[Prisca]

textman,

I don't believe that I convinced you of anything you didn't already know. I'd say more, but my son is asking to play the Phonics Game with him so I gotta run.

Thanks,
Becky

[ClaypoolKid]

Ok, I have skimmed through this thread and I would now like to offer my thoughts. In all the times I have debated this issue it never ceases to amaze me how many of those who do not accept the ID theory seem to want to talk about ‘god’ more than those who support the theory. It is quite ironic how JgaltJr mentions ‘god’ more than Becky does. (I’ll use these two individuals as examples because they seem to represent both positions and have the most posts.)

Here are some quotes from JgaltJr:

1.“ID states that the god of the Bible created the universe. There are no IDers who believe in any other God.” [04-05-2002 07:39 AM]
2. “And IDers are all Christians. It is 100% a Christian movement.” [04-05-2002 01:24 PM]
3. “Can you name a single IDer who is not Christian?” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM]
4. “The idea comes from a desire to believe in a god” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM]
5. IDers believed the god of the Bible is the ID author.” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM]
6. “The Bible of IDism, Behe's ...Black Box, was written by a devout Christian” [04-05-2002 03:19 PM.]
7. "Hey this is too complicated for me to comprehend. God must have done it." [04-07-2002 03:06 PM]
8. “Just because an answer has not been discovered does not mean it must be attributed to the gods.” [04-09-2002 04:07 PM]
9. "I don't know the answer therefore God must have done it?" [04-09-2002 04:07 PM]
10. “The few answers we don't have must be answered by copping out and saying, "God did it. That's good enough for me." [04-10-2002 10:08 AM]
11. “What evidence is there that any god created anything.” [04-10-2002 10:08 AM]
12. “Not having an answer is not evidence for a god.” [04-10-2002 10:08 AM]
13. “Just because we don't know is no reason to cop out and infer that there is a god who created them.” [04-10-2002 09:48 PM]
14. “I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me why you assume a god is necessary to create flagella?” [04-17-2002 02:49 PM]
15. “An outboard motor is man made then flagella must be god made.” [04-17-2002 03:15 PM]
16. “Tell me why you assume that flagella is god made?” [04-17-2002 03:15 PM]
17.“So you're saying that God made them well but allowed them to deteriorate over time.” [04-18-2002 09:21 PM]

To me this demonstrates that JgaltJr is no different than your typical atheist. He is not as concerned with the scientific accuracy of the ID theory as he is with the possible conclusion that the evidence leads to. He seems very uncomfortable with the possibility that a god might exist, especially the god of the Bible. So rather than pointing out possible flaws in the systematic evidence presented by Becky, he attacks the conclusion that he assumes she is leading to. I doubt that he would do this if she were presenting evidence that milk is a valuable part of our diet.

Several times throughout this thread he accuses Becky, and Christians in general, of falling back on the ‘God of Gaps’ ideology. He claims that we use God to fill in our uncertainties concerning our existence. While many Christians do rely on this method of reasoning, I do not believe that the ID theory can be included as a ‘God of Gaps’ reasoning.
The ID argument if very scientifically sound and I was glad that Becky presented the reasoning outlined as a scientific method. Both JgaltJr and Becky use the same reasoning to conclude that the Yamaha outboard motor had an intelligent creator. Becky also applied the same reasoning to her observation of the universe and concluded that it also had an intelligent creator. However, JgaltJr is not willing to apply his outboard motor reasoning to the universe. Therefore, I do not believe that Becky has the obligation of connecting the dots between her conclusion about the outboard motor and her conclusion about the universe. Instead, it is the task of JgaltJr to explain why he does not make the connection.
And yes, it is possible that the currents of a river could toss a rock around for years causing it to eventually be chipped into the shape of an arrowhead. So it might be difficult to deduce how the rock was formed. However, if a group of rocks that have this same basic shape are found in one particular area, any honest scientist would conclude that they were created by an intelligent creator. The scientist would not even have to know that rocks were used as weapons. Here in this one particular place called Earth there are billions of humans that share the same basic shape. With this taken into consideration it seems unreasonable to think that we arrived here by natural processes.

[Prisca]

You said, “…it never ceases to amaze me how many of those who do not accept the ID theory seem to want to talk about ‘god’ more than those who support the theory.

Thank you for such an astute observation. I hadn’t even noticed this irony myself until you made such a detailed survey of JGaltJr’s posts.

You said, “He is not as concerned with the scientific accuracy of the ID theory as he is with the possible conclusion that the evidence leads to.”

Another member here at TOL sent me a private message saying that they did not think JGaltJr. understood the concept of irreducible complexity based on some of his earlier comments concerning the mousetrap analogy. But, as you have pointed out, I think his “misunderstanding” has more to do with the “conclusion that the evidence leads to” rather than the concept itself.

Just out of curiosity, were you able to view the video of the self-assembly of the flagellum on page 9 of this thread? Because of the size of the file (9.4MB), I didn’t know if it was worth posting a link to or not. If is quite fascinating to watch!

Thanks,
Becky

[Prisca]

You asked, When do [bacteria] first appear in the fossil records?”

The oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known.

“The picture above is a short chain of cyanobacterial cells, from the Bitter Springs Chert of northern Australia (about 1 billion years old). Very similar cyanobacteria are alive today; in fact, most fossil cyanobacteria can almost be referred to living genera. Compare this fossil cyanobacterium with this picture of the living cyanobacterium Oscillatoria:”

“The group shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms.”
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

I personally don’t believe the fossil record is correctly interpreted based on what I call the “biologic column”, but that is a subject for another time and another thread.

[JGaltJr.]

Originally posted by Becky
JGaltJr. The quotation marks around “ID theorist” in regard to Darwin were intended to show that Darwin was not an ID theorist in the strict sense of the term. I was being a bit facetious, in case you didn’t notice. Sorry if I confused you.

Interesting back peddling. I'd have more respect if you'd just admit you were mistaken.

You show me an evolutionist who doesn’t believe that life originated in some “primordial or primeval soup” or and then maybe I’ll have to rethink what I said.

Check out the creationism section of this forum. Barbarian comes immediately to mind.

[quote]The book was used as only one example.[/quot]

Yet you were using it to make a point about all evolutionists.

The title should speak for itself, but I gave the description to make the point more obvious. I studied and believed in evolution for most of my adult life. In fact, here is a quote from one of my college texts:

Quote:
There is as yet no firm agreement on a model for how living systems might have arisen on this planet out of inorganic molecules, although there are some promising theories. Long after the first tiny unicellular living systems appeared, the next major biological event occurred-the evolution of plant-organisms containing a pigment (chlorophyll) enabling them to utilize the energy of sunlight to convert mostly water and air (plus minute traces of metallic and other elements) into live tissue, chiefly turning carbon dioxide into sugar…etc., etc.
Gordon W. Hewes, The Origin of Man, Burgess Publishing Company 1973. pg 12


Granted, he doesn’t go into detail, but it is obvious that Dr. Hewes believes that life arose from inorganic molecules. You may not consider this event to be part of the evolutionary process, but it is certainly a part of the mainstream evolutionist’s belief system. Take NASA’s Planetary Biology Program, for example:

Quote:
This Program's major areas of research address the chemistry of biologically important elements and compounds in interstellar space and in the solar system, the processes on the prebiotic Earth leading to the origin of life, the evidence in fossils and microorganisms regarding early evolution, and the search for life elsewhere in the cosmos.

Yep. Lots of us believe that life arose naturally, not supernaturally. That's not in debate. That does not mean that Darwinism deals with the origin of life. If you were an evolutionist for most of your adult life, then you apperantly didn't take the time to understand it. It doesn't matter if every single evolutionist in the world did not believe in a creator, that still does not mean that the Theory of Evolution is about the origins of life. ID theory is only about that. That's why the two are not in competition.

life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, response to stimuli and reproduction.

Providing we can agree on the above definition, what do you believe about the origins of life on earth?

As your college text states, we don't know for certain how life arose originally, but it certainly seems reasonable that it arose naturally, given the fact that everything else we have an answer for has arisen naturally. Most likely molecuels combined to create aminio acids which then devoped into RNA and so forth.

The nice thing about science though is that we don't make dogamtic statements about something before having evidence to support it. This is where science and religion are very different and this is where ID theory fails as legitimate science.

Did you ever explain why you think a Flagellum is irreducibly complex? Perhaps I missed it.

[JGaltJr.]

Originally posted by Becky

You said, “…it never ceases to amaze me how many of those who do not accept the ID theory seem to want to talk about ‘god’ more than those who support the theory.

Thank you for such an astute observation. I hadn’t even noticed this irony myself until you made such a detailed survey of JGaltJr’s posts.

Yes people often seem astute when they agree with us, even when they are merely jumping on the bandwagon of illiteracy. There's no irony here in referring to ID as God. That's entirely what the ID camp is about. It's about proving the existence of God and not just any god, but the god of the Bible. Once you read a little more from ID leaders you'll come to realize that.

Quote:
You said, “He is not as concerned with the scientific accuracy of the ID theory as he is with the possible conclusion that the evidence leads to.”

There has not been any scientfic accuracy presented for the ID side. Not once in this entire thread. The entire argument form Becky, Lion, and Knight have been "Well golly, that thar flagellum sure is complex. God musta done it." No actual evidence for it has been given despite repeated requests.

Another member here at TOL sent me a private message saying that they did not think JGaltJr. understood the concept of irreducible complexity based on some of his earlier comments concerning the mousetrap analogy.

How incredibly cowardly of that member. And you, being brand new to the theory of ID and knowing very little about Darwinism took this member at his word.

Well let's go back to the mousetrap analogy since Behe has made it famous and since the member who PMed you seems confused. The analogy is that a mouse trap without all it's parts could not function as a mousetrap, therefore it's silly to have only part of a mouse trap. On the surface that seems like a good analogy to flagella. A flagella can not function as a flagella without all it's parts, therefore how could it slowly evolve? Wow, now that's a really profound argument - at first. The fact is though that although a mousetrap could not function as a mousetrap without all it parts, it could function as something else so part of a mousetrap is not useless. The same is true of the parts that make up flagella.

But, as you have pointed out, I think his “misunderstanding” has more to do with the “conclusion that the evidence leads to” rather than the concept itself.

What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence. This is what I mean about you being intellectually dishonest.

[Xancros]

ClaypoolKid your my hero Just kidding but I do agree with your last post.

[ClaypoolKid]

JgaltJr,

Becky has presented a large amount of evidence that I believe supports ID. Yet, you keep screaming for evidence. I think it is obvious that you are either ignoring the evidence that has been provided or you are denying that the info she provided is evidence. It order to bring some clarity to the discussion allow me to back peddle a bit. You agreed with Becky that a Yamaha outboard motor could not have come into existence via natural processes. What evidence did you use to come to that conclusion?

Oh and one other thing JgaltJr,

Just because ID is used mostly by Christians as evidence that the god of the Bible exist does not mean that it is not scientifically sound. A detective might use a certain 'method' to investigate a crime while being hell bent on trying to proof the guilt of the suspect but that does not mean the detective has forsaken science.

[JGaltJr.]

Claykid, what evidence has she presented. I'd love to see it. Maybe I missed it. Could you please copy and paste it and once I've determined that you're not engaging in the same kind of intellectual dishonesty, I'll be more than happy to answer your question.

[Prisca]

ThinkierThinker said, “I have to agree with JGaltJR, Becky, you have to answer the question:

Why do you think a flagellum is irreducbly complex?”

Let me quote and comment on a few excerpts from my previous post on the motility of flagellum that could presumably demonstrate its irreducible complexity:

There is a basal body consisting of a reversible rotary motor embedded in the cell wall, beginning within the cytoplasm and ending at the outer membrane. There is a short proximal hook, which is a flexible coupling or universal joint. And there is a long helical filament, which is a propeller. Torque is generated between a stator connected to the rigid framework of the cell wall (to the peptidoglycan) and a rotor connected to the flagellar filament. The proteins MotA and MotB are thought to constitute the elements of the stator; FliF, G, M, and N (the MS and C rings) those of the rotor; FlgB, C, F, and G those of the drive shaft; and FlgH and I (the L and P rings) those of the bushing that guides the driveshaft out through the outer layers of the cell wall.

It seems illogical that these parts, which are highly specified, would come together “fortuitously” as the evolutionists claim. How or why did the proximal hook come into being if it wasn’t needed for swimming? Was it a fortunate coincidence that it had a flexible coupling joint? How was torque first generated between the stator and the rotor? The stator is composed of the proteins motA and motB. These are both membrane proteins, where removal of either one abolishes motility. There are a couple of different theories on how this takes place, but both are examples of precise engineering. One is the "proton turbine model" and the other is the "turnstile model." I can post more on this if necessary. Also:

The flagellum is assembled from the inside out, with the axial components exported through a central channel. The filament grows at the distal end, with molecules of FliC added under the distal cap, which is made of FliD. The growth process is subject to exquisite genetic control. FliC, for example, is not made until the assembly of the basal body is completed. When it is completed, the same apparatus that exports FliC pumps an inhibitor of late-gene transcription out of the cell. This removes the inhibition.

How could this “exquisite genetic control” arise gradually? The assembly of the flagella is quite complex and is actually a helical filament made up of a single protein. A rotary cap mechanism is necessary to create the symmetry mismatch used to prepare just one binding site for a flagellin subunit at a time. To see an animation of how this is accomplished click here (the narration is in Japanese, but I think you’ll get the idea)

Irreducible complexity is evident here because FliD and flagellin have no other basic cellular function apart from forming the filament. Without FliD and flagellin no filament would form and motility would not be possible. So, the rotary cap and filament are made up of dependent proteins that are necessary for the assembly of the flagellum itself. The "self-assembly" is highly regulated - a chaperone (which I didn’t even get into) helps assemble the hook, another chaperone helps assemble the cap, and the cap assembles the filament.

To summarize, the flagellum is made up of numerous interactive parts that, by themselves, seem to serve no purpose or function. However, working together, these parts serve a very specific function, they provide motility to the bacteria. The flagellum is evidence for irreducible complexity in a biological system, which in turn, points toward the possibilty that this little stucture is the product of intelligent design.

[ClaypoolKid]

JgaltJr,

I am glad to see Becky has taken the time to re-post the information that she provided earlier. However, I would not have been surprised if she would have given up after the frustration that you have brought to the dialogue here. I wonder if you might be confusing evidence with proof. In a courtroom, lawyers could provide witnesses, documentation, photographs and a variety of other items that would be defined as evidence. But it would be up to the Judge or jurors to decide if all the evidence presented translates into proof. Likewise, Becky has provided quotes from expert witnesses, photographs and diagrams that she believes supports ID. Even the strongest skeptic would have to agree that these items would fit into the definition of ‘evidence’. You might not feel that she has ‘proven’ her case. You might even think that she has mistranslated the evidence or that the evidence was not sufficient. But it could be considered mockery for you to continually deny that she has provided evidence after all the time and effort she has put into this dialogue.

Trillions and trillions of snowflakes have fallen to the earth over the centuries. Yet, an intelligent builder was required to build every igloo that has ever been built. Through the years a countless number of branches have fallen from a tree and gathered mud as they drifted down a river. Yet, an intelligent builder was required to build every log cabin that has ever been built. History has produced tens of thousands of tornados. Yet, no tornado has brought about order, only disorder.

Do you consider this logic, accompanied by the evidence presented by Becky, to be insufficient? If so then I would be willing to rest for the moment and allow you to present your evidence concerning why a Yamaha outboard motor could not have evolved without an intelligent designer. By doing this maybe you can help us to better articulate our beliefs.

Becky,
Concerning the flagellin video; I am puttering around the internet at 56k so downloading a 9MB file is too much of task... sorry.
P.S. I really appreciate the effort you have put into this dialogue... God bless you.

[JGaltJr.]

How could this “exquisite genetic control” arise gradually?

I want to make sure I understand you correctly Becky since PoolBoy here seems to think I've "frustrated" the argument.
Tell which part of the following if any you disagree with:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.

This is therefore evidence of intelligent design.

Did I mistate anything you believe?

[Prisca]

You said, “Tell which part of the following if any you disagree with:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.

This is therefore evidence of intelligent design.

Did I mistate anything you believe?”

Yes, you misstated everything I presented. Let me try to analyze your set of statements:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
A bacterial flagellum can exist without all of its working parts, but it will often not produce motility. If your legs became paralyzed, they would still be legs, just not functioning legs. This in no way negates the original purpose of your legs, or likewise, the bacterial flagellum. All we have at this point is a damaged or mutated system that no longer produces its intended action.

No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this. The proteins that, assemble, make up, and produce motility in the flagellum serve specific functions. You can check some of them out for yourself.
motA
motB
fliD
fliC
fliF
fliJ
flgH
flgB
flgA

Once assembled into parts, these parts serve specific functions (proximal hook, stator, rotor, filament, etc.) Maybe you could clarify this point for me.

Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.
No. There are other structures called flagella that are quite different from the bacterial flagella. For example, there is the eukaryotic flagellum, also referred to as the "undulipodium." An undulipodium is a bundle of nine fused pairs of microtubules called "doublets" surrounding two central single microtubules.
Two different systems, both referred to as “flagella.” Both produce motility for organisms, yet are very different from one another. I don't recall ever stating that all flagella are made with the same parts.

I have to go for now. I’ll try to get back to this later.

[JGaltJr.]

Becky, are you aware that every admission you just made demonstrates that flagella are not irreducibly complex?

[Prisca]

JGaltJr. said, “Tell which part of the following if any you disagree with:

Flagella can not exist without all their working parts.
No parts of the flagellum exist outside of the Flagellum.
Therefore all flagella are made with all the same parts.

This is therefore evidence of intelligent design.

Did I mistate anything you believe?”

I would state it this way:

Flagella do not function properly without all of their working parts.
Flagella are assembled by, made up of, and propelled by specific proteins and structures that interact to produce motility.
The flagellum is well designed to produce motility in bacteria (like a tiny propeller), and in eukaryotes (like little oars).

In summary, the flagellum with all of its highly tailored parts and its specific function, appears to be a remarkable little machine that displays the earmarks of intelligent design.