Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 62 of 219 (331416)
07-13-2006 9:09 AM


I think my favorite example of silly design relates to genetalia.

What kind of idiot engineer would run a waste disposal system through a recreational area?

Also, some years ago, I heard something about an animal (rabbit perhaps?) that has to eat its own feces from the morning to be able to digest food because a necessary enzyme is produced in the wrong place in the digestive tract. Does anyone have a reference for that?

This may be my favorite thread of all time.

(Proud member of the Silly Design Institute)


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Nighttrain, posted 07-13-2006 9:26 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 64 by nwr, posted 07-13-2006 9:37 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 07-13-2006 9:55 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 174 of 219 (652943)
02-16-2012 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Redd Neo
02-16-2012 10:34 PM


I believe Dr. Suess had a unique grasp of language and a keen insight into what amused both children and adults.

My observation is similar to yours in that it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Mine is different from yours in that it it based in reality.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Redd Neo, posted 02-16-2012 10:34 PM Redd Neo has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 177 of 219 (652946)
02-17-2012 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Genomicus
02-16-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
The first problem is developing criteria to determine whether something exhibits "properties of rational design," given that we can observe things that we know are not rationally design but nonetheless appear to exhibit properties of rational design. In other words, how do you distinguish between naturally occurring and rationally designed?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Genomicus, posted 02-16-2012 10:45 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:12 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 178 of 219 (652947)
02-17-2012 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 12:04 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
the evidence that the bacterial flagellum displays properties of rational design

You've given none. You stated that it was, but saying so isn't evidence.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:04 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:17 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 181 of 219 (652950)
02-17-2012 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 12:12 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Good question. However, my approach (to give credit where credit is due: Mike Gene developed this approach) is that once we have established that a given system displays properties of rational design, then this is one factor out of several that increases the confidence in our hunch that teleology was involved in the origin of this system. Simply because a biotic system displays properties of rational design doesn't mean it was designed. But if you couple this with other factors, then it's a clue in favor of the telic hypothesis.

Spiffy.

Now all you have to do is tell us what those criteria are.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:12 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by hooah212002, posted 02-17-2012 12:45 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 186 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:55 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 182 of 219 (652951)
02-17-2012 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 12:17 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Well, actually, I did. But let me elaborate on this. The efficiency of the energy conversion of the flagellum is very close to 100% - and, of course, efficiency is a hallmark of rational design. Further, structurally speaking, it is rationally designed. The flagellum-specific ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore - it could easily have been otherwise; e.g., it could have been that one or more F1 subunits partially clogged up the FliF pore. But this is not the case.

I could go on about how the structure of the flagellum displays properties of rational design, but the above should suffice.

Not hardly.

For starters, show your math to support your conclusion that the energy conversion is "very close to 100%." Second, lose the weasel words.

Further, structurally speaking, it is rationally designed.

This isn't evidence. This is a conclusion.

The flagellum-specific ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore - it could easily have been otherwise; e.g., it could have been that one or more F1 subunits partially clogged up the FliF pore. But this is not the case.

And how is this inconsistent with or different from what we see in nature? A living creature has functioning parts. This is exactly what we would expect to see in nature. Most of the parts of most living organisms function. The ones that don't tend to get selected against.

So far, no evidence.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:17 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 1:08 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 187 of 219 (652957)
02-17-2012 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 12:55 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Discontinuity, analogy, rationality, and foresight.

Ooookay.

Now, define what each of those terms mean and give objective criteria for distinguishing between when each of those features is found naturally as opposed to as a result of design.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 12:55 AM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 189 of 219 (652959)
02-17-2012 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 1:08 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
See "The turn of the screw: the bacterial flagellar motor," DeRosier (see Table 1).

At this forum, you are expected to present your evidence here, not send us off into the wilderness looking for it.

My statement was not merely that the flagellum has functioning parts, but rather that the arrangement of the parts is optimal for flagellar function

Optimal by what standards? How is this measured? What other possible arrangements have you examined to see if they are better or worse?

If the ATP synthase had F1 subunits that clogged up the FliF pore, this would be evidence that the flagellum does not have properties of rational design. But it does: the ATP synthase fits neatly into the FliF pore - which adds to the efficiency of the flagellum, and again, efficiency is a hall mark of rational design.

Ah, more weasel words. How do we distinguish parts that "fit neatly" from parts that simply "fit adequately."

From a structural point of view, there is nothing about the flagellum that is sub-optimal. It displays properties of rational design.

Again, this isn't evidence. This is you saying so. You've neglected to explain to us how you tell the difference between rational design and something found in nature that appears to be rationally designed that we know isn't. I'm not looking for one or two specific examples with ad hoc rationalizations. I'm talking about a set of criteria that we can use for any given organism to determine whether and to what extent it is designed.

{Added by Edit}

I had a couple of minutes to kill before bed, so I googled that DeRosier paper. Table 1 included this entry:

Efficiency: unknown but could be (circa)100% vs. (circa)50%

Hmmmmmmm......

I'm no molecular biologist or anything, and I might well be misreading this, but to my untrained eye, it seems to say that Efficiency is unknown.

Unknown isn't particularly compelling as evidence goes.

Edited by subbie, : As noted


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 1:08 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 2:57 AM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 199 of 219 (653005)
02-17-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 2:57 AM


Re: Poor design and rational design
Optimal by engineering standards. Efficiency is one hallmark of rational design, as is flexibility. Of all the possible ways to build a biological machine that functions as a motility organelle, the vast majority wouldn't be optimal - they'd be hodge-podge. The ATP synthase could have F1 subunits, clogging up the pore. Or the stoichiometry of the various components could be significantly different, resulting in a totally inefficient flagellar motor. Or the junction proteins could bind very loosely such that FliC monomers often escape from the hook complex.

You've yet to even try to address much less answer the big question: how do you distinguish actual design from things that have an appearance of design but that are naturally occurring.

Evolutionary algorithms create efficient things all the time. Mere efficiency is hardly enough establish something as designed, and not particularly probative as an indicator without criteria for ruling out design that occurs in nature.

What precisely do you mean by "fit adequately"?

I don't know. What do you mean by "fit neatly?"

I'm providing evidence that the flagellum displays properties of rational design; I am not attempting to provide evidence that the flagellum is indeed designed.

But you're doing so without telling us what the criteria are for design. Again, all you're doing is looking at an organism and creating an ad hoc rationalization for your a priori conclusion of design.

See: "Low Flagellar Motor Torque and High Swimming Efficiency of Caulobacter crescentus Swarmer Cells":

No.

Bring your evidence here. This is a debate forum, not a research forum.

"The energy conversion efficiency of E. coli is also very high, at 80% or more."

Show your math. Include an analysis of energy conversion efficiency for all similar organisms. It's irrelevant if E. coli has a "very high" energy conversion if that is typical of all similar organisms.

Nonetheless, the E. coli flagellum is highly efficient, which is a hallmark of rational design.

Why?

Still no evidence, just a bunch of you saying things. Why is efficiency a hallmark of design? How do you distinguish between designed efficiency and naturally occurring efficiency?

I gotta tell ya, Geno, so far you're leaving a whole lot of unanswered questions and not answering many, if any.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 2:57 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Panda, posted 02-17-2012 11:38 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 205 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:48 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 207 of 219 (653082)
02-17-2012 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Genomicus
02-17-2012 8:48 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
And you STILL aren't giving criteria for identifying design.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2012 8:48 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 217 of 219 (653231)
02-19-2012 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Genomicus
02-19-2012 12:33 PM


Re: Poor design and rational design
But then you must agree that it's really only an argument against creationism, is it not?

Except for the fact that most of us here have been around long enough to know that when IDers talk about an intelligent designer, they are talking about their god. We can sit here all day and argue the points that IDers make and show how there is no evidence to support them and that all the evidence is consistent with the ToE. And while we do that, we can pretend that we don't know that the designer is whatever deity the IDers want to think about. But at the end of the day, we all know where IDers want this to go, and we all know that the vast majority of public support that the IDers get for their public relations campaigns is from Christian fundamentalists. So while it's consistent with the public face of ID to say that it's only an argument against creationism, that hardly tells the whole story.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Genomicus, posted 02-19-2012 12:33 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019