Talk:Behe: The Edge of Evolution, Interview
Read a few answers
- 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)
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)
- 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?
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. ħuman 02:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Evolution in action
Creatures which have adapted to city life (birds, rats, foxes ...) without the city being designed for them.
Evolution is constrained
- 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 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/) 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
Errata: Reference  is now obsolete as MarkCC had changed Web Servers. The correct reference now is: http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2007/05/31/behes-dreadful-new-book-a-review-of-the-edge-of-evolution/.
- 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
-  03:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)