- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
The Sophisticated Nanotechnology of the Cell Reeks of Design
In the 19th century, the time of Darwin, the underlying basis of life was completely unknown. It was only in 1838 that the German scientists Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann advanced the “cell theory” of life — that all organisms were composed of cells and their secretions, and that the cell somehow had a life of its own. Yet microscopes of that time were crude compared to modern technology, and little could be seen of the cell, and how it worked was a mystery. One well-known scientist, Ernst Haeckel, declared the cell to be a “simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon,” (1) not much different from a piece of microscopic Jell-O.
He was spectacularly wrong. As science advanced in the next century, new techniques allowed us to see the molecules that perform the work of the cell. In the early 1950s Watson and Crick first deduced the double helical shape of DNA; later in the decade the genetic code was cracked. In the late 1950s the structure of the protein myoglobin was uncovered, revealing a complex, intricate shape that confounded scientists’ expectations that proteins would be simple, like crystals. In fact, proteins had complex shapes for the same reason that machines do — their shapes allow them to perform their tasks.
As science progressed in the second half of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st, the complexity of the cell has grown deeper and deeper. Not only has molecular machinery of staggering sophistication been discovered, but unsuspected complex control mechanisms which allow the cell to build the machinery at the right time and place have been discovered, too. As a writer for the world’s premier science journal, Nature, marveled in an article describing our increasing understanding of the immense sophistication of genes, “The picture these studies paint is one of mind boggling complexity.” (2) Complex molecular circuitry, unsuspected only a few decades ago, is now known to be required to build even “simple” animals such as fruit flies.
Design is recognized in the purposeful arrangement of parts, and the cell exhibits the most profound purposeful arrangement of parts in the universe. To get a flavor of that purposefulness, readers should view the astonishing molecular simulation of the cellular construction of the bacterial flagellum, produced by the “Protonic NanoMachine Project” of the Japan Science and Technology Corporation in a remarkable video which can be viewed on the Web. (3)
If “scientific merit” is judged by the correspondence between theory and physical reality, then the theory of intelligent design rates very strongly.
Comments
So why did a designer have to use a lot of spare parts?
Actually, the construction of the cell rather suggests chance. Mitochondria have their own DNA. It's not even specific to the organism it's in--my mitochondrial DNA matches my families', sure, but you couldn't tell the difference between my sister's and mine.
Why would a designer design one organism within another organism? And why would he do this common, foreign cellular power source for animals, fungi, and plants? That speaks much less of "design" and more of "chance"--other organisms at some point, before the construction of cell walls, formed symbiotic or perhaps just very good parasitic relationships with primitive mitochondria.
Design is in the eye of the beholder?
Behe asserts:
"Design is recognized in the purposeful arrangement of parts"
Who decides if an "arrangement of parts" is "purposeful"? What does "purposeful" really mean in that statement? Do the parts have "purpose"? Does the "arrangement" have purpose? Did the designer have "purpose"? If I take an old wristwatch and remove all the springs and gears and arrange them in a circle, is the circle designed? If I throw them in a heap, are all of the parts of the watch no longer designed? If I pick up some metal shavings off of the floor from under the lathe in the machine shop and arrange them into a complicated mathematical pattern that I generated using a computer program, can you tell if this is a "purposeful design" or just a "random design"?
Is a virus designed? A prion? A fragment of RNA? A benzene molecule? How can you tell?
Waving your hands and saying "I know design when I see it" and "all life was obviously designed" just won't cut it. Your religious motives in assuming your religious designer are too obvious to allow your judgment to go unquestioned.
Behe further asserts:
"and the cell exhibits the most profound purposeful arrangement of parts in the universe".
There you go again, using that word "purposeful". Well, it's really good "public relations" to appeal to religious people with such an assertion. But scientists are unimpressed. Maybe cells and prions and lifeforms have a "purpose" - to grow and reproduce and evolve - but unless you can show that there is really a "need" for a designer, there is no reason to assume that there was one. So your task remains impossible - "prove" that evolution cannot have produced "this" over the last 3 billion years. Go back 3 billion years and prove that a "cell" did not evolve from something simpler? Or wave your hands and say "I don't believe it could have happened"?
Broken link
Not all this link was identified in my last reply:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1203
Hope it works this time.
Depends.
"Who decides if an "arrangement of parts" is "purposeful"? What does "purposeful" really mean in that statement? Do the parts have "purpose"?"
If there is some form of synergy in the arrangement then yes, that would be purposeful.
"Is a virus designed? A prion? A fragment of RNA? A benzene molecule?"
Any of them can be a possibility.
"How can you tell?"
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1203
"Waving your hands and saying "I know design when I see it" and "all life was obviously designed" just won't cut it."
Agreed, though that is nowhere near the approach ID takes with Biology (or anything else).
"Your religious motives in assuming your religious designer are too obvious to allow your judgment to go unquestioned."
PvM tried to make this same claim but it remains unfounded to this day. Maybe you can change that? See these discussions and join in: http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/sorry-about-my-prior-views
"There you go again, using that word "purposeful"."
I defined purposeful earlier in this comment. For detail on the cell, see the following:
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html
"Maybe cells and prions and lifeforms have a "purpose" - to grow and reproduce and evolve - but unless you can show that there is really a "need" for a designer, there is no reason to assume that there was one."
I think he already took care of that one.
"So your task remains impossible - "prove" that evolution cannot have produced "this" over the last 3 billion years. Go back 3 billion years and prove that a "cell" did not evolve from something simpler? Or wave your hands and say "I don't believe it could have happened"?"
Seems like the burden of proof goes both ways. If Behe cannot "prove" it didn't happen then there's no reason to believe one can prove that it did.
Tell-tale signs - not
"We detect design by looking for the tell-tale signs that an intelligent agent acted. Intelligent agents tend to produce specified complexity when they act."
Riiiight. Well "specified complexity" is a nonsense phrase to confuse the rubes. And apparently "tell-tale signs" are also in the eye of the beholder.
"the animation illustrates unseen molecular mechanisms and the ones they trigger, specifically how white blood cells sense and respond to their surroundings and external stimuli."
So what? This is simply known science. There is no "tell-tale sign" of an "intelligent agent". Not in the eye of this beholder anyway.
"Seems like the burden of proof goes both ways."
Nope. Science is reality. Reality is science. If science can explain reality without resorting to a miracle or the supernatural, then science is satisfactory. If you think science is not satisfactory, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it is not satisfactory. But if the "supernatural" is "outside science", then your only chance is to show that there are some observed events (miracles) that cannot be explained by science. This is an argument from ignorance. If science cannot (yet?) explain this, then it must be a miracle caused by a supernatural entity.
If science can explain it and ID can also explain it, then science is preferred because ID introduces an unnecessary element. So the burden of proof is on ID to show that the extra element is necessary.
Tell-tale Signs, Yes
"Riiiight. Well "specified complexity" is a nonsense phrase to confuse the rubes."
How so?
"And apparently "tell-tale signs" are also in the eye of the beholder."
If you say so. Synergy sounds like a pretty universal sign to me.
"So what? This is simply known science. There is no "tell-tale sign" of an "intelligent agent". Not in the eye of this beholder anyway."
If evolution cannot produce such a mechanism, what are we to conclude?
"Nope. Science is reality. Reality is science. If science can explain reality without resorting to a miracle or the supernatural, then science is satisfactory."
So ID is science. Good to know.
"But if the "supernatural" is "outside science", then your only chance is to show that there are some observed events (miracles) that cannot be explained by science."
What does the "supernatural" have to do with this? And I agree that if you can find something evolution cannot produce, and it is characteristic of a designed system then ID gains merit.
"This is an argument from ignorance. If science cannot (yet?) explain this, then it must be a miracle caused by a supernatural entity."
No it isn't:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1159
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php /id/1167
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/dover_trial_miller_argues_from_ignorance.html
"If science can explain it and ID can also explain it, then science is preferred because ID introduces an unnecessary element. So the burden of proof is on ID to show that the extra element is necessary."
And if science can't explain it?
Bet against future science?
"Intelligent design works off positive predictions about where experience tells us that intelligent design is the cause at work."
Meaningless nonsense, of course. Name a "prediction".
"complex (i.e. irreducibly complex) biological structures are unexplained, but rather that they are in principle unexplainable"
And that statement has been refuted. You can't "prove" that evolution can't explain "this". Mainly because it can.
"If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions,"
Of course Behe ignored the original point and changed the subject to something irrelevant.
"And if science can't explain it?"
If science can't explain it yet, then science will continue to explore alternatives. ID is merely a useless "dead end" to try to allow creationists to claim that evolution might be wrong.
I guess so.
"Meaningless nonsense, of course. Name a "prediction"."
It's funny because I already named some, provided resources to find them, and yet you seemed to dodge the argument altogether:
http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/id-is-science (see the three links from the first comment and please respond there)
"And that statement has been refuted. You can't "prove" that evolution can't explain "this"."
If that were true then you wouldn't be able prove evolution can explain it either. And I'm interesting in what refutations to irreducibility your referring to, feel free to cite Ken Miller or Nick Matzke. I highly doubt you know of anything I haven't heard before.
"Mainly because it can."
Prove it.
"Of course Behe ignored the original point and changed the subject to something irrelevant."
So he brings up pseudogenes in one sentence in a paragraph ABOUT pseudogenes, and you say that's changing the subject??? What was the original point in that case?
"If science can't explain it yet, then science will continue to explore alternatives."
Nothing wrong with that.
ID is merely a useless "dead end"..."
While Evolution simply declares all problems solved without further notice.
"...to try to allow creationists to claim that evolution might be wrong."
Explain how "creationists" are relevant to this discussion.
And now you are repeating yourself - dead end
"It's funny because I already named some, provided resources to find them, and yet you seemed to dodge the argument altogether:"
followed by the usual nonsense.
No real scientist would concede that those are actually "predictions". They are just dishonest attempts to claim that recent scientific discoveries are in agreement with the nonsense called " intelligent design ". And no real scientist claims that these discoveries are a problem for evolution. So, as usual, your dishonest "authorities" are not real authorities at all.
Now, tiktaalik, that was a prediction.
Yes you are
"followed by the usual nonsense."
Like I said before, it looks pathetic when all you can do in response is name call, or label sources as "dishonest" rather than elaborating why that is so.
"No real scientist would concede that those are actually "predictions"."
Why not?
"They are just dishonest attempts to claim that recent scientific discoveries are in agreement with the nonsense called " intelligent design "."
Would you like to explain WHY it's nonsense and how those discoveries CONTRADICT design?
"And no real scientist claims that these discoveries are a problem for evolution."
Why so?
"So, as usual, your dishonest "authorities" are not real authorities at all."
So as usual, you've done nothing but just name call and dismiss instead of actually providing a case for your claim....oh wait.
"Now, tiktaalik, that was a prediction."
And if anything, a dismal failure:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/latest_fossil_find_no_threat_t.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/no_steps_forward_acknowledging_1.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/05/post_14.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwins_failed_predictions_sli_12.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/01/darwinists_obsession_with_tikt.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/tiktaalik_roseae_wheres_the_wr.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/an_ulnare_and_an_intermedium_a.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/09/the_rise_and_fall_of_tiktaalik.html
It's still true - there's no science there.
"Would you like to explain WHY it's nonsense and how those discoveries CONTRADICT design?"
Nothing can ever "contradict" design. Something can only be contradicted if it makes an actual prediction. Design makes no predictions. So it can never be "contradicted".
"And if anything, a dismal failure"
And then the usual dishonest sources. Pitiful.
“This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design .”
Of course not. Nothing can ever "threaten" intelligent design because there is nothing there that can make a prediction that could be falsified.
Then the usual dishonesty:
"What remains unexplained is how natural selection and random mutation could produce the many novel physiological characteristics that arise in true tetrapods."
Yes, one missing link produces two new missing links and fossil comparisons and genetic evidence are irrelevant for Robert Crowther.
That's correctly describing yourself
"Nothing can ever "contradict" design. Something can only be contradicted if it makes an actual prediction. Design makes no predictions. So it can never be "contradicted"."
Then why have people continued to step up and say there is evidence which contradicts ID?
"And then the usual dishonest sources. Pitiful."
(sigh) Explain how those sources where dishonest.
"Of course not. Nothing can ever "threaten" intelligent design because there is nothing there that can make a prediction that could be falsified."
Like I just said, if that's the case then why does people claim ID has been thoroughly falsified?
"Yes, one missing link produces two new missing links and fossil comparisons and genetic evidence are irrelevant for Robert Crowther."
How this is relevant to the quote you replied to is beyond me. Seemed like it stated that the question of HOW the new features arose were still unexplained.
round and round round 37
"Then why have people continued to step up and say there is evidence which contradicts ID?"
Well, go ask them, not me.
"Explain how those sources were dishonest."
It's a little late for that now.
"HOW the new features arose were still unexplained."
"New features" are "explained" by evolution . So it is clear that Robert Crowther does not understand evolution.
"round round 37..." Whatever that means
"Well, go ask them, not me."
So you admit that people are inherently contradicting themselves when they say ID is not falsifiable and yet they've also falsified it. That's a start.
"It's a little late for that now."
So you can't explain how they were dishonest. Nothing surprising about that.
""New features" are "explained" by evolution . So it is clear that Robert Crowther does not understand evolution."
I think you can prove this point by answering my question on information here:
http://www.opposingviews.com/comments/so-i-ve-been-told
The stupid "new information" question
"I think you can prove this point by answering my question on information here."
This point has been answered many times by people more competent than me. Basically, many different kinds of mutations could produce "new information". In particular, a duplication of an existing functional part of DNA is "redundant" and so either part can perform the original function. So if either part is changed, both the original function and a new function could be performed. So this satisfies the fundamental definition of "new information". You have simply failed to take advantage of the available web information on this topic.
OMIGOSH!!! Are you actually answering my question now???
"This point has been answered many times by people more competent than me. Basically, many different kinds of mutations could produce "new information"."
Love Dawkin's attempt at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Let's see if you can provide something with a little more substance.
"In particular, a duplication of an existing functional part of DNA is "redundant" and so either part can perform the original function. So if either part is changed, both the original function and a new function could be performed."
Examples???
"So this satisfies the fundamental definition of "new information". You have simply failed to take advantage of the available web information on this topic."
So you mean to say that there are case examples in which new functions arise that are not less efficient then the ones they evolved from? I would sure like to hear something of this kind.
You should get out there on the web more
"I would sure like to hear something of this kind."
Well, maybe you should try actually finding something relevant out there on the web. Nah, it would never convince the invincibly biased.
But, as usual, your silly words "less efficient" are inappropriate. Why should it be relevant whether or not any "new function" is more or less "efficient"? Obviously, if the old bacterium died from the drug and the new bacterium survives, it's a lot better to survive than it is to be "efficient". So why isn't this a "new function"?
I guess so. I need to educate more people.
"Well, maybe you should try actually finding something relevant out there on the web. Nah, it would never convince the invincibly biased."
I don't think your "invincibly" biased, but you do seem to hold onto the notion that ID is not science without explanation.
"But, as usual, your silly words "less efficient" are inappropriate. Why should it be relevant whether or not any "new function" is more or less "efficient"?"
Maybe because evolving towards less efficient functions show that the mutation and selection processes destroy existing information instead of creating anything better. :/
Pretty sure evolving towards higher life forms (such as us humans) is what Darwinian processes is said to have accomplished. And if all you get is degeneration, then why should we assume Darwinism in any of it's various forms (e.g., NDS, Modern Synthesis) is true?
"Obviously, if the old bacterium died from the drug and the new bacterium survives, it's a lot better to survive than it is to be "efficient". So why isn't this a "new function"?"
Oh yes, it's a new function alright. I just think it's interesting how these surviving bacteria can never reproduce as well as the parental wild-type. Wonder why this is the case....
Survival is better than mere "efficiency"
"Maybe because evolving towards less efficient functions show that the mutation and selection processes destroy existing information instead of creating anything better."
What counts is survival - regardless of "efficiency". So it is certainly possible that "something better" is, in fact, less efficient. So what?
"Pretty sure evolving towards higher life forms (such as us humans) is what Darwinian processes is said to have accomplished."
Of course. So what? Are we "efficient"? Compared to what? As pointed out many places, when you start with bacteria, it's hard to go anywhere but "towards higher life forms".
"I just think it's interesting how these surviving bacteria can never reproduce as well as the parental wild-type."
I'm so impressed that you are "interested". Not. But it's better to reproduce than to go extinct. Interesting story about plants that evolved to require a high concentration of copper in the soil. They seem to "reproduce" just as well in their niche as the originals so in the normal soil.
That's pretty much all that happens.
"What counts is survival - regardless of "efficiency". So it is certainly possible that "something better" is, in fact, less efficient. So what?"
So you agree then that many of the so called "mutant" strains of various bacteria or new enzymes are in fact the result of reducing existing information or function. That's a start.
"Of course. So what? Are we "efficient"? Compared to what?"
Efficient and complex compared to bacteria, that's for sure.
"As pointed out many places, when you start with bacteria, it's hard to go anywhere but "towards higher life forms"."
Actually, it's pretty easy to head towards "lower, simpler forms." In fact, that's pretty much all that usually happens:
http://www.discovery.org/a/9951
"I'm so impressed that you are "interested". Not. But it's better to reproduce than to go extinct."
I can agree with that, but I think my discrepancy with your views has more to do with just what the cost is to not go extinct. I say it leads to simpler forms, you feel that at some point it should lead to higher forms.
"Interesting story about plants that evolved to require a high concentration of copper in the soil. They seem to "reproduce" just as well in their niche as the originals so in the normal soil."
References?
Hilarious nonsense number 129
"So you agree then that many of the so called "mutant" strains of various bacteria or new enzymes are in fact the result of reducing existing information or function."
No, I never agreed with that. Worse, I claim that the use of "reducing" or "increasing" associated with "information" or "function" is just an attempt to obscure the question. An organism lives and reproduces or it dies and fails to reproduce. Success cannot be "measured" with words like "reducing information" or "increasing function". Perhaps success means increasing functionality in one area at the cost of decreased functionality in a different area. Thousands of real world examples.
Seelke:
"the ability of evolution to produce a new function when two changes are both needed at effectively the same time"
Nonsense of course. Does "at effectively the same time" really mean "the second really soon after the first"? Why not? Yet another attempt to prove a negative. Evolution cannot do this because ... followed by nonsense.
"I say it leads to simpler forms"
Well, evolution is true and higher forms obviously evolved from simpler forms. So you're an idiot.
"References?"
"Darwin's Ghost" page 98.
If you're describing yourself that is
"No, I never agreed with that. Worse, I claim that the use of "reducing" or "increasing" associated with "information" or "function" is just an attempt to obscure the question. An organism lives and reproduces or it dies and fails to reproduce. Success cannot be "measured" with words like "reducing information" or "increasing function". Perhaps success means increasing functionality in one area at the cost of decreased functionality in a different area."
So you agree that phrasing the question in terms of generating new novel features put evolutionary theory in a bad position. Good.
"Thousands of real world examples."
Such as?
"Nonsense of course. Does "at effectively the same time" really mean "the second really soon after the first"? Why not? Yet another attempt to prove a negative. Evolution cannot do this because ... followed by nonsense."
You agree then that multiple changes cannot be constantly produced by mutation+selection. That's good too.
"Well, evolution is true and higher forms obviously evolved from simpler forms."
Can you prove this in the lab? Or are you inferring it from somewhere else?
"So you're an idiot."
Please keep the discussion civil; it doesn't add to the debate if all you can do is attack an individual and not the merits of their own argument.
""Darwin's Ghost" page 98."
Can you give me the exact quote?
Nonsense number 167
"You agree then that multiple changes cannot be constantly produced by mutation+selection."
Of course not, you idiot.
Good, then we are on the same page
"Of course not, you idiot."
Then in that case I think you've admitted all you need to in order to prove my point. Every trait in existence (with some trivial exceptions of drug resistant bacteria) require multiple consecutive changes in order to reach a new peak on the organism's respective fitness landscape. Otherwise any partial steps made to the end point will just be eliminated.
pages
“Every trait in existence (with some trivial exceptions of drug resistant bacteria) require multiple consecutive changes in order to reach a new peak on the organism's respective fitness landscape. Otherwise any partial steps made to the end point will just be eliminated. “
Only if the intermediary steps are significantly disadvantageous. If the intermediary steps are neutral or beneficial then they are still likely to be passed on to the next generations. Even harmful mutations can be passed on as long as they do not interfere with reproduction (a mutation is only harmful from an evolutionary standpoint it interferes with reproduction).
Truth in part, misleading in whole
"Only if the intermediary steps are significantly disadvantageous."
Good, so we can both agree that intermediate steps to a new biological novelty cannot be detrimental to the organism in question for it to be passed down. As for the "Only" part....
"If the intermediary steps are neutral or beneficial then they are still likely to be passed on to the next generations."
I have yet to see a pathway for various cellular features (not just the flagellum) that manages to fulfill this need. So far all the ones I see require that you damage an existing protein fold before you get a part to a new system. If we stick to neutral mutations, then you have to take into account that a mutation that starts off neutral doesn't always stay that way. If you have a neutral genetic misprint that ends up getting passed down, and more neutral mutations get adding along with it then it is more than likely that the cumulative effects of what were once "neutral" changes are now disadvantageous (Genetic Entropy). The best analogy that I can think of is when someone attempts to copy a picture file hundreds of times and "errors" end up occurring in the transfer process. Though the initial errors may not be noticeable to the person viewing it (selection), many copying (reproductive) generations down the road you can start to notice a decrease in image quality. But by this point, it's too late. There are too many errors (which by themselves would otherwise be neutral) to eliminate, unless you have a directive intelligence who knows a thing or two about photoshop.
"Even harmful mutations can be passed on as long as they do not interfere with reproduction (a mutation is only harmful from an evolutionary standpoint it interferes with reproduction)."
See above point, it becomes far more relevant with harmful changes that manage to spread within a population.
parts and wholes
Truth in part, misleading in whole
“Good, so we can both agree that intermediate steps to a new biological novelty cannot be detrimental to the organism in question for it to be passed down. As for the "Only" part....”
Detrimental mutations can be passed down, as long as they do not completely prevent an organism from reproducing. We see this with various genetic disorders, which exist but have a low chance of manifesting, or do not manifest until later in life.
“I have yet to see a pathway for various cellular features (not just the flagellum) that manages to fulfill this need. So far all the ones I see require that you damage an existing protein fold before you get a part to a new system.”
That ‘you’ have not seen it does not mean that they do not exist…
“If we stick to neutral mutations, then you have to take into account that a mutation that starts off neutral doesn't always stay that way. If you have a neutral genetic misprint that ends up getting passed down, and more neutral mutations get adding along with it then it is more than likely that the cumulative effects of what were once "neutral" changes are now disadvantageous (Genetic Entropy).”
Neutral changes can either stack up as beneficial, non-beneficial, or still neutral. The more non-beneficial the mutation becomes the lower the chance that it will be passed on to the next generation. That is the ‘cleanup’ process that Natural Selection brings.
“The best analogy that I can think of is when someone attempts to copy a picture file hundreds of times and "errors" end up occurring in the transfer process. Though the initial errors may not be noticeable to the person viewing it (selection), many copying (reproductive) generations down the road you can start to notice a decrease in image quality. But by this point, it's too late. There are too many errors (which by themselves would otherwise be neutral) to eliminate, unless you have a directive intelligence who knows a thing or two about photoshop. “
Hardly an accurate analogy… it is more like taking a photo and making hundreds of copies. Then going through every copy and picking the ones that most look like something and then coping those images hundreds of times… the doing this over and over until you get a new image.
“See above point, it becomes far more relevant with harmful changes that manage to spread within a population.”
From an evolutionary standpoint the only harmful evolution is one that interferes with reproduction. As long as a given organism can reproduce then it’s genes will be passed down to the next generation.
The question is not 'does it look designed?' but 'was it?'
I believe arguments from the opposing camps that say 'it looks like it was designed, so it must have been designed' and 'natural selection could have produced it, so we believe natural selection did produce it' are not going to lead to resolution of this issue.
The real question is - Is there any direct evidence that a particular feature actually was designed, or on the other hand, direct evidence that it arose through natural selection? This is clearly a very difficult question or to answer when the events took place long ago (pace YECs)
On the ID side, I'm not aware of any evidence that any feature of any organism actually was designed. This would require evidence that a) designers existed b) they visited earth and c) they intervened in the modification of life.
On the evolution by natural selection side, likewise I'm not aware if there is any evidence that a significant new feature, such as the human brain, actually did evolve this way.
I think at the moment it's impossible to demonstrate either of these with direct evidence.
So for me the next question is - in the absence of direct evidence either way, is it possible to say whether or not ID has merit?
I think it is. This is because, as I understand it, ID makes no proposals as to the nature of the designers, when and how they designed life, why they don't appear to be around today, and what their own origin was. This means it is not really a theory, more a kind of problem statement.
For evolution by natural selection, there is a proposed mechanism, which has been proven to work on small scale changes (point mutations). Other mechanisms are known that can modify the genome on a larger scale. Natural selection therefore doesn't have the blank spaces that ID does, and in my view has the right to be called a theory.
Argument from Lack of Design
Hasn't anybody here read a molecular cell biology textbook? The machinery of the cell is a Rube Goldberg apparatus. If it was designed, the designer went to a lot of trouble to make it look undesigned.
One can compare what designed and undesigned systems look like. For example, some complex electronic circuits are designed by engineers and others are created through the use of adaptive programs that amount to artificial versions of natural selection. Both kinds of circuits work, but they have distinctly different characteristics. The designed circuits tend to be less tolerant of malfunctions than the evolved circuits and it's much harder to figure out how the undesigned circuits work. In other words, when nature is examined, it appears to be undesigned. This is a positive finding, not a inference.
None of this will convince the ID folks, of course, because they are irrational religionists.
Present your case
and minimize the ad hominems and IDers will listen. Your comments are valid, and describe a valid distinction between systems designed by evolution and by intelligent designers.
I'd hate to see your case weakened.
Would someone that can, please object to this argument...
I would if I could. My grounds for objection are very simple: This is not an argument.
The whole post from Mr Behe can be boiled down to, "since things are complex, they must be designed."
In another post I said that ID wasn't a theory, it was an untested hypothesis. It seems I was giving it too much credit. It's an unfinished hypothesis.
What features of the complexity of the cell points to intelligent design? How does the complexity of the cell point to intelligent design? These are the kinds of questions you should be answering with this argument.
Please, someone object to this argument, or give me the ability to do so.
What features of complexity
--
What features of the complexity of the cell points to intelligent design? How does the complexity of the cell point to intelligent design? These are the kinds of questions you should be answering with this argument.
--
The ID proponent would argue: the fact that it is complex (in other words, science cannot explain it) and 'specified' where it matches some independent pattern. In biology, function seems to be sufficient for something to be specified, so mostly anything that would arise via the processes of evolution and would not yet be fully understood would be called design.
Hope this clarifies.
I was never confused, I was just trying to help.
I asked the questions to give Mr Behe a hint about how to formulate a proper argument.
I am well familiar with the thought process of the ID proponents, having at one time been one myself. Of course, I grew out of it before I graduated high school. (and no, it was not because my teacher, pawn of the evil scientist cabal to keep creation science hidden, converted me. It was because I did my own research and thinking and most importantly, i followed the data.)
I know
I was using your rhetorical question to attempt to get a discussion going. Seems ID proponents have mostly abandoned this thread :-)
Except for the prolestizing and faith espousing.
It always devolves to this when talking to ID proponents. They say they are not pushing a religious agenda, but you see from the arguments and the posts, they always fall back on faith.
Just in case any ID proponents are reading, no matter what you believe, say, or have been told, faith != evidence. And belief != science. And vice versa.
lets use a bigger example
I'm not a cell expert but lets expand out to the human body. Do you consider the systems that make up your body to be intelligent in function PSTRYDER?
Let's not, let's use the example in Behe's 'argument'
I'm not a cell expert either, and understanding what Behe wrote in his argument doesn't require it, because he didn't say anything except "Cellular machinery is complex, therefore it must be designed."
This isn't an argument, it's a statement. To make it an argument, he would have to say, "Cellular machinery is complex, and these examples of complexity make me think it is designed." Then he would speak to each of those examples in detail, explaining why their complexity indicates design, and is not better explained through some other mechanism. That would be an argument.
ICDESIGN, I have had these discussions, representing both sides, too many times to be derailed by your question. Discuss Behe's argument with me, but don't try to lead me astray with questions outside the purview of the topic at hand.
astray
-but don't try to lead me astay-
I wanted to try and lead to the truth from being astray
actually. I think Behe has made the case for obvious
design within the cell and I don't think you will find
anyone who could put it any more clear. The evidence is everywhere its just a matter of where you want to put your faith. Good luck on your journey.
What case has been made?
--I think Behe has made the case for obvious
design within the cell and I don't think you will find
anyone who could put it any more clear.
--
Actually, Behe did not offer a case for intelligent design in his argument, posted on this website. (Let me make PERFECTLY clear, this is all I am discussing.) He simply offered his conclusion; because cellular machinery is complex, it is designed. He offers no evidence, no data, and no sembelence of a coherent argument.
--The evidence is everywhere its just a matter of where you want to put your faith. --
Science != faith. Faith !=science
The evidence is NOT everywhere. The DATA is everywhere. Evidence is data that is used to support your hypothesis, which makes predictions of future experimental results, or data that will be discovered at a later date.
Behe offers no DATA to support his hypothesis; which make no predictions. ID does not meet the criteria to be a theory, it barely meets the criteria to be an unfinished hypothesis.
Making it perfectly clear
Ok whatever dude. Let me also be clear I really don't care what you can or cannot see or want to talk about.
ICDESIGN of a genius everywhere I look. If you don't that's your loss man.
As I said b4, good luck on your journey and goodbye.
Seems perfectly clear
ICDESIGN is suddenly not interested in hearing about science anymore. Denial, a first step towards recovery. Just wait till the anger phase, that's the tricky one as many have come to reject faith during that phase.
All because of insisting that ID should be able to prove the existence of God. What happened to good old faith? Do we insist that God reveals us to us in person, just like 'doubting Thomas' before we accept His existence?
I am shocked.
shocked about what?
You can get pretty wierd PvM. My faith is as rock solid as it gets. I don't need any more proof than whats b4 my eyes as I keep repeating.
It doesn't go anywhere to argue with people who can't see the loud and clear truth right in front of their faces.
That dude was getting snipidy about what he would and would not talk about and would be an obvious waist of my time to engage. I'm kind of burned out with all this for now.
Best of luck to you PvM.
Cowardice
"My faith is as rock solid as it gets. I don't need any more proof than whats b4 my eyes as I keep repeating."
You can have all the faith you want, you just can't do science with it.
"It doesn't go anywhere to argue with people who can't see the loud and clear truth right in front of their faces."
Look who's talking! Do you seriously think that the grandure of God is represented by the human appendix, or miswired eyes of vertebrates, or snake and whale leg and pelvic bones that serve no purpose whatsoever?
Re: Grandeur
I know this conversation's long dead, but I thought I'd leave this here:
Appendix: It serves as a safe harbor for rebooting the intestinal tract's bacterial cultures, and in some other research I've read it is also a storage facility for antibodies or something that you need for the first few years of life, having gotten them from your mom.
http://www.wayodd.com/scientists-find-reason-for-the-appendix-protects-good-germs/v/8215 /
Eyes: I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here.
Snake and Whale Pelvic Bones: Serve as anchor points for several different muscular groups, without which, whales for instance, can't reproduce.
http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm
Burnt out
--ICDESIGN
It doesn't go anywhere to argue with people who can't see the loud and clear truth right in front of their faces.
--
Oh, I believe I have managed to provide you with at least a glimpse of the facts. It's up to you to decide what to do with this. Faith which requires one to reject God's teachings as found in nature somehow seems counterproductive at best.
All the strength to you my dear friend
Behe and design
--ICDESIGN
I think Behe has made the case for obvious design within the cell and I don't think you will find
anyone who could put it any more clear.
--
I find Behe's 'arguments' while probably most relevant to design in nature, also to suffer from a significant flaw, an inability to deal with new scientific findings that undermine his claims.
Note for instance Nick Matzke's contributions on this forum, and note the absence of much of any response. ID has consistently avoided dealing with the socalled 'controversy' in a scientific fashion and instead seems to insist on invading our public schools under the guise of academic freedom.
scientific findings
Hi PvM, they finally got things straightened out.
As far as scientific findings go the numbers of evolution
believing scientist's is on a major decline. The more
technology is able to understand the more everyone will have to abandon the primitive thinking of evolutionary
theory (theory being the key word). When scientists become brave enough to follow the evidence wherever it leads they will land on God's doorstep. 30 years from now
it will be embarrassing for anyone to admit to being an
evolutionist.
Silliness
--ICDESIGN
As far as scientific findings go the numbers of evolution believing scientist's is on a major decline.
--
Historically such predictions have failed to come true time after time. In fact, the theory of evolution is getting stronger and stronger. So I have to reject your unsupported and wishful thinking.
--ICDESIGN
The more technology is able to understand the more everyone will have to abandon the primitive thinking of evolutionary theory (theory being the key word). When scientists become brave enough to follow the evidence wherever it leads they will land on God's doorstep. 30 years from now
it will be embarrassing for anyone to admit to being an evolutionist.
--
Stop embarrassing yourself with these predictions, there is no reason to come to such a conclusion. Surely you would not want to portray such a foolish notion?
But I do understand that the facts, may be somewhat disturbing to some religious people who have not only come to misunderstand evolutionary theory as being anti-God but worse are willing to go on the record with foolish statements. That just makes us Christians look well, 'foolish'
Non response
Seems even ICDESIGN is reluctant to come to Behe's defense.
Nuff said I guess
nuff?
Sounds like a harelip dog. nuff nuff
...No need to defend Behe. He is absolutly 100% correct.
I whole heartedly agree with everything he has said and then some. He is a brilliant man who brings glory to God in his writings. Then you have those who claim to be
a Christian yet discrace and dishonor Him by siding with those who deny the power and beauty of His amazing
creative ability to call everything into existance in 6 days.
If you want to compare lists their Mr.PvM why don't
compile a list of all the scientists you know of who used to be a Creationist but changed their mind because of the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I on the other hand will compile a list of scientists who spent their lives believing in the theory
of evolution but within the past 10 years changed their
position because of the scientific breakthroughs of the last decade. Lets just see who should be embarrassed or not. You game?