Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

Just looking at this and anyway wonder what "intelligent design" means. In the long and short run. Unless you can define what is meant by intelligent design there is no point to talk (or think more than wondering) about it.

Intelligent Design is well defined in plain simple English: Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design is a theory that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just looking at this and anyway wonder what "intelligent design" means. In the long and short run. Unless you can define what is meant by intelligent design there is no point to talk (or think more than wondering) about it.

No problema.

Intelligent design refers to the actions of a conscious intelligent agent, like a man or a god that lead to the assembly of some structure such as a watch. If you're aware of Paley's watch analogy, Paley argues that the watch, which was intelligently designed and manufactured by humanity, indicate that everything else was also intelligently designed, ostensibly by a supernatural intelligent agent rather than the only alternative - blind, natural process lacking purpose or intent.

The irreducible complexity argument for intelligent design (God as imagined by the Discovery Institutes creationists who promoted and researched the idea) is rooted in the idea that nature could not be responsible for a biological system that could not have arisen naturalistically in steps that nature could generate unintentionally each of which conferred an advantage that nature could select for.

 

[YoursTrue]

What argument? What are you talking about? I am not making any controversial arguments…………all I am saying is that we can´t know yet if any system is IC or not.

Borrowing form the analogy, we don’t know if you can drive from LA to New York because we dong know if there is an obstacle like a river, that would make the trip impossible.

Obviously such an obstacle doesn’t mean that you can´t get form LA to New York City, it simply means that you can get there by the proposed mechanism (a car and just a car)

These are my 4 claims that I have made in this thread, please tell me if you disagree any of them

1 I accept evolution (common ancestry)

2 I accept that complex organs came from simpler organs

3 I don’t I am skeptical on the claim that organisms evolve mainly though random variation + natural selection (

4 I don’t think we can know if a system like the eye or the flagellum is IC

Ty for detailing your beliefs. May I ask what definition of evolution you accept? It starts at the beginning, doesn't it, from the first attachment or burgeoning forth by chemical reaction to growth beyond that of one, two, of ten cells plus more? Is that what you accept?

 

[leroy]

You watched the irrelevant (to this discussion) part of the video. Did you not see this? "You can start about 37 minutes into it if you want to skip much of the Dover school board antics that led up to the lawsuit and get to the trial, the testimony of ID people and the prosecution's experts, and the judge's ruling."

You pay a price for your inattention. Go back to video and begin where you left off.

Or, try this written transcript of the video: NOVA | Transcripts | Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS If you go that route - text rather than speech and video - please be thorough and attentive. You will find this there. It's in the video as well, probably past the point where you ended watching it:

KENNETH R. MILLER: ​

As an example of what irreducible complexity means, advocates of intelligent design like to point to a very common machine: the mousetrap. And the mousetrap is composed of five parts. It has a base plate, the catch, a spring, a little hammer that actually does the dirty work, and a bait holder.​

​

The mousetrap will not work if any one of these five parts are taken away. That's absolutely true. But remember the key notion of irreducible complexity, and that is that this whole machine is completely useless until all the parts are in place. Well, that, that turns out not to be true.​

​

And I'll give you an example. What I have right here is a mousetrap from which I've removed two of the five parts. I still have the base plate, the spring, and the hammer. Now you can't catch any mice with this, so it's not a very good mousetrap. But it turns out that, despite the missing parts, it makes a perfectly good, if somewhat inelegant, tie clip.​

​

And when we look at the favorite examples for irreducible complexity, and the bacterial flagellum is a perfect example, we find the molecular equivalent of my tie clip, which is we see parts of the machine missing—two, three, four, maybe even 20—parts, but still fulfilling a perfectly good purpose that could be favored by evolution. And that's why the irreducible complexity argument falls apart.​

Same objection than with the article, in order to go from a tie clip to a mousetrap (or whatever the next is) multiple things have to change at the same time

The article contradicts that. No new parts were added. Some older parts changed configuration, which is also the case with biological systems when a piece is removed or modified. The conformation of proteins, for example, is sensitive to their milieu. Remove one protein and the others conformation and functionality might change. Here's some biochemistry for you:

Yes, that is the point, in order to get an improvement, you need to add more pieces to the mousetrap, and change the configuration of all the other existing pieces.

If mousetraps where living organism (say bacteria), then a mutation that adds a hammer would be useless (harmful indeed) unless you have other mutations to change the configuration of the existing parts

Everything has to occur at the same time, you need multiple random mutations occurring at the same time in order to get a selectable improvement.

"This overview provides an illustrated, comprehensive survey of some commonly observed protein‐fold families and structural motifs, chosen for their functional significance. It opens with descriptions and definitions of the various elements of protein structure and associated terminology."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7162418/#:~:text=The complete structure of a,, tertiary, and quaternary structure.

why is this relevant?

If that's your main point, it's irrelevant to a biological system. How the mousetrap increases in complexity is unrelated to natural genetic variation.

I think you're misunderstanding the significance of the mousetrap. Your statement is irrelevant. It doesn't evolve by natural selection of a biological genotype/phenotype, and nobody claims that it did. It is merely a means of illustrating that when parts are removed, functionality is lost whether a system is biological or manmade.

Yes and what you have to do is show that the flagellum is not analogous to the mousetrap.

In the case of the mousetrap if you remove one part, the rest becomes useless, unless you also change the existing parts. (ether to make a tie clip or a less efficient trap)

What you have to do is show that the flagellum is not like that. you have to show that if you remove a part from the flagellum, the rest of the pa would still perform a function without the need of additional changes.

With “part” I mean “anything achievable with one mutation”

Unselectable? The steps were selected by its builder, which is also irrelevant to a discussion of biological evolution.

You don’t get it,

Adding one part to the mousetrap has no selective benefit (it is not selectable)

You need to add one part, and change all the existing parts in order to get a benefit...............many things have to happen at the same time in order to have a benefit.


this is true with mousetraps..............if you think that the flagellum is different, you are wellcomed to present the evidence. (but your aticle doesnt presents such evidnece)

 

[leroy]

You need to respond to the substance of the post it is addressed to you and your defense of Behe's claim.

What part of the paper supports your claim? The paper I cited explicitly rejects Behe's claims.

Well then find Behe and tell him about it……….. why should I respond for Behe…… ?

What you have to do is look for MY CLAIMS and then show that your article contradicts my claims.

 

[leroy]

Ty for detailing your beliefs. May I ask what definition of evolution you accept?

I accept universal common ancestry and that modern organism came from primitive life forms through a step by step process.

I am agnostic on that we evolve mainly through the specific process random mutations + natural selection (I have an issue with random mutations)

 

[shunyadragon]

I accept universal common ancestry and that modern organism came from primitive life forms through a step by step process.

I am agnostic on that we evolve mainly through the specific process random mutations + natural selection (I have an issue with random mutations)

There is no such thing as random mutation.

You have made it clear you do not accept evolution by natural processes.

Example: in a previous post you considered natural scientific hypothesis evolution 'atheist'

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

in order to go from a tie clip to a mousetrap (or whatever the next is) multiple things have to change at the same time

So what? I'm discussing irreducible complexity, not the building of mousetraps.

Everything has to occur at the same time, you need multiple random mutations occurring at the same time in order to get a selectable improvement.

We're not discussing mutations when considering mousetraps.

what you have to do is show that the flagellum is not analogous to the mousetrap.

No, I don't. If you claim it isn't, then the burden of "proof" is yours, not mine.

In the case of the mousetrap if you remove one part, the rest becomes useless, unless you also change the existing parts.

Watch this. It's Ken Miller, who is quoted in the Dover video debunking Behe's claim (I quoted Miller earlier- did you see it?), and in this, he refers to McDonald (the link in text I provided):

With “part” I mean “anything achievable with one mutation”

Are we talking about mousetraps being disassembled (removing parts) or flagella evolving (adding or modifying parts)? These are different processes. Both have relevance to irreducible complexity, but only one to evolution. The mousetrap being built or disassembled is unrelated.

Adding one part to the mousetrap has no selective benefit (it is not selectable)

You're confused if you're talking about adding parts to the mousetrap. Whatever impediment a mousetrap (intelligent designer and) builder might encounter is irrelevant to the challenges nature faces in biological evolution.

why is this relevant?

Never mind then. I thought its relevance was self-evident. If you didn't, then this would be an uphill battle again like rolling a mossy boulder up an icy hill into a headwind during a mudslide, so let' just drop it here. But before I do, I'll add for the benefit of those who can learn from words that that it was a reference to compound biomolecules changing conformation spontaneously when gross structure is altered such as one protein in a complex structure being added or removed. The surface amino acids determine its enzymatic capacity. Changing a protein's milieu change its secondary structure - the spatial arrangement of its amino acids.

Maybe an analogy with DNA will help, the structure of which you may be more familiar with. Primary structure is the sequence of bases analogous to a protein's amino acid sequence. Secondary structure is the double helix, analogous to a protein folding from a linear into a 3-dinensional object. Higher order structure includes chromosomes structure and how the double helix is folded. Higher order structure includes how chromosomes are joined and how RNA and proteins convolute into ribosomes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are making this up.

Quote my actual claim

And the quote the alleged correction

You wont find it

Every time that you use this argument you have admitted that you lost since you know that no one will play the wayback game for you. I did so over the weekend just for fun. You ignored the corrections. That time to complain is when the corrections to your posts are made. Not pages after the fact.

If you really want answers you have to change your behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just looking at this and anyway wonder what "intelligent design" means. In the long and short run. Unless you can define what is meant by intelligent design there is no point to talk (or think more than wondering) about it.

That is part of the problem with the concept. Those that are making the claim are the ones that have to define it and they cannot seem to find a scientific definition of the concept. Just as it would be wrong for a Muslim to define Christianity for you it would be wrong of people that do not accept "intelligent design" for those advocating for it.

One reason that they refuse to properly define it is because then others could test it and refute the idea and that is the last thing that they want. Creationists do not want to know, they just want to believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

I accept universal common ancestry and that modern organism came from primitive life forms through a step by step process.

I am agnostic on that we evolve mainly through the specific process random mutations + natural selection (I have an issue with random mutations)

I see. Any thoughts on how it all started (and I'm not talking about abiogenesis). It seems to me that it is believed that a few initial cells burgeoned to plants while others moved along to animals.

 

[YoursTrue]

I accept universal common ancestry and that modern organism came from primitive life forms through a step by step process.

I am agnostic on that we evolve mainly through the specific process random mutations + natural selection (I have an issue with random mutations)

I'm not sure what you mean that

 

[shunyadragon]

Well then find Behe and tell him about it……….. why should I respond for Behe…… ?

What you have to do is look for MY CLAIMS and then show that your article contradicts my claims.

You supported Behe's claims and his mouse trap hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

So what? I'm discussing irreducible complexity, not the building of mousetraps.

welll the article that you quotes is about mousetraps.

No, I don't. If you claim it isn't, then the burden of "proof" is yours, not mine.

NO, the burden proof is on you, you are the one who is affirming that Behe has been refuted.

I have no burden proof, I am not affirming (nor denying) that Behe is correct, all I am saying is that "we dont know" because we dont know enough about DNA or the flagellum in order to make such a claim

Watch this. It's Ken Miller, who is quoted in the Dover video debunking Behe's claim (I quoted Miller earlier- did you see it?), and in this, he refers to McDonald (the link in text I provided):

Yes and I address his argument, and you ignore it…………. Does the video has anything new to say apart form the text that you quoted?

Are we talking about mousetraps being disassembled (removing parts) or flagella evolving (adding or modifying parts)? These are different processes. Both have relevance to irreducible complexity, but only one to evolution. The mousetrap being built or disassembled is unrelated.

You're confused if you're talking about adding parts to the mousetrap. Whatever impediment a mousetrap (intelligent designer and) builder might encounter is irrelevant to the challenges nature faces in biological evolution.

Then why did you quote an article that is about mousetraps?

what was your purpose of quoting that article? accordign to you what does the article shows?

Never mind then. I thought its relevance was self-evident. If you didn't, then this would be an uphill battle again like rolling a mossy boulder up an icy hill into a headwind during a mudslide, so let' just drop it here. But before I do, I'll add for the benefit of those who can learn from words that that it was a reference to compound biomolecules changing conformation spontaneously when gross structure is altered such as one protein in a complex structure being added or removed. The surface amino acids determine its enzymatic capacity. Changing a protein's milieu change its secondary structure - the spatial arrangement of its amino acids.

Maybe an analogy with DNA will help, the structure of which you may be more familiar with. Primary structure is the sequence of bases analogous to a protein's amino acid sequence. Secondary structure is the double helix, analogous to a protein folding from a linear into a 3-dinensional object. Higher order structure includes chromosomes structure and how the double helix is folded. Higher order structure includes how chromosomes are joined and how RNA and proteins convolute into ribosomes.

The problem with mousetraps is that when you remove a part the arrangement of the rest of the parts has to be very specific (very finely tunned) and you do need some sort of foresight

So unless you can show that flagellums are not analogous to mousetraps your claim is irrelevant.

Proving that proteins rearrange doesn’t prove anything, you have to show that they would arrange in the specific way needed to build a flagellum

In sumerry

You haven’t shown that the flagellum is not IC. You haven’t shown that Behe is wrong

 

[leroy]

You supported Behe's claims

Again, why is this so hard to do

1 find a claim made by me

2 quote the words in the article that contradict my claim

My claim is that “we don’t know” if Behe is correct or not……….. I don’t think this should count as me supporting Behe

 

[shunyadragon]

welll the article that you quotes is about mousetraps.



NO, the burden proof is on you, you are the one who is affirming that Behe has been refuted.

I have no burden proof, I am not affirming (nor denying) that Behe is correct, all I am saying is that "we dont know" because we dont know enough about DNA or the flagellum in order to make such a claim



Yes and I address his argument, and you ignore it…………. Does the video has anything new to say apart form the text that you quoted?


Then why did you quote an article that is about mousetraps?

what was your purpose of quoting that article? accordign to you what does the article shows?


The problem with mousetraps is that when you remove a part the arrangement of the rest of the parts has to be very specific (very finely tunned) and you do need some sort of foresight

So unless you can show that flagellums are not analogous to mousetraps your claim is irrelevant.

Proving that proteins rearrange doesn’t prove anything, you have to show that they would arrange in the specific way needed to build a flagellum

In sumerry

You haven’t shown that the flagellum is not IC. You haven’t shown that Behe is wrong

post #8,452 demonstrates Behe's mouse trap, which you support, is false. Please respond.

 

[Subduction Zone]

welll the article that you quotes is about mousetraps.



NO, the burden proof is on you, you are the one who is affirming that Behe has been refuted.

I have no burden proof, I am not affirming (nor denying) that Behe is correct, all I am saying is that "we dont know" because we dont know enough about DNA or the flagellum in order to make such a claim



Yes and I address his argument, and you ignore it…………. Does the video has anything new to say apart form the text that you quoted?


Then why did you quote an article that is about mousetraps?

what was your purpose of quoting that article? accordign to you what does the article shows?


The problem with mousetraps is that when you remove a part the arrangement of the rest of the parts has to be very specific (very finely tunned) and you do need some sort of foresight

So unless you can show that flagellums are not analogous to mousetraps your claim is irrelevant.

Proving that proteins rearrange doesn’t prove anything, you have to show that they would arrange in the specific way needed to build a flagellum

In sumerry

You haven’t shown that the flagellum is not IC. You haven’t shown that Behe is wrong

People explained to you how Behe was refuted. You did not understand the refutation at best.

I am feeling generous. I will give you a video and a link to the paper that it was based on. It explains how the rotator flagellum is not IC:

I recommend that you turn the sound up.

The paper that the video is based upon:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

A detailed and testable scenario for the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum.

www.talkdesign.org

Please note, the paper is 20 years old. We have only learned more since then. But that is old enough to put your silly argument into the rank of PRATT's. Please stop using PRATT's.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, why is this so hard to do

1 find a claim made by me

2 quote the words in the article that contradict my claim

My claim is that “we don’t know” if Behe is correct or not……….. I don’t think this should count as me supporting Behe

I believe there is no question post #8,452 demonstrates in spades Behe is wrong, and you failed to respond.

You are getting a lot of splinters in your butt riding the rails.

Again, why is this so hard to do

1 find a claim made by me

2 quote the words in the article that contradict my claim

My claim is that “we don’t know” if Behe is correct or not……….. I don’t think this should count as me supporting Behe

It is hard because you are as slippery as an eel.

The thread is full of claims by you and you have not responded to post #8,452.

Still waiting . ..

Remember, you asserted that the hypothesis for natural evolution was 'atheist.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

post #8,452 demonstrates Behe's mouse trap, which you support, is false. Please respond.

I doubt if he will. Or at best he will use a weak argument to deny it. That is why unless I really feel like it I do not present evidence for him. Though just for fun I did just post a 16 year old video and a link to the 20 year old paper that it was based upon. The paper itself is not peer reviewed, but it has links to about 200 peer reviewed papers that show the science that went into the paper.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is part of the problem with the concept. Those that are making the claim are the ones that have to define it and they cannot seem to find a scientific definition of the concept. Just as it would be wrong for a Muslim to define Christianity for you it would be wrong of people that do not accept "intelligent design" for those advocating for it.

One reason that they refuse to properly define it is because then others could test it and refute the idea and that is the last thing that they want. Creationists do not want to know, they just want to believe.

OK, on that same note I have a problem (pwoblem?) with the theory of evolution, starting AFTER abiogenesis. In other words, At the beginning...of...evolution. But anyway, we shall go on I suppose.