[The Barbarian]

irreducible complexity has not been refuted because it can not be refuted.

For example, all the things Behe cited as irreducibly complex, turned out to be not so.

And irreducible complexity has been directly observed to evolve, so it's a moot point.

It is the implications behind a irreducible complex system that Darwinist(eople who believe that the theory of evolution is unplanned and unguided) must account for.

Not a problem. Would you like to learn about some ways irreducible complexity can evolve?

[jeffblue101]

Originally Posted by Refractive

We started with a a single cell so primitive it wouldn't really be considered a cell.

what are the base requirements for self-replication?
1. some way to store information (information alone refutes an unguided process)
2. a process to correct mistakes that occur during replication.
3. some sort of energy conversion system.

a self-powering, self-repairing, self-replicating machine is well ahead of anything that man can create but yet it is required for life to exist.

[jeffblue101]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

For example, all the things Behe cited as irreducibly complex, turned out to be not so.

Scott Minnich at Dover trial
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day20pm2.html

A. Yeah, that's the center, okay? So it can swim. So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it's radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can't swim. It's stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim.

Q. I'm sorry, just so we're clear on the record, the two you're talking about on the bottom left, the first one was the bottom left and the second one was the bottom right?

A. Right.

Q. Where you took away a portion of the flagella?

A. We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene.

One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Not a problem. Would you like to learn about some ways irreducible complexity can evolve?

hypothetical explanations by Ken Miller don't count, plz provide REAL observable data.

[jeffblue101]

The Barbarian
Do you consider that your adherence for naturalistic explanations is harming the field of psychology and neuroscience ?

Do you believe that SETI is scientific? If you do, why do consider SETI scientific and not ID?

[some other dude]

barbie is an example of irreducible complexity?


(maybe irreducible density...)

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
For example, all the things Behe cited as irreducibly complex, turned out to be not so.

A. Yeah, that's the center, okay? So it can swim. So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it's radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can't swim. It's stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim.

Except that there are several versions of the bacterial flagellum, some simpler, some more complex. So that's out.

The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a "designer" created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.

What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-complex.html

By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.

See above. Not quite the way he said it is, um?

Barbarian observes:
Not a problem. Would you like to learn about some ways irreducible complexity can evolve?

hypothetical explanations by Ken Miller don't count,

Let's take the clotting system. Behe supposed it was irreducibly complex. But dolphins (for example) lack the Hageman factor. So do some humans. Typically, there are no symptoms, and people lacking it usually never know, even if they have deep wounds.

In 1997, Russel Doolittle threw down a challenge to Behe:
On a more modest plane, about ten years ago we predicted that certain of the genes encoding the blood clotting cascade would be absent in jawless fish.5 This prediction was made on the basis of comparing the sequences of blood clotting factors in mammals and estimating how long it had been since the gene duplications leading to their existence. In particular, we noted that fish should not have both Hageman Factor and prekallekrin, two of the factors described in Behe's outline of blood clotting in his book.

As far as I know, a study aimed at establishing whether these clotting proteins are present in lampreys and hagfish has not yet been undertaken, but I am willing to wager a goodly sum about the outcome. What I want to know, however, is whether Behe will accept such a result as a proof of the concept, or whether he will--in typical creationist style--simply try to find a way out.

http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/doolittle.html

I'll ask you the same question. I'll await your answer.

plz provide REAL observable data.

See above. More to come.

[The Barbarian]

Do you consider that your adherence for naturalistic explanations is harming the field of psychology and neuroscience ?

I don't think neuroscientists depend on what I think. However, I do note that science has learned more about the way the brain works in the last three decades than all previous history. I would think that means the scientific method works there as well as it does in other disciplines of science.

Do you believe that SETI is scientific?

Sorry. No bunny trails. Start a new thread if you want to talk about astronomy.

If you do, why do consider SETI scientific and not ID?

Don't know much about SETI. I understand that it's radio telescopes looking for some evidence of natural beings who, like us, might use radio waves to communicate.

I figure that it's unlikely that there are any close enough to communicate.

I think it's largely a waste of time, but it's not unscientific. ID, of course, is a religion which borrows some ideas from science and others from Christianity. It's the official doctrine of Rev. Myung Moon's "Unification Church."

Oddly, Michael Behe says the "designer" of us and everything else is possibly a "space alien."

Not my idea of Christian belief. Yours?

Also, there's a question for you in my previous post. I'd really like to know what you think. Tell me about it.

[jeffblue101]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a "designer" created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.

how is this not a religious argument. how do you know what God can and can not do? why cant God create multiple variations or built in genetic diversity for flagellum based on environment requirements. different cells need different types of flagella to move.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella.

maybe you should do some research on how complex a simple protein is?

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

so all this parts just "miraculously" came together one day and formed a complex machine.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.[/b]
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-complex.html

motor, machine, and propellar, I simply don't understand why you can't see intelligent design in the flagellum.
http://www.nano.org.uk/news/june2008/latest1449.htm
flagellum even has a molecular clutch!
historical fact: the clutch was invented in 1933 by Joseph Zarb.
why is that human design mimics the molecular machines found in nature?????

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

See above. Not quite the way he said it is, um?

i think you misunderstood him, the parts are constructed with multiple proteins.
"By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect."

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Flagellum.html

What "mainstream scientists", like Kenneth Miller, don't seem to understand is that all systems of function are irreducibly complex regardless of whether or not a working subsystem can be found within the larger system. The flagellar motility system still requires at least 35-40 genes producing a structure with at least 21 different specifically arranged proteins each requiring a minimum of hundreds of specifically arranged amino acid residues in order for the function of flagellar motility to be realized at all - even a little bit. Just because one or more subsystems may be found within the overall requirements needed to build a flagellar motility system, such as a TTSS system, does not remove the fact that the flagellar system still has a minimum structural requirement that cannot be reduced beyond a high threshold point without complete loss of the flagellar motility function. System reduction may leave the TTSS system intact, since the TTSS system has a much lower minimum threshold structural requirement. However, having the TTSS function in place, does not mean that the flagellar function will also be in place

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

I'll ask you the same question. I'll await your answer.

I'm unfamiliar with the blood clotting debate. I need some time to read for and against arguments first before I respond.

[jeffblue101]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

I don't think neuroscientists depend on what I think. However, I do note that science has learned more about the way the brain works in the last three decades than all previous history. I would think that means the scientific method works there as well as it does in other disciplines of science.

maybe i should have phrased my question little bit better. Many neuro-scientist are concluding that the soul, mind and free-will do not exist. is their scientific work accurate since it is the only naturalistic explanation?

I think it's largely a waste of time, but it's not unscientific.

trying to have your cake and eat it too. ID looks for design patterns and SETI looks for design patterns what's the difference?

ID, of course, is a religion which borrows some ideas from science and others from Christianity.

so the scientific method is unscientific since Francis Bacon derived it from the doctrine of original sin.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Oddly, Michael Behe says the "designer" of us and everything else is possibly a "space alien."

strawman, Behe is responding to critics who believe that ID identifies that the Designer is GOD. he merely mentions that IDrs only care about design patterns not the designer.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Not my idea of Christian belief. Yours?

neither is implying that God did not leave evidence of His creative attributes, so we can be "without excuse"

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I don't think neuroscientists depend on what I think. However, I do note that science has learned more about the way the brain works in the last three decades than all previous history. I would think that means the scientific method works there as well as it does in other disciplines of science.

maybe i should have phrased my question little bit better. Many neuro-scientist are concluding that the soul, mind and free-will do not exist. is their scientific work accurate since it is the only naturalistic explanation?

Show me that. It would be rather odd, since science can't say anything about the supernatural. Can't confirm it, can't deny it.

I think it's largely a waste of time, but it's not unscientific.

trying to have your cake and eat it too. ID looks for design patterns and SETI looks for design patterns what's the difference?

One makes testable predictions. The other is a religious faith.

Barbarian observes:
ID, of course, is a religion which borrows some ideas from science and others from Christianity.

so the scientific method is unscientific since Francis Bacon derived it from the doctrine of original sin.

No, actually, he borrowed it from Islamic scientists.

Barbarian observes:
Oddly, Michael Behe says the "designer" of us and everything else is possibly a "space alien."

Behe is responding to critics who believe that ID identifies that the Designer is GOD.

It does. Here's what the guys who invented it say:
(From the Wedge Document, we see their beliefs)

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

As you see, it's a religion.

He merely mentions that IDrs only care about design patterns not the designer.

The wedge document makes it clear their actual goal is to promote their rather odd religious beliefs.

(Behe's belief that God might be a "space alien")

Barbarian asks:
Not my idea of Christian belief. Yours?

neither is implying that God did not leave evidence of His creative attributes, so we can be "without excuse"

So does that mean you agree with ID that the "designer" might be a space alien? You seem reluctant to tell us.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian cites evidence:
The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a "designer" created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.

how is this not a religious argument. how do you know what God can and can not do?

Merely a logical observation. Bacterial flagella can't have a large number of variations and numbers of components, and still be "irreducibly complex."

Barbarian cites:
What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella.

So almost all of it is derived from simpler components already in the cell.

maybe you should do some research on how complex a simple protein is?

I'm guessing you have no idea how to measure complexity.

Barbarian cites:
The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

so all this parts just "miraculously" came together one day and formed a complex machine.

No miracles. Just random mutation and natural selection. Would you like to learn how it works?

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-complex.html

motor, machine, and propellar, I simply don't understand why you can't see intelligent design in the flagellum.

Probably because I have actually studied biochemistry and molecular biology.

What "mainstream scientists", like Kenneth Miller, don't seem to understand is that all systems of function are irreducibly complex regardless of whether or not a working subsystem can be found within the larger system.

No. Behe defines it as being non-functional if anything is missing. So, by definition the bacterial flagellum isn't irreducibly complex, because there are different numbers of components in each.

However, irreducible complexity can evolve. That's been directly observed in bacteria.

I'm unfamiliar with the blood clotting debate. I need some time to read for and against arguments first before I respond.

If you don't know, you probably shouldn't have claimed they were all irreducibly complex.