of life, but it has sharp limits. Darwin’s theory is an amalgam of several concepts: 1) random mutation, 2) natural selection, and 3) common descent." Someone correct me if I'm horribly wrong about this, but: Random mutation was not part of Darwin's theory. This was before Mendelian genetics/DNA. Maybe Behe is intentionally conflating the modern TOE with Darwin's theory of natural selection - I think he does this throughout the interview - but either way it's just wrong. Attacking the possibility of random mutations has nothing to do with arguing against 'Darwinism', if Darwinism means the theories of Darwin. I dunno why these cretinists are so obsessed with Darwin. Bleckhh. I was just thinking we could mention this somewhere. If we have already, my apologies! - Clepper

"Darwin’s theory" is not even a "scientific theory", it's a 150 year-old hypothesis that has developed into the "modern consensus" or whatever it's called. He's using the phrase because like most YECs he's a Giant-worshipping mental gnat. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if he used mutation but the idea that things changed over time and the best suited to an environment flourish was pretty clear in his books. ' Yes darwinism'is treated as the current theory in biology often referred to as TOE. Hamster (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Evolution in action[edit]

Creatures which have adapted to city life (birds, rats, foxes ...) without the city being designed for them.

Be careful with edges. They may be sharp. (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Evolution is constrained[edit]

People won't suddenly develop wings, nor plants legs etc. Is this misunderstanding/misrepresenting the Behe thesis more than it does 'actual evolution'? (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, where do you see this...sentiment? 01:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

IMHO I believe just citing Richard Lenski's long-term E. coli evolution experiment (see would more than blow off this 'constrained' argument. — Unsigned, by: Slack1 / talk / contribs

if thats what Behe said he is quite right, people wont "suddenly' develop wings and plants have been under pressure to grow legs (or other means of moving) and I am not aware of any that can do so. What would be the advantage to a human with wings (presuming no arms)? Hamster (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

BoN brings a correction[edit]

Errata: Reference [2] is now obsolete as MarkCC had changed Web Servers. The correct reference now is:

Regards, An Atheist skeptic truth-seeking unbeliever... :) — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Much appreciated, but you could've made that correction yourself on the page instead of notifying us and waiting for someone else to change it. Be brave! :D I've made the correction to the link for you, however, so it's taken care of. Thanks for your help, anonymous skeptic! (P.S. consider registering an account and joining us.) Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 11:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Preserving the Interview[edit]

Hi! I'm clueless. How do we preserve interview in the event Uncommon Descent ceases to function? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 00:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

[1] Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)