Round Two: God vs. Darwin

[Lolic]

Here's to the journey, my friends...

 

yes, "to the journey". Resolving conflict in science isn't necessarily easy. As in all areas, people have personal opinions, vested interests, and more that makes it hard. But without a free discussion of the information, the truth is stiffled.

 

I was once far more on the evolutionary side, but evidence and logical arguements changed my mind. It's been a long trip, but I don't care about any one position per say, I care about the truth.

 

Here's to science...For signs of ID, one can study the bacterial flagellum. There are 40 parts to this molecular machine, only 10 of which are similar to other existing structures. This leaves 30 pieces comprised of proteins that need to be coded for in the DNA, produced, transported in the proper sequence, and assembled in the proper order. Without one of the 40 parts, the apparatus is without value. Macro evolutionary theory cannot account for this, but this fits the definition of Intelligent Design.

 

Is this not scientific enough for this site?

This takes a theory (macro evolution),

test it (can macro evolution account for this item),

finds it cannot account for the flagellum,

and finds the flagelum does provide evidence for another theory (ID).

 

If this isn't worthy of discussion in the scientific community, what is?

 

If the above information does not make sence, than a little study into "irreducable complexity" and "specified complexity" will probably help a great deal.

[Lolic]

Our DNA/RNA coding system arranges amino acids into specific sequences to form each required protein. Only a specific sequence of amino acids will produce the required result.

 

Hemoglobin is responsible for both the red color of our blood and for the oxygen chemistry based on our breathing. There is one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin. Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. (Sickle cell anemia is one example.)

 

Considering alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 to the 650th power permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.

(The actual number is 7.4 x 10 to the 654th. Some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant. in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10 to the 503rd.)

 

A reasonable finite approximation for infinity. The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd. (In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10 to the 500th+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 10 to the 17th seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe.)

 

Hemoglobin has very good evidence of being skillfully designed.

 

"Absurd" has a mathematical definition in physics: any probability less than 1 in 10 to the 50th is, by definition, absurd.

[maddog]

Macro evolutionary theory cannot account for this, but this fits the definition of Intelligent Design.

 

Is this not scientific enough for this site?

This takes a theory (macro evolution),

test it (can macro evolution account for this item),

finds it cannot account for the flagellum,

and finds the flagelum does provide evidence for another theory (ID).

 

If this isn't worthy of discussion in the scientific community, what is?

A Great Hazaah! to Tormod for an excellent post and very closely fits my feelings in the matter.

 

To Lolic,

 

How does the growth of this Flagelum and its 40 components demonstrates that "Macro Evolution"

(whatever that is) is inadequate to explain it. Break it down for me, I think I missed something.

No, as stated you do have as of the last post enough for me to see this as credible. So no, it does not

test it, etc.... More details... :cup:

 

In Paleontontology, a series of finds of a birdlike dinosaur (like Archeaterix) was recently found in China

in the Ghobi Desert. I think there was a Discovery show on this. One of these finds had strong evidnece

for feathers. This point now shows this line of Dinosaurs may be the link to birds after all. Isn't this

evolving on some scale ? A need presents itself, some biological niche of organism is selected to fill it.

How is that not understood. This escapes me. :)

 

Maddog

[Lolic]

How does the growth of this Flagelum and its 40 components demonstrates that "Macro Evolution" (whatever that is) is inadequate to explain it. Break it down for me, I think I missed something. No, as stated you do have as of the last post enough for me to see this as credible. So no, it does not test it, etc.... More details... :cup: Maddog

 

Hi Maddog,

 

Even if one assumes the 10 pieces came from other pre-existing structures, there are still 30 other structures that had to soddenly appear, all at the same time, to make a complete flagellum than has a functional advantage.

 

if they did not appear all at the same time, the flagellum does not work, has no functional advantage, and would not be selected by the definition of natural selection.

 

Micro evolution is like darwin's finches. change within a species. accepted theory.

 

macro evolution is much larger. believing that all life could possibly come from the primortal goo or from one species. That one thing or species evolved into all the species.

 

Examples of micro (which is accepted) are often used to try and show that macro evolution is true. This is what ID disagrees with, at least in my view.

 

I have made someone else an offer to view my VHS copy of "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life". A great video and gives good information in this area. Perhaps after this if you are interested I can send it your way. If you like this area, I think you would find it fascinating.

[Buffy]

Even if one assumes the 10 pieces came from other pre-existing structures, there are still 30 other structures that had to soddenly appear, all at the same time, to make a complete flagellum than has a functional advantage.

No they didn't have to "suddenly appear." One of the things about random mutation is that all sorts of useless appendages and physical elements can be developed overtime. The fallacy of these type of arguments is that:

has no functional advantage, and would not be selected by the definition of natural selection.

...does NOT mean that these "useless appendages" will disappear immediately because they have no advantage. Humans don't have a tail any more, but your Cocyx serves no useful purpose, yet it has not been eliminated because its "useless." Moreover, some of these mutations are initially useful for one purpose, and then become useful for something else. "Light sensitivity" is a useful feature: the beginnings of "eyes" may well have started with simple chemical reactions to light, which managed to provide an advantage in finding food.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[motherengine]

Humans don't have a tail any more, but your Cocyx serves no useful purpose, yet it has not been eliminated because its "useless."

Cheers,

Buffy

 

at least as far as any one can determine. just thought i would pop in to remind you that this is a theory not a known fact. maybe i am being a stickler but i just couldn't help myself.

[TeleMad]

Lolic: Hemoglobin - a scientific look into the improbability of the random formation …

 

And who said hemoglobing formed de novo randomly? Not scientists.

 

And you might want to consider this...

 

"There is also another protein, called myoglobin, that is very similar to hemoglobin except that is has only one protein chain, not four, and therefore binds only one oxygen. The question is, if we assume that we already have an oxygen-binding protein like myoglobin, can we infer intelligent design from the function of hemoglobin? The case for design is weak. The starting point, myoglobin, already can bind oxygen. The behavior of hemoglobin can be achieved by a rather simple modification of the behavior of myoglobin, and the individual proteins of hemoglobin strongly resemble those of myoglobin. So although hemoglobin can be thought of as a system of interacting parts, the interaction does nothing much that is clearly beyond the individual components of the system. Given the starting point of myoglobin, I would say that hemoglobin shows the same evidence for design as does the man in the moon: intriguing, but far from convincing." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, Free Press, 1996, p207)

 

I’m surprised you aren’t familiar with that, seeing how you continually preach about IC – the topic of Behe’s book, and the term being coined in Behe’s book.

[TeleMad]

"Absurd" has a mathematical definition in physics: any probability less than 1 in 10 to the 50th is, by definition, absurd.

 

But the probability that the molecules of N2 and O2 in the room you are in would have the exact arrangement they do right at this moment has a probability smaller than 10^-50 ... yet it occurred.

 

Dont' forget that...

 

1) Demski's has a second condition: that the complexity must be SPECIFIED. Demski's explicitly states that events of extremely small probability occur all the time: his claim is that SPECIFIED events of small probability do not occur by chance.

 

2) Dembski rejects Borel's universal probability bound of 10^-50, using 10^-150 instead.

[TeleMad]

Here's to science...For signs of ID, one can study the bacterial flagellum. There are 40 parts to this molecular machine, only 10 of which are similar to other existing structures. This leaves 30 pieces comprised of proteins ...

 

If the above information does not make sence, than a little study into "irreducable complexity" and "specified complexity" will probably help a great deal.

 

Been there ... done that :-)

 

Now, exactly what 30 parts do you claim are found only in the bacterial flagellum and are also not similar to any other existing structures?

[lindagarrette]

But the probability that the molecules of N2 and O2 in the room you are in would have the exact arrangement they do right at this moment has a probability smaller than 10^-50 ... yet it occurred.

 

It doesn't make sense to use probability for existing occurrances. The probability that I exist in the universe is 1. The probability that another me exists is absurd.

[Buffy]

at least as far as any one can determine. just thought i would pop in to remind you that this is a theory not a known fact. maybe i am being a stickler but i just couldn't help myself.

Tee hee! Got a useful purpose for the Cockyx to propose? If its got no use then the ID view says that it would be selected away immediately, yet it appears in every Homo and Australopithecus fossil going back a couple million years....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TeleMad]

It doesn't make sense to use probability for existing occurrances. The probability that I exist in the universe is 1. The probability that another me exists is absurd.

 

So if someone wins the state lottery 100 times in a row, no one should question that, since the fact that it occured means the probability is 1?????

[TeleMad]

Question for evolutionists, I have a heart and lungs and a circulatory system. How did these evolve?

 

Not that you were posting here back then, but I already addressed this matter somewhat back 07/18/2004, here http://www.hypography.com/scienceforums/showthread.php?t=548&page=2 &pp=10&highlight=chambered

(URL split to prevent page from becoming too wide)

 

Telemad: One problem is that some look at a complex organ like the four-chambered human heart in isolation. There are many types of hearts out there in the animal world. Some have 3 1/2 chambers, some have 3 chambers, some have 2 chambers, some have a single chamber, and some are just muscular blood vessels that pump. It is not that difficult to form a plausible chain of such hearts leading from a simple muscular blood vessel up to a four-chambered human heart.

 

Some snippets from my zoology class notes...

 

 

**********************************************

Arthropods have an open circulatory system. ... The heart is either compact or tubular and consists of 1 or more chambers arranged in a linear fashion.

**********************************************

 

 

**********************************************

Gill-breathing fish have a two-chambered heart that is located just posterior to the gills.

**********************************************

 

 

**********************************************

Amphibians do not have scales. ... Adults have a three-chambered heart: immatures have a two-chambered heart.

**********************************************

 

 

**********************************************

Alligators and crocodiles have a four-chambered heart. Snakes, turtles, and lizards have a three-and-one-half-chambered heart.

**********************************************

 

<spacer>

 

Lolic:

- I couldn't live with half developed organs,

 

I'm not sure, but you just might be able to survive with only two chambers of your heart functioning: the atria are not terribly important.

 

Besides, evolution doesn't say that the first humans had half a heart, then humans evolved another chamber, then another.

 

Lolic:

- half developed organs have no functional advantage,

 

Well, some organisms can live with "half" a human heart, "Gill-breathing fish have a two-chambered heart that is located just posterior to the gills.".

 

Now, I bet those organisms that have a two-chambered heart would be worse off if the lost function of one of them. If so - and it seems a fairly safe bet - then "half a human heart" would have a selective advantage.

[TeleMad]

Lolic: if they did not appear all at the same time, the flagellum does not work, has no functional advantage, and would not be selected by the definition of natural selection.

 

Even if we accept that (you still haven’t shown such is the case), you are missing the fact that a precursor system might function as something other than a flagellum. For example, possibly as a type III secretory system.

[Lolic]

This is, however, a science forum. So for any ID discussion to take place here, the science aspects of it must be presented. It is *not* enough to question evolution. Evidence to the contrary must be presented and evaluated.

 

Thank you all,

I'll begin a new thread.

[TeleMad]

I'll begin a new thread.

 

Oh great, so I'll have to repeat my counters in yet another thread!

[Lolic]

Not that you were posting here back then, but I already addressed this matter somewhat back 07/18/2004, here http://www.hypography.com/scienceforums/showthread.php?t=548&page=2 &pp=10&highlight=chambered

(URL split to prevent page from becoming too wide)

 

The quote about zoology class notes was not from me. I wasn't here in 2004. Was there a previous "Lolic"?