Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 219 (263870)
11-28-2005 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Thor
11-27-2005 9:48 PM


Re: bump
You are forgetting the value of ornamentation.
You haven't lived until you have painted your toenails seven different shades of green with white stars and red rockets so that you can show off at the winter solstice dance (barefoot in the woods by the light of a new moon?)
Of course this means it falls into mating behavior, and we know how silly that is.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Thor, posted 11-27-2005 9:48 PM Thor has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 219 (263871)
11-28-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TimChase
11-28-2005 6:13 PM


Re: Box Jellyfish
even if the organism has no brain? (netting to see with?)
(sounds like a strawman argument ...)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 6:13 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 6:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 219 (263872)
11-28-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
11-28-2005 6:11 PM


Re: Investigator: Eye's Silly Design (paper #1)
... whereas it seemed at one time that vision had been invented about {*} times in the history of life, apparently at the genetic level, it was invented only once.
Couldn't that just be the gene for light sensitivity from which all other eyes developed? The most primitive level of sight, but also most likely for the most primitive of multicell life forms, to regulate life to the rise and fall of the sun?
{*} - missing a quantifier there?
Well, as I understand it, even some protozoa are sensitive to light, and at that point, we are talking about single-celled creatures (protozoa), so it shouldn't seem that strange that you can genetically trace all vision back to one ancestor. Tracking the sun? Perhaps. Or they may have simply used "vision" to regulate their depth, perhaps in the ocean. Interestingly enough, there are some bacteria are sensitive to magnetic fields, too.
Oh -- and the quantifier was supposed to be "forty." Sorry about omitting that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 6:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 219 (263879)
11-28-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by TimChase
11-28-2005 6:13 PM


Re: Box Jellyfish
Thanks for the article. Unfortunately it just raised even more questions as any good article should.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 6:13 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by TimChase, posted 11-29-2005 9:44 AM jar has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 219 (263880)
11-28-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
11-28-2005 6:21 PM


Re: Box Jellyfish
even if the organism has no brain? (netting to see with?)
(sounds like a strawman argument ...)
Well, all of this is purely academic unless the poor thing had gametes. No gametes, no reproduction, and no way of passing down its splendid genes no matter how well it might have been able to see.
But how could it have possibly had gametes if it were only single-celled?
Answer me that, Batman!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 6:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 7:46 PM TimChase has not replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 10:17 PM TimChase has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 219 (263917)
11-28-2005 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TimChase
11-28-2005 6:36 PM


Re: Box Jellyfish
even if the organism has no brain? (netting to see with?)
(sounds like a strawman argument ...)
Well, all of this is purely academic unless the poor thing had gametes. No gametes, no reproduction, and no way of passing down its splendid genes no matter how well it might have been able to see.
But how could it have possibly had gametes if it were only single-celled?
Ok. Here is the serious answer. Before multi-celled organisms, a single-celled organism had to be a jack-of-all-trades, able to perform everything for itself, including sensation, reproduction, digestion, etc. However, being a jack-of-all-trades, it wasn't especially good at any specific job. To get good at performing specific jobs, you have to have specialization -- which requires multi-celled organisms.
Now for an example of a species which is at the very threshold of multicellularity, you might look at the social amoeba. Interestingly enough, they might be helpful in understanding the protein pathways in the human brain...
ScienceWeek
2. THE SOCIAL AMOEBA D. DISCOIDEUM
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sw030425-2.htm
Social Amoeba Sheds Light On Communication In Human Brain.
By Sherry Seethaler
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/svalium.asp
Genome of social amoeba shows its importance as research model
Category: Genetics News
Article Date: 05 May 2005
Medical and health information

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 6:36 PM TimChase has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 219 (263923)
11-28-2005 8:10 PM


Leave the silly analogies to the IDots
Hey there, been a while.
In the first post it was said that the bacterium would move several times its body length every second and the boat with the propeller would move about 3.
Ok, it sounds like the bacterium is winning when scale is not taken into account.
Then you say that because the meecetrap (I mean boat, sorry) would go much slower with a long hose instead of a propeller this means that a propeller on a bacerium would make it go faster.
But we are talking about something on the macroscale and something on the microscale, if not the molecular scale.
I actually don't know one way or the other, I'm just critiquing the quality of the argument and it seems on par with anything that would come out of Michael Behe's mouth.
So, I don't know, but maybe you do know if on the scale of a flagellum ,would a propeller-like configuration actually impart MORE or LESS motility to the bacterium?
But from your post it makes it sound like scale-to-scale the bacterium beats the boat. (I'm guessing several is more than 3.)
If these arguments are meant to get IDrs into the fray then go for it, but if they are meant to prove any kind of point... I dunno, they seem like these silly analogies from ignorance made by the main IDots.
edit:
Sorry, I realize now that it wasn't the first post and that I should have replied directly. Sorry.
This message has been edited by gnojek, 11-28-2005 08:12 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 9:44 PM gnojek has not replied
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 10:59 PM gnojek has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 219 (263951)
11-28-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by gnojek
11-28-2005 8:10 PM


Re: Leave the silly analogies to the IDots
...
In the first post it was said that the bacterium would move several times its body length every second and the boat with the propeller would move about 3.
Ok, it sounds like the bacterium is winning when scale is not taken into account.
Then you say that because the meecetrap (I mean boat, sorry) would go much slower with a long hose instead of a propeller this means that a propeller on a bacerium would make it go faster.
But we are talking about something on the macroscale and something on the microscale, if not the molecular scale.
...
... on the scale of a flagellum ,would a propeller-like configuration actually impart MORE or LESS motility to the bacterium?
But from your post it makes it sound like scale-to-scale the bacterium beats the boat. (I'm guessing several is more than 3.)
....
I hope no one minds if I throw-in my two cents.
Personally, I think it is a mistake to make rough comparisons between the microscopic and the macroscopic levels: the physics is all different. You have seen waterbugs walking upon the surface of the water -- well generally that wouldn't work for you or me because the waterbug is quite literally supported by surface tension -- which works at that scale.
An ant can fall off the top of the Empire State Building and safely land on the ground. Why? For the same reason that the waterbug can walk on water: the volume to surface area ratio is proportional to the scale for objects of similar shape, and the volume is what is proportional to the mass or weight, whereas the surface area is what is responsible for support or air resistance. At the molecular level things become even more strange. There are "motors" which are driven by thermal fluctuations, for example, and now it appears that some proteins make use of quantum tunneling for their peculiar chemistry. For this reason, I will tend to look upon any rough comparison between levels as different as this with a certain amount of skepticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by gnojek, posted 11-28-2005 8:10 PM gnojek has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 219 (263959)
11-28-2005 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TimChase
11-28-2005 6:36 PM


Re: Box Jellyfish
But how could it have possibly had gametes if it were only single-celled?
conjugal bliss? or the origin of sex in the first place?
Page Not Found | HHMI BioInteractive

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 6:36 PM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 10:21 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 219 (263960)
11-28-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
11-28-2005 10:17 PM


Re: Box Jellyfish
Heh -- I thought I got to be the joker!
Anyway, gotta go. Have to catch a bus -- stayed late getting a client build done. But I will be checking back!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2005 10:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 219 (263969)
11-28-2005 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by gnojek
11-28-2005 8:10 PM


Showing silliness is the answer.
So, I don't know, but maybe you do know if on the scale of a flagellum ,would a propeller-like configuration actually impart MORE or LESS motility to the bacterium?
You would need to look at the reynolds numbers for the surface\speed relationship to do the speed comparison properly of course.
Reynolds Number Calculator
This is part of how information from scale models is interpreted to the full size design.
This is what also makes the keels of sailboats in water have virtually the same design requirement as wings of airplanes in atmosphere (same speed to fluid density ratio).
What the propeller vs wavy string issue is talking about is the efficiency of design in creating the desired movement. The major problems are going to be wasted energy (not focused on direct movement forward) and extra drag (lots of surface contact), both evident in the flagella.
Ok, it sounds like the bacterium is winning when scale is not taken into account.
Isn't that doing just what you criticised? (and how many is "several"? )
but if they are meant to prove any kind of point...
It is that the purpose of design is as important as the {fact\evidence\implication} of any design. If the result is silly, well then the design can't have been all that intelligent eh? (unless intended so ... still = silly design).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by gnojek, posted 11-28-2005 8:10 PM gnojek has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 219 (264070)
11-29-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
11-28-2005 6:36 PM


Re: Box Jellyfish
Earlier post:
I understand that the Box Jellyfish has a whole range of eyes, some simple, some complex. Does anyone know how that gets coded?
Most recent post:
Thanks for the article. Unfortunately it just raised even more questions as any good article should.
Well, at this point I am just guessing, but if what you are wondering is what specifically happened at the genetic level, I suspect that this is a case of gene duplication (or perhaps either segment(al) or chromosomal duplication) followed by what is called "sub-functionalization." (Same sort of thing happened in primates at a less dramatic level, taking us from dichromatic vision to trichromatic vision.)
Some of the genes responsible for both kinds of eyes are the same exact genes, some are different -- the latter due to specialization made possible by the duplication, then mutation. At some point in the development of the embryo, the different kinds of eyes are probably almost identical, but different protein-markers establish a contexts which lead to different genes being expressed in the development of the different kinds of eyes. (This would also be comparable to hind wing development in the common housefly, where the expression of a protein suppressed the full development of the second set of wings. For more on this, you might want to see "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," pg. 96-8, particularly the section entitled "Making Serial Repeated Modules Different.")
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-29-2005 10:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 11-28-2005 6:36 PM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 219 (274385)
12-31-2005 11:38 AM


bump
any new ID proponents?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 219 (284514)
02-06-2006 9:27 PM


Pictures not loading
hopefully only a temporary problem.

  
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 219 (331360)
07-13-2006 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
09-17-2005 1:25 PM


God's Greatest Mistakes
RAZD, here is a site that catalogues bad/weird/suboptimal designs in living things.
http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
For those with weak stomachs I don't suggest reading the one on spotted hyaena reproduction. Ouch.
Here's a good example of silly design:
quote:
Flatfish Skulls
The twisted skulls of bony flatfish (order Pleuronectiformes): around 500 species including halibut, plaice, sole and turbot. If you are a fish and want to hug the contours of the sea bed, there are two ways your body can be flattened. The most obvious is front to back, laying on your tummy, as rays and some sharks are. Sharks are generally already slightly flattened dorsoventrally. Most bony fish, however, tend to be flattened in a vertical direction (higher than they are wide). No surprise to an evolutionary biologist, then, that those bony flatfish that do swim at the bottom are flattened sideways, and lay on their side.
The problem with this is that one eye would always be pointing at the sea bed. They solve this by the skull contorting during development, so that one eye migrates to the other side. You will notice though that their mouths are still sideways on. They are cartoon stereotypes of what a mutant should look like. How is this 'intelligent design', rather than design constrained by history, by the materials it started with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2005 1:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2006 8:28 AM Clark 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