Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- xenicon0
the undesigned designer?
- flagellum0
exactly. Not even Darwin can. ;)
- JazX0
some things can't be measured and when they can, they make no sense.
- Mimio0
Sorry I can't evolve one for you.
- flagellum0
oh good gawsh, mimio. That's it. I agree to disagree. Just wasting my time now. If you can't see that NS which would eliminate the very components needed to build a flagellum because it would have no immediate need for them and if you won't read the research on IC... then poo on you. ;)
You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing.
- Mimio0
They're not biochemists. They the founders of the Discovery Inst. Which is part of your problem...they're all biased.
- flagellum0
mmm, nope mimio. Show me the conclusive research. Detail for me a viable tested Darwinian pathway from (I'll even give to free of charge) base protiens to a functional flagellum. Hasn't been done... can't be done.
And no, pointing to homologous components in other machines and systems, isn't going to cut it.
- flagellum0
Tell:
- Scott Minnich
- Stephen Meyer
- Bill Dembski
- Jonathan Wells
- The over 500 people who signed the dissent list
- The however many other ID proponents in the scientific realm...that only Behe embraces IC.
- Mimio0
I understand that there are plenty of natural/gradual explainations that are missing from Behe's observations. Lots of things in world that break when you dismantle them, common sense really. Under that presupposition humans are irreducibly complex.
- flagellum0
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_…
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/motor…
Ask yourself... why are advanced mechanical engineers being hired by biochemists and cellular biologists, just to try and understand these machines?
- flagellum0
nonsense, mimio. now you're just being silly. Hundreds of scientists embrace Irreducible Complexity. It's a tested biochemical fact. Just remove a component from the flagellum, or a cell, or the blood clotting mechanism and watch it break. People just need to be educated about it. They don't understand it... like yourself.
- balboa0
"a key to the survival of christianity has been it's ability to co-opt popular things and make them seem like they were all part of the plan to begin with."
...kind of like Advertising?
Oh, and ID and Punk Rock are totally kindred... because ideologically Anarchy and Benevolent Infallible Overlords are identical, right?
double bleh.
- Mimio0
"Irreducible Complexity" is the opinion of one living biochemist. Most scientists thinks he's flat out wrong, and not very punk rock.
- flagellum0
"Darwin's theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If the biological community had even an inkling of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms, Miller would not -- a full six years after the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe -- be lamely gesturing at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum."
- mrdobolina0
dobs, if you remove any one component from an irreducibly complex molecular machine, it fails completely. It requires all parts at once, to function, or not at all. Something Natural Selection cannot acheive. So, yes they are irreducible.
---
But, what if these molecules arent the farthest down that it goes?
- flagellum0
Kuz, more on the co-option canard:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
It's common knowledge that there has never been a tested biochemical pathway from some other system to the flagellum. Only hand-waving stories. And even if they did, they would then have to show how the system that co-opted components was created via Darwinian gradualism. ;)
- flagellum0
Read what i just wrote kuz and then read what Dr. William Dembski says about co-option from other systems. It's an old attempt at rebuttal, kuzz an it fails:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/wd…
You see, wikipedia (not a good source for current or accurate scientific data) must have been consulting with Ken Miller. ;)
- TheTick0
Have you guys even been to a born again church lately - I mean they use hiphop and punk rock as youth outreach programs. Not that Hiphop and rap are really anything I'd peg as actually rebellious these days.
Look - a key to the survival of christianity has been it's ability to co-opt popular things and make them seem like they were all part of the plan to begin with. The fact that it has co-opted popular forms of entertainment let alone now attempting to co-opt science yet again only shows you the methodology behind the madness...
- flagellum0
dobs, if you remove any one component from an irreducibly complex molecular machine, it fails completely. It requires all parts at once, to function, or not at all. Something Natural Selection cannot acheive. So, yes they are irreducible.
Somebody forgot to tell Wikipedia that co-opting existing components of an IC machine for other molecular machine doesn't provide an adequate explanation of how it was built in the first place by a gradualistic mechanism.
- KuzIII0
evolution of the flagella:
"Testable outlines exist for the origin of each of the three motility systems, and avenues for further research are clear; for prokaryotes, these avenues include the study of secretion systems in free-living, nonvirulent prokaryotes. In eukaryotes, the mechanisms of both mitosis and cilial construction, including the key role of the centriole, need to be much better understood. A detailed survey of the various nonmotile appendages found in eukaryotes is also necessary. Finally, the study of the origin of all of these systems would benefit greatly from a resolution of the questions surrounding deep phylogeny—what are the most deeply branching organisms in each domain, and what are the interrelationships between the domains?"