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

[JGaltJr.]

Are you suggesting that a tree has no use but to become newspaper or are you suggesting that paper mills have inefficiently created the trees they use?

 

[Prisca]

textman

textman

You said, “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.”

Most ID theorists would not disagree with you. Their search is for the origin of life and they do not rule out gradual evolutionary processes. The theory is, that if the simplest biological structures turn out to be irreducibly complex, an assumption can be made that some intelligent agent must have been responsible. So the question is, if something as simple as the flagellum could not have come about naturally (through irreducible complexity), is ID a valid alternative to the theory of Darwinian evolution ?

 

[JGaltJr.]

Becky I fully expect you to ignore this but I'll correct you anyway for other readers. I've already stated this early on but apperantly I need to say it again.

Darwinian evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It only demonstrates how species have evolved from lower forms of life once life began. Therefore even if the IDers were correct it would not in any way disrupt what is known about evolution.

The problem with ID is that there are no structures that have been shown to be irreducibly complex. Is flagella complex? yes. Is it irreducible? No. So far I've not seen anyone demonstrate that it is.

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

You said, “Inefficient design would certainly seem to indicate it being "bad" or at least poor.”

It could also indicate a loss of information. For example, taking all the “=” signs out of ThinkerThinker’s code probably damaged the “design” of his program. A smaller loss of information might have only caused a few problems, but would give the appearance of “bad” or “poor” design.

Micro-evolutionary changes result in a loss of information that is often beneficial under certain conditions. But what happens if the conditions change and the information cannot be regained? The organism would then have the appearance of being poorly designed.

 

[JGaltJr.]

So you're saying that God made them well but allowed them to deteriorate over time. Okay, that's an interesting opinion.

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

You said, “Darwinian evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It only demonstrates how species have evolved from lower forms of life once life began.”

You are right, in a sense, because Darwin himself was an "ID theorist":

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Charles Darwin,The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Chapter 15

However, most “Darwinian evolutionists” of today would not agree with him. For example, here is a description of a book by Christopher Wills and Jeffery Bada, titled The Spark of Life: Darwin and the Primeval Soup:

Where did we come from? Did life arise on earth or on some other planet? What did the earliest primitive organisms look like? Untangling a century of contentious debate, the authors explore current theories of the source of life—from Martian meteors to hydrothermal vents—and then present their own elegant scenario: Life arose not in the subterranean depths, as many believe, but on Earth's tumultuous surface, where a primitive form of natural selection spawned the first genetic material, perhaps in the form of a proto—virus. Knowing exactly how life began on Earth will not only teach us more about ourselves, it will bring us closer to finding life elsewhere.

So, while Darwin himself was an “IDer”, modern “Darwinists” have gone in a different direction.

 

[JGaltJr.]

Re: JGaltJr.

Re: JGaltJr.

Originally posted by Becky

You are right, in a sense, because Darwin himself was an "ID theorist":

Really? So Darwin claimed there were certain organisms that were too complex to have evolved? Where did he claim this?

However, most “Darwinian evolutionists” of today would not agree with him. For example, here is a description of a book by Christopher Wills and Jeffery Bada, titled The Spark of Life: Darwin and the Primeval Soup:

It doesn't matter whether most evolutionists are atheists or not. Evolution has nothing to do with how life arose originally. It only deals with how it developed once it had arisen, as your quote from Darwin himself demonstrates. So your insistence that that ID offers an alternative to evolution is simply false. Even if ID were true, it doesn't explain how other species developed from the flagellum.

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

You said, “Really? So Darwin claimed there were certain organisms that were too complex to have evolved? Where did he claim this?”

Where did I say that Darwin made that claim? I was merely referring to the quote from Darwin’s book in which he attributed life to the “Creator,” who presumably was an intelligent agent. Irreducible complexity was not the point, hence the quotation marks around “ID theorist.”

You said, “It doesn't matter whether most evolutionists are atheists or not.”

I agree. That is not what I was trying to point out. I was showing that theory of evolution, while you may protest, has come to mean something different from when it was postulated by Darwin.

You said, “Evolution has nothing to do with how life arose originally. It only deals with how it developed once it had arisen…”

Why did you ignore the quote from Christopher Wills and Jeffery Bada’s book description? I would wager that most people, who believe in the theory of evolution, would include that life began from some “prebiotic” form as a part of the theory - except maybe for those who believe life came from outer-space (and who knows how they believe that began). What, may I ask, do you believe about the origins of life on earth?

 

[JGaltJr.]

Where did I say that Darwin made that claim?

That's what ID theory is. If he didn't claim this then you're statement that he was an ID theorist is inaccurate.

I was merely referring to the quote from Darwin’s book in which he attributed life to the “Creator,” who presumably was an intelligent agent. Irreducible complexity was not the point, hence the quotation marks around “ID theorist.”

Merely believing in a creator has nothing to do with ID theory. The whole concept of ID theory is that certain organisms are irreducibly complex. Do you think Darwin believed this to be true?

[quoteI agree. That is not what I was trying to point out. I was showing that theory of evolution, while you may protest, has come to mean something different from when it was postulated by Darwin. [/quote]

That's not exactly debatable. The theory has grown and "evolved" to meet the evidence the way all good science does but you're implying that part of the theory original included a creator in the equation and that it not true.

Why did you ignore the quote from Christopher Wills and Jeffery Bada’s book description? I would wager that most people, who believe in the theory of evolution, would include that life began from some “prebiotic” form as a part of the theory - except maybe for those who believe life came from outer-space (and who knows how they believe that began). What, may I ask, do you believe about the origins of life on earth?

I didn't ignore it. I has nothing to do with anything and that's what I was responding to. Do you really think a book description is a way to prove that "most people" have changed their thinking on a subject?

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

You said, “If he didn't claim this then you're statement that he was an ID theorist is inaccurate.”

Again: I was merely referring to the quote from Darwin’s book in which he attributed life to the “Creator,” who presumably was an intelligent agent. Irreducible complexity was not the point, hence the quotation marks around “ID theorist.”

Is that so difficult to understand? I’m beginning to think you are really HSG because you sure sound like him. He was always missing the point and making a big deal out of simple points.

Concerning the quote from the book The Spark of Life: Darwin and the Primeval Soup You said, I didn't ignore it. I has nothing to do with anything and that's what I was responding to. Do you really think a book description is a way to prove that "most people" have changed their thinking on a subject?

But remember:

You said, “Evolution has nothing to do with how life arose originally. It only deals with how it developed once it had arisen, as your quote from Darwin himself demonstrates.”

You made the claim that Darwinian evolution does not have anything to do with finding the origins of life. I agreed but then gave you an example showing that mainstream evolutionists do just that.

BTW, you still didn’t answer my question:
What, may I ask, do you believe about the origins of life on earth?

 

[JGaltJr.]

Again: I was merely referring to the quote from Darwin’s book in which he attributed life to the “Creator,” who presumably was an intelligent agent. Irreducible complexity was not the point, hence the quotation marks around “ID theorist.”

Then why did you claim he was an ID theorist if that wasn't the point?

Is that so difficult to understand? I’m beginning to think you are really HSG because you sure sound like him. He was always missing the point and making a big deal out of simple points.

I'm neither HSG nor MSG and you're engaging intellectual dishonesty. You made two claims in that post. One, that Darwin was an ID theorist and two, that today's evolutionists have wandered far from Darwin's original theory. Neither is true. Now you're claiming that I'm making an issue out of something that wasn't the point and that the real point was that Darwin made a statement about believing in a creator. When exactly was anyone questoning that? Once again you've done quite a superb job of derailing the conversation and you still have not answered the primary question that I've asked several times - Why do you think a flagellum is irreducbly complex?

Quote:
Concerning the quote from the book The Spark of Life: Darwin and the Primeval Soup You said, I didn't ignore it. I has nothing to do with anything and that's what I was responding to. Do you really think a book description is a way to prove that "most people" have changed their thinking on a subject?

But remember:

You said, “Evolution has nothing to do with how life arose originally. It only deals with how it developed once it had arisen, as your quote from Darwin himself demonstrates.”


You made the claim that Darwinian evolution does not have anything to do with finding the origins of life. I agreed but then gave you an example showing that mainstream evolutionists do just that.

So this is what you think you demonstrated by showing me a description of one book that doesn't demonstrate any such thing? If you'd actually take the time to learn what the theory of evolution is, you'd find that it involves the evolutionary changes combined with natural selection and what the results are. It's not even possible within this scenario to determine the origin of life.

BTW, you still didn’t answer my question:
What, may I ask, do you believe about the origins of life on earth?

What is your definition of life?

 

[ThinkerThinker]

I have to agree with JGaltJR, Becky, you have to answer the question:

Why do you think a flagellum is irreducbly complex?

TT

 

[Prisca]

ThinkerThinker,

ThinkerThinker,

You said, “I have to agree with JGaltJR, Becky, you have to answer the question:

Why do you think a flagellum is irreducbly complex?”

Let me quote and comment on a few excerpts from my previous post on the motility of flagellum that could presumably demonstrate its irreducible complexity:

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.

It seems illogical that these parts, which are highly specified, would come together “fortuitously” as the evolutionists claim. How or why did the proximal hook come into being if it wasn’t needed for motility? Was it merely a fortunate coincidence that it had a flexible coupling joint? How was torque first generated between the stator and the rotor? The stator is composed of the proteins motA and motB. These are both membrane proteins, where removal of either one abolishes motility. (There are a couple of different theories on how this takes place, but both are examples of precise engineering. One is the "proton turbine model" and the other is the "turnstile model." I can post more on this if necessary.) Also:

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.

How could this “exquisite genetic control” arise gradually? The assembly of the flagella is quite complex and is actually a helical filament made up of a single protein. A rotary cap mechanism is necessary to create the symmetry mismatch used to prepare just one binding site for a flagellin subunit at a time. To see a cool animation of how this is accomplished click here (it is a Quicktime video of 9.4 MB and the narration is in Japanese, but I think you’ll get the idea). Irreducible complexity is evident here because FliD and flagellin have no other basic cellular function apart from forming the filament. Without FliD and flagellin no filament would form and motility would not be possible. So, the rotary cap and filament are made up of dependent proteins that are necessary for the assembly of the flagellum itself. The "self-assembly" is highly regulated - a chaperone (which I didn’t even get into) helps assemble the hook, another chaperone helps assemble the cap, and the cap assembles the filament.

To summarize, the flagellum is made up of numerous interactive parts that, by themselves, seem to serve no purpose or function. However, working together, these parts serve a very specific function, they provide motility to the bacteria.

 

[textman]

+
Hi, Becky. You have convinced me of two things: 1) the universe is complex in every conceivable way. 2) random chance alone could not have generated such a sophisticated mechanism ... unless there was (how shall I say?) a pressing need for these brainless tiny animals to get moving!
btw: When do they first appear in the fossil records?
x

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr. The quotation marks around “ID theorist” in regard to Darwin were intended to show that Darwin was not an ID theorist in the strict sense of the term. I was being a bit facetious, in case you didn’t notice. Sorry if I confused you.

You said, “I'm neither HSG nor MSG and you're engaging intellectual dishonesty.”

I didn’t say you were, I just said I thought it was possible because you use some of the same tactics.

You show me an evolutionist who doesn’t believe that life originated in some “primordial or primeval soup” or and then maybe I’ll have to rethink what I said. The book was used as only one example. The title should speak for itself, but I gave the description to make the point more obvious. I studied and believed in evolution for most of my adult life. In fact, here is a quote from one of my college texts:

There is as yet no firm agreement on a model for how living systems might have arisen on this planet out of inorganic molecules, although there are some promising theories. Long after the first tiny unicellular living systems appeared, the next major biological event occurred-the evolution of plant-organisms containing a pigment (chlorophyll) enabling them to utilize the energy of sunlight to convert mostly water and air (plus minute traces of metallic and other elements) into live tissue, chiefly turning carbon dioxide into sugar…etc., etc.
Gordon W. Hewes, The Origin of Man, Burgess Publishing Company 1973. pg 12

Granted, he doesn’t go into detail, but it is obvious that Dr. Hewes believes that life arose from inorganic molecules. You may not consider this event to be part of the evolutionary process, but it is certainly a part of the mainstream evolutionist’s belief system. Take NASA’s Planetary Biology Program, for example:

This Program's major areas of research address the chemistry of biologically important elements and compounds in interstellar space and in the solar system, the processes on the prebiotic Earth leading to the origin of life, the evidence in fossils and microorganisms regarding early evolution, and the search for life elsewhere in the cosmos.

http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/Evolife.htm
Do we really need to hash this out any more?

life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, response to stimuli and reproduction.

Providing we can agree on the above definition, what do you believe about the origins of life on earth?

 

[Prisca]

textman,

I don't believe that I convinced you of anything you didn't already know. I'd say more, but my son is asking to play the Phonics Game with him so I gotta run.

Thanks,
Becky

 

[ClaypoolKid]

Ok, I have skimmed through this thread and I would now like to offer my thoughts. In all the times I have debated this issue it never ceases to amaze me how many of those who do not accept the ID theory seem to want to talk about ‘god’ more than those who support the theory. It is quite ironic how JgaltJr mentions ‘god’ more than Becky does. (I’ll use these two individuals as examples because they seem to represent both positions and have the most posts.)

Here are some quotes from JgaltJr:

1.“ID states that the god of the Bible created the universe. There are no IDers who believe in any other God.” [04-05-2002 07:39 AM]
2. “And IDers are all Christians. It is 100% a Christian movement.” [04-05-2002 01:24 PM]
3. “Can you name a single IDer who is not Christian?” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM]
4. “The idea comes from a desire to believe in a god” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM]
5. IDers believed the god of the Bible is the ID author.” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM]
6. “The Bible of IDism, Behe's ...Black Box, was written by a devout Christian” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM.]
7. "Hey this is too complicated for me to comprehend. God must have done it." [04-07-2002 03:06 PM]
8. “Just because an answer has not been discovered does not mean it must be attributed to the gods.” [04-09-2002 04:07 PM]
9. "I don't know the answer therefore God must have done it?" [04-09-2002 04:07 PM]
10. “The few answers we don't have must be answered by copping out and saying, "God did it. That's good enough for me." [04-10-2002 10:08 AM]
11. “What evidence is there that any god created anything.” [04-10-2002 10:08 AM]
12. “Not having an answer is not evidence for a god.” [04-10-2002 10:08 AM]
13. “Just because we don't know is no reason to cop out and infer that there is a god who created them.” [04-10-2002 09:48 PM]
14. “I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me why you assume a god is necessary to create flagella?” [04-17-2002 02:49 PM]
15. “An outboard motor is man made then flagella must be god made.” [04-17-2002 03:15 PM]
16. “Tell me why you assume that flagella is god made?” [04-17-2002 03:15 PM]
17.“So you're saying that God made them well but allowed them to deteriorate over time.” [04-18-2002 09:21 PM]

To me this demonstrates that JgaltJr is no different than your typical atheist. He is not as concerned with the scientific accuracy of the ID theory as he is with the possible conclusion that the evidence leads to. He seems very uncomfortable with the possibility that a god might exist, especially the god of the Bible. So rather than pointing out possible flaws in the systematic evidence presented by Becky, he attacks the conclusion that he assumes she is leading to. I doubt that he would do this if she were presenting evidence that milk is a valuable part of our diet.

Several times throughout this thread he accuses Becky, and Christians in general, of falling back on the ‘God of Gaps’ ideology. He claims that we use God to fill in our uncertainties concerning our existence. While many Christians do rely on this method of reasoning, I do not believe that the ID theory can be included as a ‘God of Gaps’ reasoning.
The ID argument if very scientifically sound and I was glad that Becky presented the reasoning outlined as a scientific method. Both JgaltJr and Becky use the same reasoning to conclude that the Yamaha outboard motor had an intelligent creator. Becky also applied the same reasoning to her observation of the universe and concluded that it also had an intelligent creator. However, JgaltJr is not willing to apply his outboard motor reasoning to the universe. Therefore, I do not believe that Becky has the obligation of connecting the dots between her conclusion about the outboard motor and her conclusion about the universe. Instead, it is the task of JgaltJr to explain why he does not make the connection.
And yes, it is possible that the currents of a river could toss a rock around for years causing it to eventually be chipped into the shape of an arrowhead. So it might be difficult to deduce how the rock was formed. However, if a group of rocks that have this same basic shape are found in one particular area, any honest scientist would conclude that they were created by an intelligent creator. The scientist would not even have to know that rocks were used as weapons. Here in this one particular place called Earth there are billions of humans that share the same basic shape. With this taken into consideration it seems unreasonable to think that we arrived here by natural processes.

 

[Prisca]

ClaypoolKid

ClaypoolKid

You said, “…it never ceases to amaze me how many of those who do not accept the ID theory seem to want to talk about ‘god’ more than those who support the theory.

Thank you for such an astute observation. I hadn’t even noticed this irony myself until you made such a detailed survey of JGaltJr’s posts.

You said, “He is not as concerned with the scientific accuracy of the ID theory as he is with the possible conclusion that the evidence leads to.”

Another member here at TOL sent me a private message saying that they did not think JGaltJr. understood the concept of irreducible complexity based on some of his earlier comments concerning the mousetrap analogy. But, as you have pointed out, I think his “misunderstanding” has more to do with the “conclusion that the evidence leads to” rather than the concept itself.

Just out of curiosity, were you able to view the video of the self-assembly of the flagellum on page 9 of this thread? Because of the size of the file (9.4MB), I didn’t know if it was worth posting a link to or not. If is quite fascinating to watch!

Thanks,
Becky

 

[Prisca]

textman

textman

You asked, When do [bacteria] first appear in the fossil records?”

The oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known.

“The picture above is a short chain of cyanobacterial cells, from the Bitter Springs Chert of northern Australia (about 1 billion years old). Very similar cyanobacteria are alive today; in fact, most fossil cyanobacteria can almost be referred to living genera. Compare this fossil cyanobacterium with this picture of the living cyanobacterium Oscillatoria:”

“The group shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms.”
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

I personally don’t believe the fossil record is correctly interpreted based on what I call the “biologic column”, but that is a subject for another time and another thread.

 

[JGaltJr.]

Originally posted by Becky
JGaltJr. The quotation marks around “ID theorist” in regard to Darwin were intended to show that Darwin was not an ID theorist in the strict sense of the term. I was being a bit facetious, in case you didn’t notice. Sorry if I confused you.

Interesting back peddling. I'd have more respect if you'd just admit you were mistaken.

You show me an evolutionist who doesn’t believe that life originated in some “primordial or primeval soup” or and then maybe I’ll have to rethink what I said.

Check out the creationism section of this forum. Barbarian comes immediately to mind.

The book was used as only one example.[/quot]

Yet you were using it to make a point about all evolutionists.

The title should speak for itself, but I gave the description to make the point more obvious. I studied and believed in evolution for most of my adult life. In fact, here is a quote from one of my college texts:

Quote:
There is as yet no firm agreement on a model for how living systems might have arisen on this planet out of inorganic molecules, although there are some promising theories. Long after the first tiny unicellular living systems appeared, the next major biological event occurred-the evolution of plant-organisms containing a pigment (chlorophyll) enabling them to utilize the energy of sunlight to convert mostly water and air (plus minute traces of metallic and other elements) into live tissue, chiefly turning carbon dioxide into sugar…etc., etc.
Gordon W. Hewes, The Origin of Man, Burgess Publishing Company 1973. pg 12


Granted, he doesn’t go into detail, but it is obvious that Dr. Hewes believes that life arose from inorganic molecules. You may not consider this event to be part of the evolutionary process, but it is certainly a part of the mainstream evolutionist’s belief system. Take NASA’s Planetary Biology Program, for example:

Quote:
This Program's major areas of research address the chemistry of biologically important elements and compounds in interstellar space and in the solar system, the processes on the prebiotic Earth leading to the origin of life, the evidence in fossils and microorganisms regarding early evolution, and the search for life elsewhere in the cosmos.

Yep. Lots of us believe that life arose naturally, not supernaturally. That's not in debate. That does not mean that Darwinism deals with the origin of life. If you were an evolutionist for most of your adult life, then you apperantly didn't take the time to understand it. It doesn't matter if every single evolutionist in the world did not believe in a creator, that still does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is about the origins of life. ID theory is only about that. That's why the two are not in competition.

life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, response to stimuli and reproduction.

Providing we can agree on the above definition, what do you believe about the origins of life on earth?

As your college text states, we don't know for certain how life arose originally, but it certainly seems reasonable that it arose naturally, given the fact that everything else we have an answer for has arisen naturally. Most likely molecuels combined to create aminio acids which then devoped into RNA and so forth.

The nice thing about science though is that we don't make dogamtic statements about something before having evidence to support it. This is where science and religion are very different and this is where ID theory fails as legitimate science.

Did you ever explain why you think a Flagellum is irreducibly complex? Perhaps I missed it.