Is that point addressed, put forward in the Nature paper?
A. It’s not. The Nature paper itself is meant just to be a test of a general evolutionary hypothesis, examining how it is that complex features arise. Darwin had specific things to say about that. What we were doing was simply looking into that, testing it in a way. It just turns out that it also applies to this case. Q. Still on the subject of Michael Behe, but in a slightly different way, if you could pull up Exhibit 602? This is the expert report by Michael Behe that was provided to plaintiffs in this case. And could you turn, Matt, to — actually if you could display both pages 9 and 10 of the report, and highlight the language that I asked you to last night? In this report Dr. Behe lists five claims for the theory of evolution made by the renowned biologist Ernst Meyer. Evolution as such, common descent, multiplication of species, gradualism, and natural selection. And if you could now turn to page 11, and highlight the underlined language in the report? Dr. Behe asserts, “Intelli
