I've said it before and I'll say it again - You write very well about 
complex topics.

That is a good layman's introduction (I count myself as one).  There are 
of course substantial bodies of research, competing theories and 
unresolved details several layers deep below each and every thing that 
you mentioned.  However the overall picture is really shaping up and 
some aspects are very well understood by specialists in the field.

Not only *what* happens and *how* but the *way* in which such mechanisms 
came about.

And yet, the uninformed masses have no problem saying that "it is 
obviously too complex to come about by chance and therefore must have 
been created".  Yeh, as if those who don't understand and perhaps can't 
understand the complexity have a right to dismiss out of hand the 
enormity of what is now understood at a very deep level.  Then having 
dismissed it they assert their pet belief as the indisputable truth and 
go on to tell everybody else what they should and should not do.

Unfortunately Behe has armed them with yet another false plank to rest 
their beliefs on - "See, even scientists don't believe that evolution is 
true".  Uh, yes... One scientist who is refuted at every turn by actual 
experts in the field yet who continues to make such statements.  Let's 
see some actual research published in peer reviewed journals that 
support your alternative hypothesis.  Then there can be proper discussion.

In defence of the tree kangaroos of New Guinea and Northern Australia, 
they quite likely are very well adapted to the same sort of niche as the 
sloths.  Live in trees, eat low nutrition leaves which need to be 
fermented in order to extract energy, move slowly, conserve energy.  If 
it works then evolution doesn't care how stupid *you* think they look. 
But you know that.

Post a reply to this message