Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design
originquestor
Guest


Message 1 of 27 (15635)
08-18-2002 10:28 PM


Intelligent design as described in the writings of Wm A Dembski seems to be a
valid and useful way to look at the biological realm. First, I was awed by the
descriptions of some living beings and their amazingly arrayed technology. In
one paper, Dembski describes the operation of a bacterial flagellum which is
used to propel the bacteria through the water. The Falgellum rotates @ about
10,000 rpm, can change direction in 1/4 of a turn, has O rings, and a motor.
Dembski states that this is flagellum represents Intelligent Design as measured by
his criteria. He then claims that evolution could not produce such a mechanism
given the operational features of selection, genetic development and so on. He
challenges evolutionist to describe and demonstrate some path by which this
flagellum could be developed, stating that it’s not enough to presume evolution
can make it happen, or to extrapolate from a single factor (eg., one common gene
in two bacteria out of 50 needed form the flagellum to work). Hand-waving and
stories are not enough. Invoking the operation of chance, Invoking partial
operation of known or unknown genetic processes don’t cut the mustard.
Stories, scenarios and interpretion/extrapolation of geological processes won’t
do either.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 08-18-2002 10:52 PM You have not replied
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 08-19-2002 6:13 AM You have not replied
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 10-16-2002 12:06 PM You have not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 27 (15639)
08-18-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by originquestor
08-18-2002 10:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by originquestor:
Intelligent design as described in the writings of Wm A Dembski seems to be a valid and useful way to look at the biological realm.
Why? Once you decide something is IC then you stop loooking for the answer. Hardly a useful concept.
quote:
First, I was awed by the descriptions of some living beings and their amazingly arrayed technology.
No argument.
quote:
In one paper, Dembski describes the operation of a bacterial flagellum which is used to propel the bacteria through the water. The Falgellum rotates @ about 10,000 rpm, can change direction in 1/4 of a turn, has O rings, and a motor.
And there are other varieties of flagellum. These other varieties ARE less complicated. So much for irreducible complexity.
quote:
Dembski states that this is flagellum represents Intelligent Design as measured by his criteria.
So what? Maybe not by my criterion.
quote:
He then claims that evolution could not produce such a mechanism given the operational features of selection, genetic development and so on.
"Claims" and "demonstrates" are very different things.
quote:
Hand-waving and stories are not enough. Invoking the operation of chance, invoking partial operation of known or unknown genetic processes don’t cut the mustard. Stories, scenarios and interpretion/extrapolation of geological processes won’t do either.
Dembski's stories, apparently, you have not problem with.
Think about it. What you have done is define away all the answers except your own. Defining away answers doesn't count.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://tccsa.freeservers.com/articles/max_to_olson_12_17.html
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[quotations structure cleaned up by Adminnemooseus]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by originquestor, posted 08-18-2002 10:28 PM originquestor has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 27 (15665)
08-19-2002 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by originquestor
08-18-2002 10:28 PM


Hi originquestor.
A couple of comments on your post. In the first place, Behe (not Dembski) is the originator of the idea of irreducible complexity inre flagella. Dembski's the guy who developed the concept of specified complexity and the explanatory filter that is supposed to identify true specified complexity from apparent specified complexity in nature (based on probability calculations). Obviously Behe's and Dembski's concepts are related, and Dembski is now spending an inordinate number of words trying to rescue IC from the dustbin. I think he's making a mistake, 'cause by linking the two ideas so closely, if one is falsified it automatically falsifies the other.
As to Behe's flagella in particular, he's referring to eubacterial flagella. This is a key thing to remember, as the other two basic types have already had a great deal of research behind them - showing how they are not irreducible. One problem that Behe mentions (as you did in your post), is the existence of the so-called "o" rings (basal rings on the rotor). At first glance, since the only known homologues are Type III transport systems, and the fact that there are no known "primitive" versions (afaik), it looks like Behe might be on to something. However, by definition, if something is "irreducible" it means there is no possibility of variation - it either IS reducible, or it isn't. In the case of the basal rings, there are a number of eubacteria that have different configurations. For example, E. coli has four rings, Bacillus subtilis two rings, and Caulobacter crescentus five rings. As I have said before on this forum, it's fairly easy to imagine a scenario where a "primitive bacteria" might have one ring, and then you have a flagellum with two rings, then three, and so on through the well-known processes of gene duplication, fusion, etc. In other words, Behe is taking a fully-evolved "modern" organism with 4 billion years of evolution behind it, and saying (basically), "I don't know therefore god/designer didit". Looking at an organism post facto and declaring that it "couldn't" have evolved is quite different from looking at the organism and asking, "how?".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by originquestor, posted 08-18-2002 10:28 PM originquestor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 7:42 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 08-20-2002 2:00 AM Quetzal has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 27 (15671)
08-19-2002 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Quetzal
08-19-2002 6:13 AM


^ Nice try Quetzal - I noticed the one to two etc but it's the zero to one we are talking about!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 08-19-2002 6:13 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 08-21-2002 5:13 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 08-23-2002 3:53 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

nat wilk
Guest


Message 5 of 27 (15696)
08-19-2002 12:52 PM


I can't see any problem with no rings changing to one. Imagine a rod rotating in a smooth sleeve bearing - it will be effective, but it will tend to wear and go out-of-true. So there will be an evolutionary pressure to build up reinforcing rings at the ends of the tube, and a tendency for the centre of the tube (which is unused) to disappear. These rings will then tend to operate a little bit like ball-races. This is a credible sequence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-19-2002 5:29 PM You have not replied

  
halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 27 (15708)
08-19-2002 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nat wilk
08-19-2002 12:52 PM


quote:
I can't see any problem with no rings changing to one. Imagine a rod rotating in a smooth sleeve bearing - it will be effective, but it will tend to wear and go out-of-true. So there will be an evolutionary pressure to build up reinforcing rings at the ends of the tube, and a tendency for the centre of the tube (which is unused) to disappear. These rings will then tend to operate a little bit like ball-races. This is a credible sequence.
So the rings came about because of "evolutionary pressure." That sounds like "wand-waving" to me.
When I see a machine, I know it has been created.
* Self-Assembly and Repair
* Water-cooled rotary Engine
* Proton Motive-force drive system
* Forward and Reverse gears
* Operating Speeds of up to 100,000 RPM
* Directional Capability within 1/4 of a turn
* Hard-wired transduction system with short-term memory
(Text + Image Source: AiG Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )
David

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nat wilk, posted 08-19-2002 12:52 PM nat wilk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 08-19-2002 6:09 PM halcyonwaters has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 27 (15709)
08-19-2002 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by halcyonwaters
08-19-2002 5:29 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B][Quote] When I see a machine, I know it has been created.
[/B][/QUOTE]
No, you patently, demonstrably, do not. [Added by edit] I'm assuming you implicitly mean all machines. I don't doubt you could recognise a human built machine, but all machines.....?
Evolution doesn't have the information to tell you how a flagellae evolved, but then you can't tell me how a creator did it, either. Also, you're getting into some seriously circular argument if you're expecting me to believe the ID doesn't exhibit specified complexity, intelligence that wasn't designed as intelligent, & the machinery with which to create things.
This would require an ID for the ID, non? Hence the circularity. As some level or other, the ID is going to exhibit all those complex traits that you maintain can't exist without ID. Since we all know the alleged ID is God dressed up in a mac & dark glasses, who designed God? You can't have it both ways. Or can intelligence, & all the necessary supporting "machinery" arise naturally? If not, then God can't exist, can he?
Cue "God has always existed" argument. If you can show this, you may have an argument, otherwise, the ID is just as stymied as the rest of life as we know it. He/She/It HAD to have been designed.
I digress. This is is the traditional staple of the creationist. A God of the gaps argument. I can't see how this could occur naturally, so it didn't.
If you're so sure you can infer design, then tell me how you tell the difference between a naturally occurring system, & a designed one. Think carefully.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-19-2002 5:29 PM halcyonwaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-20-2002 6:07 AM mark24 has replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7874 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 8 of 27 (15748)
08-20-2002 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Quetzal
08-19-2002 6:13 AM


thats actually fairly plausable but again my major problem with evolution is what drives the organism to change and how did the organism come to be in the first place. anyway irreducably complex just means that its impossible to evolve to, but it can be evolved upon. come up with a just as plausable beginning for the organism and ill be happy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 08-19-2002 6:13 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 08-21-2002 5:51 AM KingPenguin has not replied

halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 27 (15766)
08-20-2002 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mark24
08-19-2002 6:09 PM


quote:
I'm assuming you implicitly mean all machines. I don't doubt you could recognise a human built machine, but all machines.....?
That flagellum looks like it could be taken out of a manual on how to rebuild a car. It looks like a human designed machine to me. And that's what the Bible says: Evidence of God is in creation. I do think this is ultimately faith alone and if I had my way, neither would be taught as Science.
quote:
Evolution doesn't have the information to tell you how a flagellae evolved, but then you can't tell me how a creator did it, either.
No, I cannot. But I am content with "God created it."
quote:
This would require an ID for the ID, non?
I am also content with things beyond my comprehension. One thing I thought of recently to explain this to myself is this:
Something created man. Something created that. Something created that... on to infinity. God is infinite. So God rather than create something, to create something, to create man... just created man directly.
quote:
I digress. This is is the traditional staple of the creationist. A God of the gaps argument. I can't see how this could occur naturally, so it didn't.
Actually, creationists avoid the God of the gaps argument. That's why I reject Evolution being put into the Bible. The more Man tries to explain the world without God, the more the Bible must fit Man's ideas -- thus becoming a God of the gaps.
quote:
If you're so sure you can infer design, then tell me how you tell the difference between a naturally occurring system, & a designed one. Think carefully.
I can tell you if some thing are designed. I cannot tell you if something is not designed.
Designed:
"Hello world! How the heck are you!? Want to go play in the park?"
Don't know if it was designed:
"yasccibybfoadnasomynamdqm"
Is that what you mean? Maybe you can give me examples of naturally occuring and designed systems.
David

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 08-19-2002 6:09 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 08-20-2002 6:50 AM halcyonwaters has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5185 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 27 (15767)
08-20-2002 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by halcyonwaters
08-20-2002 6:07 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
quote:
I'm assuming you implicitly mean all machines. I don't doubt you could recognise a human built machine, but all machines.....?
That flagellum looks like it could be taken out of a manual on how to rebuild a car. It looks like a human designed machine to me. And that's what the Bible says: Evidence of God is in creation. I do think this is ultimately faith alone and if I had my way, neither would be taught as Science.
Evidence of God is in creation?
First you have to know it was created. Therein lies your problem.
See below.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
Evolution doesn't have the information to tell you how a flagellae evolved, but then you can't tell me how a creator did it, either. [/Quote]
[/b]
No, I cannot. But I am content with "God created it."
Well I am content with evolution did it.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
quote:
This would require an ID for the ID, non?
I am also content with things beyond my comprehension. One thing I thought of recently to explain this to myself is this:
Something created man. Something created that. Something created that... on to infinity. God is infinite. So God rather than create something, to create something, to create man... just created man directly. [/Quote]
[/b]
Still haven’t eliminated the circularity, & as predicted you introduced the God has always existed argument.
Who created God? If you can’t answer this, then I’ll trump you with flagellae have always existed & never required designing.
You see your fallacy? God never required designing, but flagellae did. ??????? Hand wavy nonsense.
Who designed the designer?
quote:
Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
quote:
I digress. This is is the traditional staple of the creationist. A God of the gaps argument. I can't see how this could occur naturally, so it didn't.
Actually, creationists avoid the God of the gaps argument. .[/Quote]
LOL
[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
That's why I reject Evolution being put into the Bible. The more Man tries to explain the world without God, the more the Bible must fit Man's ideas -- thus becoming a God of the gaps. [/Quote]
[/b]
Wha..? I’ll have a pint of what he’s havin’!
Explaining the world without God, is having a world without God as an explanation. God IS NOT in the gaps.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
[B]
If you're so sure you can infer design, then tell me how you tell the difference between a naturally occurring system, & a designed one. Think carefully.[/Quote]
I can tell you if some thing are designed. I cannot tell you if something is not designed.
Designed:
"Hello world! How the heck are you!? Want to go play in the park?"
Don't know if it was designed:
"yasccibybfoadnasomynamdqm"
Is that what you mean? Maybe you can give me examples of naturally occuring and designed systems.
David[/B]
No, that’s not what I mean, give me the criteria that you objectively apply to something in order to determine that it was designed. You are just reasserting that you can recognise design. Tell me how.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-20-2002 6:07 AM halcyonwaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-20-2002 2:47 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 21 by John, posted 08-23-2002 8:47 AM mark24 has not replied

Me
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 27 (15775)
08-20-2002 9:07 AM


I look at the drawing of the flagellum, and I certainly think it looks like a car manual. So, if I were shown that drawing on its own, I might comment on its 'design features'.
But this is not the real thing. It is a diagrammatic representation of the shapes involved, and it uses typical human designer illustration techniques. Of course it looks designed. If we look at an 'original' we are likely to see it much more as a set of animals (cells) living in symbiosis.

Me
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 27 (15787)
08-20-2002 11:39 AM


KingPenguin -
If you want to examine how organisms start then you need the 'Origin of Life' section. That will cover the inorganic-organic transfer.
'Evolutionary pressure' is not wand-waving, but a shorthand for the fundamental proposal of the Theory of Evolution. Briefly, this states that if you have a population which reproduces itself, and that population has random minor variations which also get reproduced, over time any variations which confers a net benefit will become more common in the population, since the individuals with it will tend to breed better.
If you then place this breeding population in a particular environment, the individuals which live in particular niches will take up those variations which fit them for those niches, and you get Species. As the environment changes, those species either vary to fit it or die off, leaving a niche for some other life-form to adopt.
It's easier just to say 'evolutionary pressure'.
[This message has been edited by Me, 08-20-2002]

halcyonwaters
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 27 (15796)
08-20-2002 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mark24
08-20-2002 6:50 AM


quote:
No, that’s not what I mean, give me the criteria that you objectively apply to something in order to determine that it was designed. You are just reasserting that you can recognise design. Tell me how.
I don't know -- Let me try.
It would have to be non-random. I wouldn't be able to say a pile of sand is designed. But if it was arranged in such a way to spell my name, I would say with certainty that it was designed.
Which would bring us to the next point. It must have some meaning. There are 54! different possible combinations of a deck of cards. A meaningful order is far far more probable than a meaningless order. I would conclude if it was ace to king, seperated by suits that someone put it that way.
If I saw a pile of cards, I wouldn't conclude design. But if I saw cards used in such a way to build some sort of structure, I would conclude design because each part is set in such a way as to have a function. In other words -- a non-functional pile of cards is far more likely than a functional pile.
So what have we got here to conclude design:
Meaning. Function. Non-Random. Complexity.
The more of these qualities something has, the more sure we can say it has been designed. The Flagella has at least three. D.N.A. has all four.
David

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 08-20-2002 6:50 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 08-21-2002 7:41 AM halcyonwaters has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 27 (15816)
08-21-2002 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 7:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Nice try Quetzal - I noticed the one to two etc but it's the zero to one we are talking about!
Weeell, not exactly. I pointed out that the rotor proteins are homologous to Type III transport systems (look up exb protein). I'm not saying that flagella evolved from these transport systems, just that the proteins are homologs. I'll certainly concede that we don't yet know the origin of the rotor system. The key word is "yet". Considering that all other forms of eukaryote and prokaryote motility systems (cilia, undulipodia, archaea flagella, etc) HAVE had quite reasonable evolutionary pathways shown for their development, I think it's pretty silly to insist that the eubacterial flagella is the only motility system that was "designed".
Just for reference:
Serganova I, Ksenzenko V, Serganov A, Meshcheryakova I, Pyatibratov M, Vakhrusheva O, Metlina A, Fedorov O., Sequencing of flagellin genes from Natrialba magadii provides new insight into evolutionary aspects of archaeal flagellins (J Bacteriol. 2002 Jan;184(1):318-22) for the archaea flagella
Kaczanowski S, Jerzmanowski A., Evolutionary correlation between linker histones and microtubular structures (J Mol Evol. 2001 Jul;53(1):19-30) for eukaryote flagella
Also, look up Margulis and others for a description of the possible ecto- and endosymbiosis origin of cilia. Especially look up Mixotricha paradoxa a colony bacteria comprised of five distinct species, two of which are used as motility/cilia for the others. I'm not as far out there as your hand-wave one liner would suggest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 7:42 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 27 (15817)
08-21-2002 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by KingPenguin
08-20-2002 2:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thats actually fairly plausable but again my major problem with evolution is what drives the organism to change and how did the organism come to be in the first place. anyway irreducably complex just means that its impossible to evolve to, but it can be evolved upon. come up with a just as plausable beginning for the organism and ill be happy.
Hi KP. I'm not sure I understand your question. Seems to be three or four different questions buried in there.
1. What drives an organism to change? Nothing "drives" an organism to change. Natural selection (among other things) operating on the variation that arises in a given population or aggregate of organisms can change the frequency of traits within the population - weeding out those traits that are less adapted or positively selecting those traits that provide some advantage. Individuals don't evolve, populations do (leaving aside bacterial gene swapping and single-generation speciation in plants for simplicity). As far as how eubacterial flagella were originally derived, I've admitted that's an open question. Adoption from a different function, elimination of functional redundancy, serial and parallel evolution are all possible routes by which these organelles could have developed. If in fact they are homologous to Type III transport systems, the latter is the most likely route. I guess I'll just wait for someone to figure it out for me.
2. How did the organism come to be in the first place? I'm not sure if you mean abiogenesis or descent with modification. In the case of the former, the jury is still out (although the results of research to date are pretty interesting). In the case of the latter, there is a ton of evidence from multiple disciplines that this has occurred. I'm pretty sure you've been given examples before. Maybe you could clarify what you're asking.
"anyway irreducably complex just means that its impossible to evolve to" Well, that's the question, ain't it? Neither Behe nor anyone else that I've read has established the impossibility beyond simply asserting it. It's quite possible that structures that are in fact irreducible today were evolved from the joining of two or more non-irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components or cooption of existing structures. In both cases, the modern version we can see is, in fact, irreducible. However, through the scaffold effect or other methods the "irreducible" was in fact formed from quite reducible subcomponents. As I mentioned, this is Behe's major fallacy: he's looking at a structure that is irreducible NOW and asserting it was ALWAYS irreducible - that it essentially had to have been poofed into existence de novo. Since there are plenty of counterexamples in nature (except for the eubacterial flagella), I'd have to say his entire premise is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 08-20-2002 2:00 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024