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

[JGaltJr.]

Re: ClaypoolKid

Re: ClaypoolKid

Originally posted by Becky

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.

Yes people often seem astute when they agree with us, even when they are merely jumping on the bandwagon of illiteracy. There's no irony here in referring to ID as God. That's entirely what the ID camp is about. It's about proving the existence of God and not just any god, but the god of the Bible. Once you read a little more from ID leaders you'll come to realize that.

Quote:
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.”

There has not been any scientfic accuracy presented for the ID side. Not once in this entire thread. The entire argument form Becky, Lion, and Knight have been "Well golly, that thar flagellum sure is complex. God musta done it." No actual evidence for it has been given despite repeated requests.

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.

How incredibly cowardly of that member. And you, being brand new to the theory of ID and knowing very little about Darwinism took this member at his word.

Well let's go back to the mousetrap analogy since Behe has made it famous and since the member who PMed you seems confused. The analogy is that a mouse trap without all it's parts could not function as a mousetrap, therefore it's silly to have only part of a mouse trap. On the surface that seems like a good analogy to flagella. A flagella can not function as a flagella without all it's parts, therefore how could it slowly evolve? Wow, now that's a really profound argument - at first. The fact is though that although a mousetrap could not function as a mousetrap without all it parts, it could function as something else so part of a mousetrap is not useless. The same is true of the parts that make up flagella.

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.

What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence. This is what I mean about you being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Xancros]

ClaypoolKid your my hero Just kidding but I do agree with your last post.

 

[ClaypoolKid]

JgaltJr,

Becky has presented a large amount of evidence that I believe supports ID. Yet, you keep screaming for evidence. I think it is obvious that you are either ignoring the evidence that has been provided or you are denying that the info she provided is evidence. It order to bring some clarity to the discussion allow me to back peddle a bit. You agreed with Becky that a Yamaha outboard motor could not have come into existence via natural processes. What evidence did you use to come to that conclusion?

Oh and one other thing JgaltJr,

Just because ID is used mostly by Christians as evidence that the god of the Bible exist does not mean that it is not scientifically sound. A detective might use a certain 'method' to investigate a crime while being hell bent on trying to proof the guilt of the suspect but that does not mean the detective has forsaken science.

 

[JGaltJr.]

Claykid, what evidence has she presented. I'd love to see it. Maybe I missed it. Could you please copy and paste it and once I've determined that you're not engaging in the same kind of intellectual dishonesty, I'll be more than happy to answer your question.

 

[Prisca]

Here it comes again (repost from pg. 9 of this thread))

Here it comes again (repost from pg. 9 of this thread))

ThinkierThinker 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 swimming? Was it 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 an animation of how this is accomplished click here (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. The flagellum is evidence for irreducible complexity in a biological system, which in turn, points toward the possibilty that this little stucture is the product of intelligent design.

 

[ClaypoolKid]

JgaltJr,

I am glad to see Becky has taken the time to re-post the information that she provided earlier. However, I would not have been surprised if she would have given up after the frustration that you have brought to the dialogue here. I wonder if you might be confusing evidence with proof. In a courtroom, lawyers could provide witnesses, documentation, photographs and a variety of other items that would be defined as evidence. But it would be up to the Judge or jurors to decide if all the evidence presented translates into proof. Likewise, Becky has provided quotes from expert witnesses, photographs and diagrams that she believes supports ID. Even the strongest skeptic would have to agree that these items would fit into the definition of ‘evidence’. You might not feel that she has ‘proven’ her case. You might even think that she has mistranslated the evidence or that the evidence was not sufficient. But it could be considered mockery for you to continually deny that she has provided evidence after all the time and effort she has put into this dialogue.

Trillions and trillions of snowflakes have fallen to the earth over the centuries. Yet, an intelligent builder was required to build every igloo that has ever been built. Through the years a countless number of branches have fallen from a tree and gathered mud as they drifted down a river. Yet, an intelligent builder was required to build every log cabin that has ever been built. History has produced tens of thousands of tornados. Yet, no tornado has brought about order, only disorder.

Do you consider this logic, accompanied by the evidence presented by Becky, to be insufficient? If so then I would be willing to rest for the moment and allow you to present your evidence concerning why a Yamaha outboard motor could not have evolved without an intelligent designer. By doing this maybe you can help us to better articulate our beliefs.

Becky,
Concerning the flagellin video; I am puttering around the internet at 56k so downloading a 9MB file is too much of task... sorry.
P.S. I really appreciate the effort you have put into this dialogue... God bless you.

 

[JGaltJr.]

How could this “exquisite genetic control” arise gradually?

I want to make sure I understand you correctly Becky since PoolBoy here seems to think I've "frustrated" the argument.
Tell which part of the following if any you disagree with:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.

This is therefore evidence of intelligent design.

Did I mistate anything you believe?

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

You said, “Tell which part of the following if any you disagree with:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.

This is therefore evidence of intelligent design.

Did I mistate anything you believe?”

Yes, you misstated everything I presented. Let me try to analyze your set of statements:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
A bacterial flagellum can exist without all of its working parts, but it will often not produce motility. If your legs became paralyzed, they would still be legs, just not functioning legs. This in no way negates the original purpose of your legs, or likewise, the bacterial flagellum. All we have at this point is a damaged or mutated system that no longer produces its intended action.

No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this. The proteins that, assemble, make up, and produce motility in the flagellum serve specific functions. You can check some of them out for yourself.
motA
motB
fliD
fliC
fliF
fliJ
flgH
flgB
flgA

Once assembled into parts, these parts serve specific functions (proximal hook, stator, rotor, filament, etc.) Maybe you could clarify this point for me.

Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.
No. There are other structures called flagella that are quite different from the bacterial flagella. For example, there is the eukaryotic flagellum, also referred to as the "undulipodium." An undulipodium is a bundle of nine fused pairs of microtubules called "doublets" surrounding two central single microtubules.

Two different systems, both referred to as “flagella.” Both produce motility for organisms, yet are very different from one another. I don't recall ever stating that all flagella are made with the same parts.

I have to go for now. I’ll try to get back to this later.

 

[JGaltJr.]

Becky, are you aware that every admission you just made demonstrates that flagella are not irreducibly complex?

 

[Prisca]

(continued from above)

(continued from above)

JGaltJr. said, “Tell which part of the following if any you disagree with:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.

This is therefore evidence of intelligent design.

Did I mistate anything you believe?”

I would state it this way:

Flagella do not function properly without all of their working parts.
Flagella are assembled by, made up of, and propelled by specific proteins and structures that interact to produce motility.
The flagellum is well designed to produce motility in bacteria (like a tiny propeller), and in eukaryotes (like little oars).

In summary, the flagellum with all of its highly tailored parts and its specific function, appears to be a remarkable little machine that displays the earmarks of intelligent design.

 

[JGaltJr.]

What are the earmarks of intelligent design?

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

Oops sorry, I didn’t see this post until after I posted the above.

You said, “Becky, are you aware that every admission you just made demonstrates that flagella are not irreducibly complex?”

I was merely responding to your set of statements, but please, feel free to explain to me how the following is NOT an example of irreducible complexity.

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.

 

[JGaltJr.]

Motility does not equal existence. The claim that Behe made originally was that a Flagellum is irreducibly complex therefore it must have been created in it's current form. Since all the parts of the flagellum exist outside of the flagellum and since flagella come in different degree of complexity, this is evidence that it is not irreducible.

 

[Valmoon]

I decided to check this thread out when my friend the claypool kid and I recently played disc golf this week. We are total opposites on many of our beliefs but manage to somehow coexist peacefully for the most part.

I must say I was hesitant to post after reading some of Knights posts. Is his title Administrator merely a "fun" title or is he really an administrator of this site? I was suprised that some of you who might actually agree with him didnt call him on his belittling posts. Maybe I will find that many of you enjoy this and I will just move along. Anyway enough on that. I felt it needed to be said.

Behe's book concerning irreducible complexity was written a little over 6 years ago. Since then many many excellent refutations have been given. To be totally honest I dont feel I could do these refutations justice and would end up typing a novel so I will just post links to them. Hopefully none will be offended on this obvious laziness on my part.

http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://www.korrnet.org/reality/miller_review.html
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br22.1/futuyma.html

This link is a paper from infidels.org describing where the ID movement is today.

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=200

Val

 

[Projill]

Knight's honestly an administrator. Sometimes I can't believe it myself.

 

[Prisca]

Welcome Valmoon

Welcome Valmoon

You said, “Behe's book concerning irreducible complexity was written a little over 6 years ago. Since then many many excellent refutations have been given. To be totally honest I dont feel I could do these refutations justice and would end up typing a novel so I will just post links to them. Hopefully none will be offended on this obvious laziness on my part.”

No offence taken by me, however, the purpose of the forum is to discuss the subject on a more personal level. I’m interested in what you actually thought about the information posted here, Behe’s book, or the subsequent rebuttals. What did you learn from any of these sources? Can you argue any of the points for yourself?

It just so happens that Behe has written several rebuttals to the refutations you listed above. I have not read them for myself (sorry). I did read the first of the articles you posted a links to, however, and I had previously read some of the others while doing research for this thread. I spent a lot of time learning about this subject for myself. I’m afraid I just don’t have time to refute non-TOL member’s articles. I’ll let Behe do it himself:

The Sterility of Darwinism
“A True Acid Test”
In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade
Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature
A Mousetrap Defended
Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design
Correspondence w/ Science Journals

Thanks,
Becky

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Projill
Knight's honestly an administrator. Sometimes I can't believe it myself.

Gee, your mean.

 

[Prisca]

JGaltJr.

JGaltJr.

You said, “Motility does not equal existence. The claim that Behe made originally was that a Flagellum is irreducibly complex therefore it must have been created in it's current form. Since all the parts of the flagellum exist outside of the flagellum and since flagella come in different degree of complexity, this is evidence that it is not irreducible.”

Hmmmm… I think you are missing the point of my question. Of course motility does not equal existence. The fact that there are different degrees of complexity does not rule out the possibility of irreducible complexity. It only means that there could be different systems that are, in themselves, irreducibly complex. In other words, you will find no link between a bacterial flagellum and a eukaryotic flagellum. They are entirely different systems and each is irreducibly complex. I apologize, but still don’t understand the bolded statement above.

So, back to my question-how is the following NOT an example of irreducible complexity?

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.

Please explain how these proteins, whose only purpose is to form function specific structures, could have evolved in such a fortuitous manner? Furthermore, how did the resulting structures independently come together to form an entire system, whose only purpose is to produce motility in the bacteria? I have read some theories about how this occurred, but I’d like to see what you have to say about it first.

Thanks,
Becky

 

[JGaltJr.]

The fact that there are different degrees of complexity does not rule out the possibility of irreducible complexity.

Yeah actually it does.

So, back to my question-how is the following NOT an example of irreducible complexity?

Because you've not shown any reason why it is irreducible. How can this theory be tested?

 

[o2bwise]

Yeah actually it does.

How so?