|
Professor Behe, Thanks for responding (again!) I really do appreciate it. I understand if you are too busy to respond to this email. But I wanted to thank you for acknowledging that the natural selection part of my example seems OK. That was really my only intention. Obviously a mousetrap that needs bait and a latch that has to physically be pulled back and locked into position by us does not really exist as a biological structure. My example is a fictitious one to demonstrate how a seemingly irreducibly complex system could evolve using all the rules that govern the process of natural selection. Yes, I guided it. I had to in order to arrive at a mousetrap like structure. It doesn't seem reasonable to challenge someone to imagine a process by which natural selection could create a specific mechanism (a mousetrap) and then accuse them of guiding it when they give you an example! You've unfairly created a catch 22 in my opinion. I am not trying to prove that mousetraps could have evolved. I am trying to discredit an idea of an impossibility. The idea that anything can be proven to be irreducibly complex. If I were a molecular biologist, I'm sure I could come up with an hypothesis to explain the evolution of a bacterial flagellum. That would not necessarily prove that it had in fact evolved that particular way. But it would falsify the idea of irreducible complexity. Both ideas would be scientifically inconclusive. respectfully, |