TalkDesign - Irreducible Complexity

Meyer's Hopeless Monster

admin — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:33:37 -0500

Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry critique the paper published by "intelligent design" advocate Stephen C. Meyer in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August, 2004. They conclude that Meyer's review paper presents an incomplete, misleading, and false impression of the biological evidence, and that his conclusion that "intelligent design" is supported because evolutionary alternatives are eliminated is illegitimate.

Theory Is As Theory Does

admin — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:12:39 -0500

Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright examine the claims of the Michael Behe and David Snoke paper published in Protein Science in 2004. While the goal of the Behe and Snoke paper is to generate impressive-looking improbabilities for the evolutionary development of a class of biochemical features, it turns out that use of biologically realistic numbers in their model shows that evolution is almost certain to develop them.

Evolving Immunity

admin — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:59:31 -0500

Matt Inlay responds to the immunity chapter, Chapter 6, of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

admin — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:58:18 -0500

Pete Dunkelberg's essay will prove helpful to educators, boards of education, legislators and members of the press who may be wondering about "Irreducible Complexity".

Background to "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum"

admin — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 14:24:38 -0500

Nick Matzke provides a brief article covering some of the background information needed to understand arguments made about bacterial flagella and Michael Behe's claims of 'irreducible complexity' for that organelle.