Jonathan McLatchie vs. Keith Fox: Has ID stood the test of time?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 24, 2018

Design inference, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Saturday 24th February 2018 – 02:30 pm

Seems to be up now in EST. Audio:Premier Christian Radio:

A bacterial flagellum acts as the outboard motor on a bacteria. But is the complex arrangement of parts that enable it to do its job a result of design or evolution? Michael Behe first opened the debate on the ‘irreducible complexity’ of biochemical machines in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box.

Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan McLatchie and theistic evolutionist Keith Fox debate whether Behe’s theory has stood the test of time, the bacterial flagellum and whether ID is a science stopper or theologically helpful. More.

Comment: Given that most traditional science greats believed that they lived in a meaningful universe that showed evidence of design, the idea obviously isn’t a science stopper. By contrast, Darwin’s horrid doubt, that our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth, will destroy science by enabling the post-modern war on measurement.

See also: Live webinar with Robert Marks, Baylor U, on artificial intelligence and human exceptionalism (with Jonathan McLatchie)

Comments

Molson Bleu, for someone who regularly deems himself morally superior to others on UD, your moral judgement is not nearly as astute as you apparently think it is. I, with no personal animosity towards Bob, poked fun at Bob (and weave) O’Hara's debating style. He basically 'bobs and weaves' to avoid addressing arguments honestly and directly. It is a humorous, good-natured, poke at him and his disingenuous debating style. You, apparently failing to distinguish this moral nuance, accuse me of attacking him in a personal manner (as your referenced troll regularly attacked UD bloggers in a very personal and degrading manner). That simply is not true. While I don't respect Bob's debating style, I've never attacked him personally. But to be clear, I was being fairly blunt, and personal, with you and your feigned moral superiority when I told you to go soak your pompous head. But, in my 'moral' judgment, calling you 'pompous' is far better than what Jesus Himself called the religious hypocrites of his day who thought they were morally superior to everyone else.bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

BA77@47. I took a very brief look at the site you linked above. All I can say is that whoever this person is has some serious issues. I have rarely seen such hatred paranoia and venom on any web site. I almost feel sorry for whoever wrote that nonsense.Molson Bleu_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

“Hmmm, I thought I smelled a rat.” Sorry, but I have never seen the site you refer to. But I will certainly check it out. I only mentioned the parody on your name after I looked at the site that KF had mentioned (after the bar closes) when he called it an animus site. When people make claims like this about other sites, I prefer to draw my own conclusions. That is the site where I saw this parody of your name used many times. But I still stand by my point. You are obviously offended by this parody, as I would be. Why you would chose to use a tactic against others that obviously offends you, is simply not something I would expect another Christian to resort to.Molson Bleu_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Hmmm, I thought I smelled a rat. Perhaps you would like to elaborate a little more on that particularly odious character who has been banned quite a few times from UD, posting under various different pseudonyms until exposed each time?
The Intelligent Design movement is religious creationism in a poor disguise and is really just an intrusive, dishonest, religious and political agenda. The people promoting and supporting it are insane, narcissistic, hypocritical, dishonest religious-zealots who want to control the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth. http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/
And that is the nice stuff he has said about us. It gets worse, much worse! Of course, I'm sure you have been spared for whatever reason???bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

“Molson, you are not the moral police of UD, for you to pretend that you are is pompous to put it mildly. So again, go soak your pompous head!” Fair enough. But I have one question for you. Do you have a problem with people when they use the parody of your name that I have seen before? The one that starts with Batsh**? If you do, it just seems strange that you don’t have a problem doing it to others.Molson Bleu_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Molson, you are not the moral police of UD, for you to pretend that you are is pompous to put it mildly. So again, go soak your pompous head! https://goo.gl/images/EukYtE Moreover, Bob (and weave) O'Hara question was certainly not 'fair'. For you to pretend he was anything other than disingenuous in his dismissal of the empirical evidence presented to him supporting the inference to design makes you part of the problem. Feel free to fulfill your promise and scroll past my posts, I can guarantee you that my feelings will not be hurt.bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

“MB oh golly gee whiz, I guess my only ‘mature’ response can be to tell you to go soak your head,” I suggest that we behave as mature adults and this is your response? Bob O’H has a fair question of you and you parody his name in response.Molson Bleu_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

J-Mac at 41 and 42, funny that I've seen you attack Christianity on UD much more than I have seen you defend ID. The confusion with TWSYF, if any, is of your own making. It is clear that you have deep personal issues with Christianity, or more precisely the false beliefs you've believe about Christianity, that have severely clouded your judgment.bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

BA @40 Or alternatively you can present MB with one of your related notes, such as the unshakable evidence of the Shrek of Turin... That should shut him up... The long-bearded, long-haired Jesus face imprinted on a piece of cloth plus the lamb writing next to it... This reminds me of the supposed paintings of Jesus I have seen all my life until one day my kids asked:How do we know that Jesus had long hair and beard? And it hit me... We don't. It's all an illusion... however persistent...J-Mac_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

It looks like Truth Will Set You Free has lost his touch with reality today... He first accused me of being a/mat and now Molson Bleu even though we both of us clearly indicated our belief in God more than on a hundred occasions... Go figure... Molson Bleu? Any clues? ;-)J-Mac_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

MB oh golly gee whiz, I guess my only 'mature' response can be to tell you to go soak your head, https://goo.gl/images/EukYtEbornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

MB @ 38: I find your comment to be pompous and condescending. I might have to start scrolling past your comments like I do to most of the other comments posted by a/mat preachers on this site.Truth Will Set You Free_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

“My unsolicited advice to Bob (and weave) O’Hara.” You may think that this phrase is witty, but it is more indicative of childish immaturity. I have enjoyed many of your comments, but this one is beneath you. I will start scrolling past your comments if you persist in such childishness. You are better than this.Molson Bleu_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Of humorous note: My unsolicited advice to Bob (and weave) O'Hara
Don't bob and weave http://muaythaipros.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/no-bob-and-weave.png Don't duck either http://muaythaipros.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/dont-duck.jpg
bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) O'Hara, though he was provided several lines of evidence supporting the claim that the flagellum is indeed designed, still insists that he personally finds that there is no 'experiment that shows that the flagellum was intelligently designed'. To which I can only echo ET's bolded comment:
All SCIENTIFIC experiments support the claim that all bacterial flagella were designed. And there aren’t any scientific experiments which demonstrate any bacterial flagella can evolve by means of blind and mindless processes.
As was further highlighted in post 27, the default assumption has always been that life was and is designed, and, as was also shown, the Atheist's 'knee jerk' gut level reaction is itself that life and nature are designed. As Crick himself noted:
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit - p. 138 (1990)
Frankly, a more clear example of 'suppressing the truth in unrighteousness(Romans 1:18)' would be hard to find. And when looking at a cross section of DNA, it is easy to see why Crick had to "constantly keep in mind' that what he saw was not designed
cross section DNA - google search https://www.google.com/search?q=cross+section+DNA&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ7e_s78HZAhVRd6wKHdIVDZIQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=782
Basically, atheists constantly fight tooth and nail insisting that the default assumption should be one of random chance instead of design, and even though many leading atheists themselves readily admit that life 'appears to be designed' for a purpose.
living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Richard C. Lewontin - Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book 'Evolution' (September 1978) “This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.... Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.” George Gaylord Simpson - “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” - 1947 "Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this" Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30
,,, and although they have ZERO experimental evidence to support the claim that such 'appearance of design' can be had through mindless processes,,,
Talking Back to Goliath: Some Advice for Students in the Evolutionary Biology Classroom - Paul Nelson - September 30, 2014 Excerpt: (if neo-Darwinism) is true, we should be able to find in the scientific literature the detailed explanations for the origin of complex structures and behaviors, rendered strictly in terms of random variation plus natural selection. Guess what? Those explanations aren't there; they don't exist. If anyone doubts this, he should try looking for himself. Choose any complex structure or behavior, and look in the biological literature for the step-by-step causal account where the origin of that structure (that is, its coming-to-be where it did not exist before) is explained via random variation and natural selection. You'll be looking a long time. The explanations just aren't there, and this fact is well known to evolutionary biologists who have become disenchanted with received neo-Darwinian theory. When proponents of the received theory, such as Richard Dawkins, face the task of making random variation and natural selection work, they resort to fictional entities like Dawkins's "biomorphs" -- see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) -- or flawed analogies such as the "methinks it is like a weasel" search algorithm scenario. No one would have to employ these toy stories, of course, if evidence were available showing the efficacy of random variation and selection to construct novel complexity. "Research on selection and adaptation," notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a disenchanted evolutionary theorist, "may tell us why a trait persisted and spread, but it will not tell us where a trait came from....This transformational aspect of evolutionary change has been oddly neglected in modern evolutionary biology" (2003, p. 197). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/talking_back_to_1090141.html
,,, and although such a appeal to chance is patently insane,
In a 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote: It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/
,,, despite all that, many internet atheists, such as Bob (and weave) O'Hara, are willing to toss their own sanity itself out the window if it means that they do not ever have to admit that life 'appears' to be designed for a purpose. And indeed, with the inherent denial of free will, and ones very own personhood, a denial that goes with the atheist's materialistic worldview, insanity is all that the atheist is really left with when all is said and done.
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
Basically, committed atheists would rather embrace insanity than God. And that is exactly what they will get in the end unless they come to their right minds:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell." - C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality.
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk
bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Stonehenge is not constructed over and over again by the process of replication.
So what? Biological reproduction is irreducibly complex. Stones are constructed over and over again.
They are constructed by following a recipe of transformations to preform on raw materials.
Question-begging drivel. By the way, our current best explanation for knowledge is intelligent agentsET_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

@BA
Whereas ID advocates rely on what the can observe and experimentally prove to be true. Namely that only intelligent agents can create functional information and/or molecular machines.
Ok, so then why don't we have a cure for cancer? Doesn't the medical community consist of intelligent agents? Doesn't it take actions with the purpose and intent to cure cancer? And when we do eventually have a cure for cancer, what will have been the delta between then and now? What will have changed? IOW, something in between then and now will have happened to make curing cancer possible. That missing piece seems to be a rather large hold in the theory of ID, in that it doesn't add up.critical rationalist_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

@ET
How do we know the ancients were capable of producing Stonehenge? The existence of Stonehenge. The point being is we know about the intelligent designers’ capabilities by what they left behind.
That's incredibly bad analogy. And, apparently, you don't realize it. Stonehenge is not constructed over and over again by the process of replication. The knowledge of how to build Stonehenge was in its designer(s), not Stonehenge. It's like a car, which needs a factory with workers and robots that posses the knowledge of how to build them. That knowledge is external. However, biological organisms do not roll of manufacturing lines of a factory. Nor do they spontaneously appear out of thin air. They are constructed by following a recipe of transformations to preform on raw materials. It's a self-replicator. The origin of those features is the origin of that knowledge. Our current, best, universal explanation for the growth of knowledge is that it grows via variation controlled by criticism. This includes the growth of knowledge in the workers and the robots in the factory.critical rationalist_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

@Barry More from the entry...
Moreover, according to the principles of natural theology, the designer of the universe, in principle, does not need another designer at all.
So, it's been dispatched, by definition, if you happen to be a natural theist?
From the time of Aristotle till the present, philosophers and theologians have pointed out that what needs a causal explanation is that which begins to exist. So, they have concludes that such a series of causal chains cannot go on indefinitely. According to the principle of “infinite regress,” all such chains must end with and/or be grounded on a “causeless cause,” a self-existent being that has no need for a cause and depends on nothing except itself.
See the previous comment. And, causes need to be beings? This too is parochial. IOW, it's been dispatched, but only if you happen to hold specific philosophical views that overlap with theism?critical rationalist_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

@Barry
CR, you are an inveterate liar. If I thought you truly did not know the answer to that, I would respond to it. But you do.
I'm a liar? You seem to have confused the existence of a entry about the question in a list and having actually dispatched it, as you claimed. Specifically, that entry doesn't address any of my criticisms in #11. From the referenced entry....
Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed.
The knowledge in organisms is the proximate cause. This is because the origin of the features of organisms is the origin of that knowledge. Saying a designer "had it" doesn't explain that knowledge. Again....
Specifically, what is the origin of the knowledge the supposed designer would have put in organisms? If it didn’t possess that knowledge then did it spontaneously appear when the organisms were created? Is it the case that the designer “just was” complete with that knowledge already present? This makes ID’s designer an authoritative source of knowledge, which is bad philosophy.
If that knowledge spontaneously appeared, then in what sense did the designer actually design the organisms? And if it "just was", one can more efficiently state that it just appeared. Neither explain anything. So, it's only dispatched if one holds the narrow, philosophical view that knowledge comes from authoritative sources
On the other hand, if the designer did posses that knowledge then it was well adapted for the purpose of designing organisms. It too meets the criteria for having to had been designed. How can being well adapted to serve a purpose (designing organisms) be an explanation for being well to serve a purpose?
When we bring information into fundamental physics, the process of copying information, which is what the designer would have done if that information was not spontaneously created, requires specific construction tasks to be possible. That includes information being present externally before the copy occurred. Just as there are no non-physical computers, there are no non-physical instantiations of information. So, the designer, or some source of that information it had access to, would have the appearance of design. And, according to ID, it too would be identified as being designed, etc. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, the medical community consists of intelligent agents. They take actions with the intent and purpose of treating and curing diseases like cancer. So, why cant they just intentionally and purposefully impose their conciseness and arrange the bits on a thumb drive so it contains the cure for cancer? IOW, it seems to me that, if ID was true, we'd have the cure for cancer by now. But we don't. So, what gives?critical rationalist_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

All SCIENTIFIC experiments support the claim that all bacterial flagella were designed. And there aren’t any scientific experiments which demonstrate any bacterial flagella can evolve by means of blind and mindless processes.ET_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

ba77 - you've now put up 4 responses, and still haven't answered my question - where's the ID experiment that shows that the flagellum was intelligently designed. Does this mean that there is no such experiment?Bob O'H_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @ 27: The way to overturn an epistemic impossibility is with a counter example, not appeals to the unknown.LocalMinimum_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Even Dawkins himself admits that chance is absurd as an explanation for life:
"it's absolutely inconceivable that you could get something as complicated and as well designed as a bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance that's absolutely out,, ... so where does it come from it's come from the gradual incremental process of evolution by natural selection. - Richard Dawkins http://www.yousubtitles.com/From-a-Frog-to-a-Prince-id-1190953
But to drive the nail home for my claim that Bob (and weave) O'Hara is either self-deluded or else he is telling an outright bald-face lie, it is now found that, despite what they may say to the public, the default assumption of professional scientists is one of Design:
Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study - Mary Papenfuss - June 12, 2015 Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the "knee jerk" reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they're purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the "Divided Mind of a disbeliever." The findings "suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed," writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers' words, "religious non-belief is cognitively effortful." Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or "default" human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether "any being purposefully made the thing in the picture," notes Pacific-Standard. "Religious participants' baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher" than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants "increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made" when "they did not have time to censor their thinking," wrote the researchers. The results suggest that "the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs," the report concluded. The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US. "Design-based intuitions run deep," the researchers conclude, "persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richard-dawkins-take-heed-even-atheists-instinctively-believe-creator-says-study-1505712
i.e. It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20
Romans 1:19-20 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Per Bob (and weave) O'Hara at 24: Although the bacterial flagellum (as well as other molecular machines) greatly outclass, in terms of engineering parameters, any machine man has built on the macro level,,
Bacterial Flagellum (nearly 100% energy conversion efficiency)- A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video https://youtu.be/fFq_MGf3sbk
,,, much less any machine man has built on the micro level (for which Nobel prizes were awarded),,,
2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry Points Strongly to Purposeful Design of Life – Michael Behe – December 6, 2016 Excerpt: The 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to three scientists who built simple “nano” machines out of individual molecules.,,, Articles reporting on the Prize were filled with praise for the ingenuity of the scientists. Yet there was also an undertone of skepticism about the whole project. One German chemist foresaw looming technical difficulties, “I’ve always been a bit skeptical of artificial motors. They’re too difficult to make, too difficult to scale up.” An overview article remarked that “Some chemists argue that although these motors are cute, they are ultimately useless by themselves.” So far the nanomachinery hasn’t been put to any practical use,,, Many of the pioneers of the field drew inspiration from molecular machines discovered in biology such as the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like outboard motor that can propel bacteria through liquid. Yet the molecular machines laboriously constructed by our brightest scientists are Tinkertoys compared to the nanotechnology found in living cells.,,, ,,, right at this very moment sophisticated molecular robot walkers à la Star Wars are transporting critical supplies from one part of your cells to others along molecular highways, guided by information posted on molecular signposts. Molecular solar panels that put our best technology to shame are found in every leaf. Molecular computer control systems run the whole show with a reliability that exceeds that of, say, a nuclear reactor.,,, http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/michael-behe/2016-nobel-prize-chemistry-points-strongly-purposeful-design-life
And despite the fact that the flagellum has been shown, per Minnich, to be 'by definition, Irreducibly Complex'
“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.”37 - Minnich
And despite the fact that "the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics"
INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state. http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf
,,, in spite of all that, Bob (and weave) O'Hara still holds that he is personally unsure whether or not the flagellum was designed. In his denial of the evidence at hand, I hold that Bob (and weave) O'Hara is either self-deluded or else he is telling an outright bald-face lie. How can I be sure that Bob (and weave) O'Hara is either self-deluded or else he is telling an outright bald-face lie? Well, Intelligent Design is the default assumption or life. Darwinism started out as, and still is, a negative argument against Design. The 'Design hypothesis' was overwhelmingly accepted as true during Darwin's day. Yet Darwin supposedly did away with the default assumption of design with his 'designer substitute' of Natural Selection.
Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought By Ernst Mayr - November 24, 2009 Excerpt: Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/ Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, Darwin's Explanation of Design Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full
Yet, natural selection, as even Darwinists themselves now admit with their acceptance of 'neutral theory',,,
Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory - Laurence A. Moran - June 19, 2017 Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/austin-hughes-and-neutral-theory.html In the main job description, under the heading The Deep Mathematical Theory of Selfish Genes, subheading About the project: ,,,"However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind." This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.… http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310975799/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician
,,, natural selection is now shown to be grossly inadequate as the supposed 'designer substitute':
“Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer -- or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that's out of the way -- if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence -- then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg - Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson - (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q
Thus, with the supposed 'designer substitute' of natural selection being cast to the wayside, (by Darwinists themselves no less), then the default assumption reverts back to Design, not to chance.bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

As Dr Behe wrote in DBB: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” And all scientific experiments with all bacterial flagella demonstrate they all fit Dr Behe's description. And there isn't any evidence that evolution by blind and mindless processes can produce any of them.ET_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 20 & 21 - I'm afraid it's not clear from any of you comments which of those links describe the the ID experiments showing that the bacterial flagellum was designed. Can you be more explicit?Bob O'H_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
Behe’s initial claim was that there was no conceivable way that an organelle like the bacterial flagellum could have come about through incremental processes such as Darwin proposed for evolution. Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe’s claim.
What pure trope. How does anyone know those biologists came up with a conceivable way? Just cuz they put it down on paper doesn't make it a conceivable way. They have to actually test it and no one has ever done so
What point is there in looking any further if all questions can be satisfactorily answered by ‘God/Designer did it’?
So we can understand it, duh. We want to understand it so we can properly maintain and repair it. That said no one from your position is doing anything beyond declaring it evolved.ET_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
So where are the ID experiments showing that the bacterial flagellum (for example) was designed?
All SCIENTIFIC experiments support the claim that all bacterial flagella were designed. And there aren't any scientific experiments which demonstrate any bacterial flagella can evolve by means of blind and mindless processes.ET_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

And here the flagellum is shown to be subject to 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum effects. Non-local quantum effects simply are not within the reductive materialism framework of neo-Darwinism to explain.
INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state. http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states – November 2011 Excerpt: We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2126
Besides the flagellum, 'non-local', beyond space and time, quantum entanglement is now found to be pervasive within life, (i.e. within DNA, Proteins and RNA molecules):
Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y
Do Darwinists have a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to appeal to so as to be able to explain quantum entanglement in biological systems?,, (or to explain entanglement anywhere else for that matter?), No, they don't! In fact, quantum mechanics falsifies the entire reductive materialistic framework upon which Darwinian evolution is based.
"[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." Eugene Wigner Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.,, The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical - and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939
Whereas, on the other hand, the Christian Theist has been postulating a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause for life for a few thousand years now.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Acts 17:28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. John 1:3-4 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
bornagain77_{February 25, 2018
February
02
Feb
25
25
2018
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply