I find his arguments against macro-evolution at the molecular level to be quite convincing. Having said this however, I am only a 19 and have little knowledge of micro-biology, that's why I was interested in your opinion on Behe. Specifically, what do you think of his analysis concerning blood clotting and cascading nature of it's process? Thanks, Stephen
It's clear that the open-source software movement is taking off, Linux is gaining the respect it deserves, and with Darwin, it seems that Apple is starting to realize the benefits of open-source projects. I picture the open-source movement spreading to fields like medicine or engineering. Imagine if big pharmicudical corps. shared their research with each other, who knows what advances in treatment of diseases like cancer or AIDS we might see! Of course free-enterprise would still exsist, the companies that could implement ideas most effectivly would profit, instead of companies that simply sat on their R&D. Where do think open source is headed? -faithful Apple user since age 2.
Although this article is impressive, realize that the ability to pick out words is entirely different from the ability to understand words, to use words. I would bet that a 2 year old baby still has better comprehension and understanding of ideas expressed by spoken words than this nerual net does. Think of the way our language evolves, all the slight variations in tone and in gesture(sarcasm anyone?) , regional dialects (it's like butta) and all the double meanings of words (cleave). Mind you this stuff is pretty neat, but we have a long way to go before we can have conversations with our computers. Even then, I would rather talk to a two year old, i'm sure they hold the secrets of NP math in their little brains, they just forget it all during their Power Rangers phase.
I disagree, there is a fairly large size market that still uses navigator, it does the job, and i simply refuse to use explorer. until a better browser comes along, i'll stick with netscape. Also, I work in IS at my school, every computer there has navigator, so that's about 17,000 people right there, and while that number may be small, there are a lot of situations like that to consider. "I'm Idaho" -Ralph Wiggum
Yes, Micheal Behe has a Ph.D in biochemistry for Lehigh University. And yes, I believe that I have a fairly decent understand of chemistry and have read enough material by those on both sides of the debate to make a qualified evaluation. As for faith, I have spoken nothing about my faith, or lack there of. As a side note, I have noticed that when the creation/evolution debate arises, people tend to refer to two sides as either brillant established scientists, or as crazy right-wing christians. I contest that one need not be crazy, christian, or right-wing to observe the giant flaws in species to species evolution. As for the question concerning the lizard, it seems as though you are assuming that you know everything about the way snakes work, perhaps their "hips" are intregal to their skeletal structure, or perhaps not, but either way. That observation in NO way concerns itself with the way the proteins organized (in only a few steps) themselves in a manner that resulted in a fully functioning cell. I think that this is a much larger hurdle than mysterious hips.
I've all of the reviews and articles and have found nothing that attempts to explain evolution on a celluar level. I did however find a lot of talking around the subject and somewhat chilidish attempts to discredit Behe and his efforts to bring bio-chemical studies into the limelight of evolutionary thought. Also, I would suggest reading the book for yourself, if you have not. I assure you that there is a great amount of material that was conviently not touched upon (for good reason) in the articles and critiques listed above.
A fantastic book by Micheal Behe that I strongly recommend to all those that are interested in this whole debate. Basically Behe destroyed the theory of macro-evolution (species to species) by examining life on a bio-chemical level and citing at least a dozen examples of irreducible complexity on the cellular level. I realize that this may not tie in explicitly with the discussion about engineering life, but this book presents an excellent argument as to why Darwin was simply wrong. One might also note, that in order to "create" this bacteria, they are just (i'm sure it is still quite difficult) rearranging materials already available to them in a labratory environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you didn't have a sword or daggers, you wouldn't be so pushy. I want a statue of Natalie Portman, or else.
I find his arguments against macro-evolution at the molecular level to be quite convincing. Having said this however, I am only a 19 and have little knowledge of micro-biology, that's why I was interested in your opinion on Behe. Specifically, what do you think of his analysis concerning blood clotting and cascading nature of it's process? Thanks, Stephen
It's clear that the open-source software movement is taking off, Linux is gaining the respect it deserves, and with Darwin, it seems that Apple is starting to realize the benefits of open-source projects. I picture the open-source movement spreading to fields like medicine or engineering. Imagine if big pharmicudical corps. shared their research with each other, who knows what advances in treatment of diseases like cancer or AIDS we might see! Of course free-enterprise would still exsist, the companies that could implement ideas most effectivly would profit, instead of companies that simply sat on their R&D. Where do think open source is headed? -faithful Apple user since age 2.
Although this article is impressive, realize that the ability to pick out words is entirely different from the ability to understand words, to use words. I would bet that a 2 year old baby still has better comprehension and understanding of ideas expressed by spoken words than this nerual net does. Think of the way our language evolves, all the slight variations in tone and in gesture(sarcasm anyone?) , regional dialects (it's like butta) and all the double meanings of words (cleave). Mind you this stuff is pretty neat, but we have a long way to go before we can have conversations with our computers. Even then, I would rather talk to a two year old, i'm sure they hold the secrets of NP math in their little brains, they just forget it all during their Power Rangers phase.
I disagree, there is a fairly large size market that still uses navigator, it does the job, and i simply refuse to use explorer. until a better browser comes along, i'll stick with netscape. Also, I work in IS at my school, every computer there has navigator, so that's about 17,000 people right there, and while that number may be small, there are a lot of situations like that to consider. "I'm Idaho" -Ralph Wiggum
Yes, Micheal Behe has a Ph.D in biochemistry for Lehigh University. And yes, I believe that I have a fairly decent understand of chemistry and have read enough material by those on both sides of the debate to make a qualified evaluation. As for faith, I have spoken nothing about my faith, or lack there of. As a side note, I have noticed that when the creation/evolution debate arises, people tend to refer to two sides as either brillant established scientists, or as crazy right-wing christians. I contest that one need not be crazy, christian, or right-wing to observe the giant flaws in species to species evolution. As for the question concerning the lizard, it seems as though you are assuming that you know everything about the way snakes work, perhaps their "hips" are intregal to their skeletal structure, or perhaps not, but either way. That observation in NO way concerns itself with the way the proteins organized (in only a few steps) themselves in a manner that resulted in a fully functioning cell. I think that this is a much larger hurdle than mysterious hips.
I've all of the reviews and articles and have found nothing that attempts to explain evolution on a celluar level. I did however find a lot of talking around the subject and somewhat chilidish attempts to discredit Behe and his efforts to bring bio-chemical studies into the limelight of evolutionary thought. Also, I would suggest reading the book for yourself, if you have not. I assure you that there is a great amount of material that was conviently not touched upon (for good reason) in the articles and critiques listed above.
A fantastic book by Micheal Behe that I strongly recommend to all those that are interested in this whole debate. Basically Behe destroyed the theory of macro-evolution (species to species) by examining life on a bio-chemical level and citing at least a dozen examples of irreducible complexity on the cellular level. I realize that this may not tie in explicitly with the discussion about engineering life, but this book presents an excellent argument as to why Darwin was simply wrong. One might also note, that in order to "create" this bacteria, they are just (i'm sure it is still quite difficult) rearranging materials already available to them in a labratory environment.