Summations Only

Looks like there is one more spot left on the dog pile . . . The difference here is that there is something to teach with respect to abiogenesis. For example, the oft cited Miller-Urey experiment where they demonstrated that complex molecules can arise from simple molecules in abiotic environments similar to those of the early Earth. A text book could also cite experiments done on randomly constructed RNA molecules that actually have the ability to carry out enzymatic reactions. There are tons of different experiments and interesting scientific studies that one can talk about with respect to abiogenesis. There is science there.But what about ID? Who is doing experiments to test ID hypotheses as it relates to the origin of life? Who is doing ID science? Anyone? From my experience, there is no ID science to discuss. ID is a religious belief, not a scientific field of study. Even worse, ID is an attempt to fight against scientific findings.If students are going to go on and have a scientific career that investigates the origin of life, what kind of education do they need? Certainly not an education in ID since that is not science. What they will need to understand is the work done by previous scientists in the field, and where the field stands. This is precisely what is precisely taught in science class, albeit briefly.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Actually, it would appear that you need to take matters up with them because they are not detecting the design that you claim to be there.When an archaeologist digs up a pot shard and an earthworm, which does the archaeologist take to the museum to display as the work of an intelligent agent? The archaeologist does not take the earthworm because the earthworm is not designed by an intelligent agent.When a cryptographer looks at DNA, what is the decoded message they find? They don't. There is no intelligently coded message in DNA.When SETI looks at the radiation created by stars do they claim that what they are seeing is designed? No. And yet you will claim that the universe is designed. SETI disagrees.You claim that all of these studies are able to detect design, yet they do not detect design where you claim it is. Perhaps you want to rethink your argument?

What evidence led you to this conclusion? Not really. Archael flagella are non-homologous, so it would appear that the two motility systems evolved independently in bacteria and archae. Sure we can. Secretory systems and flagella share a common system which can be traced using sequence comparisons:

quote:

---

The structural features of the flagellum, along with the evidence of homology between FliI and ATP synthase subunits and between MotA/B and the secretion proteins TolQ-TolR, suggests that it originated as a primitive secretion system (16), first involving ATPase and then adding the rod, hook, and filament components by gene duplication and diversification. Its original role as a secretion apparatus is also supported by the clear links between the flagellum and the TTSS, a protein delivery system whose genetic architecture is similar to and derived from a flagellar gene complex (17, 20).
Just a moment...

---

If you are going with a natural designer then that natural designer had to come about in the last 13.7 billion years given the finite history of our universe. If designers can come about through natural means then there is every reason to think that we are a naturally occuring designer.

Actually, it's not. SETI is looking for a narrowband radiowave transmission. Whether SETI is able to discern any analog or binary embedded code is secondary. What they are looking for is a very narrowband signal that looks like this: No prime numbers. No coded information. Just a narrowband signal. That's it. Why? Because no known astronomical process produces narrowband signals. They produce broadband signals.As for cryptographers, name one that has found a coded message in DNA. If they have not, then I have no clue why you are pointing to cryptography. Care to enlighten?

Can you give an example of a functional protein that shares deep homology amongst eukaryotes which is also unnecessary?

And where have they done this? It would seem to be germane to the topic. If they have not then ID is not a subject worth teaching. As it is, we observe all life evolving through natural mechanisms, and we have evidence that these mechanisms were operating in the past. This would be equivalent to SETI finding broadband signals from naturally occuring processes.

A prediction that seems to be a contradiction. You point to proteins that have function and at the same time want to claim that they are useless. Those two things do not go together.

Then FLH is making the same prediction as evolution. If a protein produces a competitive advantage to an organism then it will be selected for, even if that protein is not necessary for the existence of life.For example, a bacterium can survive without a flagellum. However, it will be outcompeted by flagellated bacteria if motility is an advantage.Therefore, FLH does not distinguish itself from natural mechanisms. Using the SETI example, you are claiming that broadband signals identical to naturally produced signals are in fact designed. You are not using the SETI model.

Your evidence for FLH is the same as evolution. Of course we can find homologous proteins between all life. They share a common ancestor. This is Evolution 101.From your website:

quote:

---

This is because front-loading requires that the first genomes have genes that would be used by later, more complex life forms.

---

This is the same prediction that evolution makes.Again, you are not using the SETI model. You are claiming that intelligent signals exactly mimic naturally occuring ones.