Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You're dodging. Behe has offered multiple definitions for "irreducible complexity" over the years, so in a discussion of IC it's important to clarify which one we're talking about.Why do you many times deflect by asking questions? Your tactic won’t work with me anymore.
So which definition are you using?
Ah, and there's the defense mechanism. You make up your own standard where a precursor has to be "obvious", and if a specimen doesn't meet that standard you can dismiss it. And who decides what is and isn't "obvious"? You of course!Nope, read the literature...they haven’t found any obvious precursors. You want (need?) to believe they have, I guess.
Rather convenient.....and obvious.
Um....okay then.My rebuttal was the sheer diversity of living things....didn’t you get that?
And yet another defense mechanism pops up. This time it's redefining "macroevolution" to mean "evolution of an eye", and since we haven't directly observed an eye evolving in real time, you can dismiss it.To the point where an eye (or other anatomical feature) is forming? Show me the observed transitional pathways.
Evolution of the eye is simple, according to Dawkins. You’ve got an organism that’s developing photo receptors, or some early stages of eye evolution? Any perceived novel anatomical evolution arising? Please, let’s see it.
Again, rather obvious on your part.
And that's primarily because that's the limit of what Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to accept, correct?I do believe that macro occurs among lower taxa, maybe up to the Family level...but no new Families are developing.
This discussion is about that, most certainly. But again I notice how reluctant you are to discuss the role your faith plays in shaping your views on science. I'm still not sure what to make of that.Because this thread isn’t about that. Is it?