More Lies from Evolutionists- Behe's Colleagues Choke on "Darwin Devolves"

-
It never fails. Evos lie, lie, lie and lie again. This time it is two of Dr. Behe's colleagues writing another bullshit review of "Darwin Devolves"

Why evolution by natural selection is difficult for so many to accept is beyond the scope of this review; however, it is not for a lack of evidence: the data (only some of which we present here) are more than sufficient to convince any open‐minded skeptic that unguided evolution is capable of generating complex systems.

Look, assholes, we reject the notion because it is untestable pap. You don't have a mechanism capable of producing replicating RNAs so forget about living organisms. And even when given starting populations of prokaryotes you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.

Only in the world of biology do scientists think that differential accumulations of accidents, errors and mistakes can actually produce novel body plans, complex protein machines, and codes.

If any engineer said that they could build a bridge that way no one would trust the structure.

If someone told you that the entirety of literature arose that way starting from the sentence "A quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog", would you believe them? That scenario would easier to explain than the diversity of life via those same processes.

They complain:

Calling a flagellum an outboard motor may have some merit as a teaching tool, but it is not reality.

True, but it is a ROTARY MOTOR. And it really doesn't matter what it is called. You still don't have a mechanism capable of producing it.

By acknowledging the reality that proteins are proteins, and not machines, we immediately recognize the shortcomings of irreducible complexity—a central pillar of the intelligent design movement

Total bullshit as they don't have a mechanism capable of producing proteins.

The concept of irreducible complexity is flawed for two reasons. First, it considers a system only in its current state and assumes that complex interdependency has always existed.

That is not true and it is very telling they didn't provide any evidence for it.

Second, irreducible complexity does not consider that proteins perform multiple functions and, therefore, evolutionary paths that seem unlikely when considering only one function may be realized through a series of stepwise improvements on another function.

Again, simply not true and again they did not provide anything to support that claim.

The authors seem clueless that they have to provide then evidence that shows blind and mindless processes are up to the task. They FAILed to do so.

Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

So, here we have two people who work at Lehigh choking on Behe's book. I cannot wait for his response to those clueless losers