[MD] The Trouble With Wilber

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com>:

> > [Krimel]
> > "Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It
> takes
> > perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a
> > half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a
> > wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value
> whatsoever.
> > In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only
> if
> > these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same
> > mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex,
> > and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate,
> > and have offspring with real functional wings."
> > 
> > This could be Philip Johnson or Michael Behe... pulzee.
> 
> [Platt]
> Puleez what? You find this faulty because . . .?
> 
> [Krimel]
> I really don't have the patience to discuss this politely with you, read The
> Selfish Gene for Pete's Sake.

As if Dawkins is God. Or maybe it's Pete.

> Act like you have a clue.

Let's see. You have a clue, but I don't. Ah, the arrogance of a know-it-all.

> For a specific
> discussion on this particular issue and Wilber's lame response to criticism
> on this point see:
> 
> http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilber_on_biological_evolution.html

Now you're talking. Thanks for the reference. I wonder how convincing it will
be. We'll see.  



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/