ARCHIVE - The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory-by Casey Luskin

[JGaltJr.]

Re: JGaltJr.

Re: JGaltJr.

Originally posted by Becky
Quote:
First of all, you said, “I would say from Becky's example it'd be easy to assume intelligent design. Of course it's also be easy to look at the earth and assume it's flat.”


You expect me to ignore this illogical attack?

It's neither illogical nor an attack. It's in fact a very appropriate analogy that demonstrates that what looks obvious to the uninformed eye can be something quite different upon further investigation. I think you realize how accurate my analogy is which is what upsets you.

You are trying to equate my reasoning that the flagellum displays MLC with the belief in a flat earth.

No I'm trying to state that what looks obvious isn't always true.

Instead, why not give your own valid reasons for why you think the flagellum is not a product of ID?

I did that in the begining and you've never addressed it. There is no reason to suggest it's "irreducibly complex." It may be complex but not irreducibly so. You've made the claim that it is. Back that up by showing that each individual part is completely useless by itself and can only exist as part of the flagellum

You are probably a smart guy, but using ad hominem attacks to try and discredit me is not the way to show it.

Are all the moderators around here completely insane? When did I use an ad hominem attack towards you? Do you even know what that is? If I said, "Well Becky is just a stupid creationist so ID can't be true" that would be an ad hominem because it doesn't follow logically. You could be a stupid creationist and still have valid point. That's the fallacy of ad hominem. Using an analogy is not an ad hominem. Boy you fundies are touchy.

If you can agree to have a logical discussion, then maybe it would be worth my time. For now, I think I’ll reserve my statements for TT who seems to have a better handle on the information at hand. Thanks anyway.

Okay so when you said you had valid reasons you really didn't. Okay.

 

[ThinkerThinker]

Message, signal, code, information sequence… they all inform or instruct in some way, correct?

No, you missed the point. They all inform or instruct in some way but you are drawing wrong conclusions by mixing two concepts that are unrelated. Read my answer again.

JGaltJr. and I are actually trying to make the same point.

Attributing ID to objects or processes, in the absence of a full understanding of all the relevant elements and processes involved, might produce an error of judgement.

I reserve attributing ID to objects or processes, such as the flagellum, where I do not yet fully understanding all the relevant elements yet, because science is still trying to proof a theory. It's like you trying to tell me my computer code does not work while I'm still piecing it together - Yes, it does not work yet but I'm still coding, OK.

This theory, evolution, is more acceptable to me than relying on a hypothesis such as the involvement of the supernatural because the supernatural is not scientifically verifiable.

The idea is therefore to continue proving the theory until we fully understand everything involved in the evolutionary process.

At that point, and only at that point, if the flagellum proves to be ID, then we will look to the stars and wonder what alien race could have designed us.

If God is not interested in revealing himself in a way that can be scientifically measured then what else can he expect from those who do not belief?

TT

PS. Becky, you should really read JGaltJr posts with more care. What is written is clear. What is meant needs more carefull consideration. JGaltJr does make sense.

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

You said, “It's neither illogical nor an attack. It's in fact a very appropriate analogy that demonstrates that what looks obvious to the uninformed eye can be something quite different upon further investigation. I think you realize how accurate my analogy is which is what upsets you.”

Your statement was a thinly veiled attempt to equate those who believe in ID theory with the belief in a flat earth. Yes, you may have worded it in such a way that you can now say that that is not what you were doing, but most of us can see right through your intentions. It was not a direct ad hominem argument, I’ll agree with you there, but your intention was to discredit ID theorists rather than deal with the flagellum itself.

Your analogy is anything but accurate. The flagellum is a complex structure that displays all the earmarks of ID. Mankind even builds machines with parts similar to those we see in the flagellum. If you stumbled across an outboard motor, would you be wrong to assume that it was put together by an intelligent agent? Just because you personally did not witness the building of the motor, does not make you wrong to assume that someone built it.

I said, “Instead, why not give your own valid reasons for why you think the flagellum is not a product of ID?”

You said, “I did that in the begin[n]ing and you've never addressed it.”

I’ll go back and see what you said. I must have missed it. I’m running out of time right now, so I’ll have to get back to it later.

 

[JGaltJr.]

Becky why can't you just admit you were incorrect? Your insecurities are clouding your ability to comprehend what I said.

Why do you insist that flagella must have a designer? Is it simply because of this artist image of a flagellum? Why do you think it could not have evolved?

 

[Lion]

My Father God could take your mother earth any day!

My Father God could take your mother earth any day!

JGalt-Flat earth and ID Theory? Apples to oranges, you should apologize to Becky for making such a silly statement. You have been discussing this theory long enough to realize that it goes far deeper than just casual observance. Just as the arch that Becky showed, way back, could be the product of intelligent design, ID theory would not conclude that it is the product of intelligent design.

You said:

…demonstrates that what looks obvious to the uninformed eye can be something quite different upon further investigation.

Duhhhh! Guess what, something that looks obvious to the trained eye can also be something quite different. However there comes a point where no rational person can look at something and honestly say that it happened by chance without a designer. The outboard motor is a good example.

Boy you fundies are touchy.

Boy… you God haters are touchy, start to challenge you and wow do you go off track.

Quit sidetracking the discussion by personal attacks and petty points and try and stick with the facts. It will help to make for better conversation.

And then you said:

What kind of valid reasons? And there really is no need to stoop to the level of claiming that non-belief is a faith based system.

In relation to Becky’s statement to Kurt:

Kurt, you must have incredible faith to believe that biological structures, such as the one above, came about by chance. If that is where you choose to place your faith, then so be it. Please realize though, that those of us who don’t believe as you do, have valid reasons for believing what we do.

ID theory is one of the valid, reasons. By the way this also sounds like another stalling technique of yours to take the argument off the point at hand.

Oh and last, non-belief is totally a faith-based system. The idea that there was no First Cause cannot be demonstrated, repeated, or tested, therefore it dives head first into the realm of philosophy and theology. The Universe becomes your all powerful to God. And you worship it.

 

[Lion]

Rmmmmmmmm...brummmmmm.....brummmm!

Rmmmmmmmm...brummmmmm.....brummmm!

JGalt-Do you believe that a 360 HP Yamaha outboard motor could have evolved with no designer?

 

[JGaltJr.]

Nope.

 

[JGaltJr.]

Are Lion, Knight, Paul, BobB and Becky all related or is it just coincidence that they all have the exact same attitude?

I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me why you assume a god is necessary to create flagella. Can someone do that or not?

No one's claiming an outboard motor evolved so why keep bringing it up?

 

[Lion]

The Skulls revisited.

The Skulls revisited.

JGalt-We, (Paul, Knight, Becky and numerous others), are all related. It’s a conspiracy! Here’s the secret let loose. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.


Hmmmm. Are you and Kurt and Thinker Thinker and the rest of your (I am my own God crowd) related? Perhaps brothers and sisters of the nothing!

I guess it’s hard for you to make the correlation…not being able to adequately understand the idea behind ID theory, but the analogy is that if an outboard motor couldn’t evolve without an intelligent designer….then how could a flagellum evolve without an intelligent designer?

 

[JGaltJr.]

Okay so what you're saying is that since an outboard motor is man made then flagella must be god made. Yep. I already knew that's what you're trying to say but it makes no sense. My question is why this assumption? It follows no line of logic. So can you or can you not tell me why you assume that flagella is god made? Yes or No will be sufficient to start with.

 

[Vann]

Re: Vann

Re: Vann

Originally posted by Becky
Why would you come to this conclusion? How could the study of the origins of biological structures be irrelevant? Seems to me there is a double standard when it comes to those who interested in ID. Are scientists not looking for signs of intelligence elsewhere in the universe? In fact, over $150 million has been spent on just such a prospect.

Perhaps I should have been more precise. Finding out whether or not something is designed intelligently is not what I meant. Just because someone assumes or concludes upon initial observation that something is intelligently designed does not make it so.

Originally posted by Becky
How would the changes I made affect the outcome of the code? Would it still function?

It might; this is exactly what "Evolutionary Programming" is. Oftentime this produces more efficient code than the human-made initial code, or generates entirely new types of programs to achieve the same end. A quick search reveals a lot on the subject -- more than I know or could relate here.

 

[KurtPh]

Re: KurtPh

Re: KurtPh

Originally posted by Becky


Kurt, you must have incredible faith to believe that biological structures, such as the one above, came about by chance. If that is where you choose to place your faith, then so be it. Please realize though, that those of us who don’t believe as you do, have valid reasons for believing what we do.

***********************************************

Prov. 26:10 The great God who formed everything Gives the fool his hire and the transgressor his wages.

Nope, not faith. Just observations.

 

[Prisca]

The following post describes how the flagellum of some bacteria is constructed and how it produces motility. While I believe that this demonstrates MLC (machine-like complexity) I do not mean to imply that this is proof of ID. My intention is to show that holding an ID position is a valid alternative to the evolutionary position.

 

[Prisca]

Evidence of MLC (machine like complexity)?

Evidence of MLC (machine like complexity)?

Excerpts from:
Motile Behavior of Bacteria

Above: Rotationally averaged reconstruction of electron micrographs of purified hook-basal bodies. The rings seen in the image and labeled in the schematic diagram are the L ring, P ring, MS ring, and C ring. (Digital print courtesy of David DeRosier, Brandeis University.)

Bacterial motor and drive train.
The flagellum is an organelle that has three parts. There is a basal body consisting of a reversible rotary motor embedded in the cell wall, beginning within the cytoplasm and ending at the outer membrane. There is a short proximal hook, which is a flexible coupling or universal joint. And there is a long helical filament, which is a propeller. Torque is generated between a stator connected to the rigid framework of the cell wall (to the peptidoglycan) and a rotor connected to the flagellar filament. The proteins MotA and MotB are thought to constitute the elements of the stator; FliF, G, M, and N (the MS and C rings) those of the rotor; FlgB, C, F, and G those of the drive shaft; and FlgH and I (the L and P rings) those of the bushing that guides the driveshaft out through the outer layers of the cell wall.

The proteins that make up the flagellum are present in multiple copies. For example, there are about 5000 molecules of FliC (also called flagellin) per helical turn of the filament, which can have as many as six turns. The MS, P, and L rings each contain about 26 copies of FliF, FlgI, and FlgH, respectively. There appear to be eight stator elements (complexes of MotA and MotB), each of which exerts a similar force.

If one fixes a wild-type cell to a glass slide by one of its flagellar filaments, the motor at the base of that filament spins the cell body at about 10 Hz. This technique, known as tethering, was developed by Mike Silverman and Mel Simon at the University of California, San Diego. If one tethers a paralyzed cell, such as one with defective MotB, the cell body simply executes rotational Brownian movement, like a mirror on a galvanometer fiber. However, if wild-type MotB is made—for example, if a copy of a wild-type gene is added to the cell and expressed—then rotation resumes. The good MotB proteins that are made replace the bad ones, and the cell speeds up. Changes in speed are abrupt, generating a speed–time plot in the form of a staircase with eight steps of equal height. The flagellum is assembled from the inside out, with the axial components exported through a central channel. The filament grows at the distal end, with molecules of FliC added under the distal cap, which is made of FliD. The growth process is subject to exquisite genetic control. FliC, for example, is not made until the assembly of the basal body is completed. When it is completed, the same apparatus that exports FliC pumps an inhibitor of late-gene transcription out of the cell. This removes the inhibition.

The motor is driven by protons flowing from the outside to the inside of the cell (except for marine bacteria and bacteria that live at high pH, where sodium ions are used instead). The source of energy is a transmembrane electrical potential or pH gradient (or both), generated by respiration for cells grown aerobically. MotA and MotB form a transmembrane channel. Proton translocation is thought to cause the cytoplasmic part of MotA to move or change its shape and exert a force on FliG, thereby driving the rotor. In each cycle of this process, the rotor advances by one or more steps, which are of equal angular increment. From an analysis of fluctuations in the period of rotation (assuming exponentially distributed waiting times between steps), the number of steps is found to be at least 50 per revolution per stator element. As the number of stator elements increases toward eight, the rotation becomes smoother. The number of steps for the intact motor is at least 400 per revolution. Individual steps have yet to be resolved: They are filtered out by the elastic tether.

Howard Berg is a professor of molecular and cellular biology, and of physics, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Rowland Institute for Science.
Physics Today on the Web

 

[Prisca]

Vann

Vann

You said, “Just because someone assumes or concludes upon initial observation that something is intelligently designed does not make it so.”

Very true, but the question is this – is there a point at which the complexity of a thing rules out natural processes?

 

[textman]

Evidence at Hand?

Evidence at Hand?

+
> Becky asketh: is there a point at which the complexity of a thing rules out natural processes?
.

I shouldn't think so, Becky. Look at it this way, the human brain is just about the most complex thing in the entire world. The fossil records show a rapid, but gradual increase in volume over some millions of years. There is nothing necessarily supernatural about this process, except that it would appear that the world was in a rather hurry to make a really big one.
.
Why is this not accetable to you? Can you show that the human brain could not have come about this way? If not ...
x

 

[ThinkerThinker]

If God designed it all ... why is there so much bad design around?

TT

 

[textman]

+
Bad design involves human judgment; ie. 'bad' from who's point of view? According to scripture, God saw all that he had made and judged it 'good'.
x

 

[JGaltJr.]

Inefficient design would certainly seem to indicate it being "bad" or at least poor.

 

[textman]

+
I couldn't disagree more. By that way of thinking a tree is simply poorly designed sheets of newspaper.
x