Otangelo Grasso on the difficulties of reasoning with atheists

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 9, 2022

Atheism, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Science}

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

Conversation in Clubhouse ( a conversation app ) with an atheist:

Please answer with yes or no.

Are computers always designed?

Yes

Is hardware, and software, always designed?

Yes

Are machines always designed?

Yes

Are factories always designed?

Yes

Are transistors always designed?

Yes

Are energy turbines always designed?

Yes

Are codes always designed?

Yes

Good. All this, we see analogously, but also literally in the cell.

Neurons are literally computers

DNA is the hardware, and the sequence of DNA nucleotides is the software

Proteins are molecular machines

Cells are chemical factories

Neurons are transistors

ATP synthase is an energy turbine.

The genetic code is a real code

Is it logical to infer that therefore, these things were also designed?

Atheist answer: No. The first mentioned things, we know humans design them. The secondly mentioned things in nature, we don’t know how they came to be.

It’s sometimes so frustrating to have a conversation with atheists…. Others deny and claim the things mentioned in nature are not analogous to human made artifacts.

Once you back up the claim:

The Cell is a super computer
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2712-the-cell-is-a-super-computer

1. A transistor can be considered an artificial Neuron. Every living cell within us is a hybrid analog–digital supercomputer. The brain is like 100 billion computers working together.
2. Biological cells are programmed to be experts at taking inputs, running them through a complicated series of logic gates through circuit-like operations and producing the desired programmed output.
3. The origin of programs, logic gates, and complex circuits to obtain a purposeful specific outcome is always tracked back to intelligent implementation.

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design

Paul Davies: the Fifth Miracle page 62: Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it.

Molecular machines in biology
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1289-molecular-machines-in-biology

1. Machines are always designed.
2. Proteins are machines.
3. Therefore, proteins were designed.

The factory maker argument
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument

1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals.
2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.
3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms – the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.

Inside the neuron
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2292-neurons-remarkable-evidence-of-design#7201

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT 9 The Physics Of Consciousness Andrew Thomas:
The similarity between transistors and neurons is elucidated when we consider how most transistors are used nowadays. The vast majority of transistors are micro-miniaturised onto a semiconductor substrate to form an integrated circuit (“silicon chip”). The latest fabrication techniques allow extraordinary densities of up to 25 million transistors on a square millimetre of silicon. This actually results in an individual transistor size which is rather smaller than a neuron, but it is clear that the principle of packing microscopic transistors onto an integrated circuit resembles the packing of microscopic neurons in a brain.

The irreducibly complex ATP Synthase nanomachine, amazing evidence of design
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1439-the-irreducibly-complex-atp-synthase-nanomachine-amazing-evidence-of-design

1. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP. Once charged, ATP can be “plugged into” a wide variety of molecular machines to perform a wide variety of functions). It consists of two very different subunits that have to be externally and stably tethered together, just the right distance apart. The two major subunits (F0 & F1) are connected together by an external tether, and just the right distance apart. This tether doesn’t have anything to do with the functionality of either subunit but without it ATP synthase would not be able to perform its function. One of the subunits has to be embedded in the cell membrane so that an energy gradient can be formed ( The proton energy gradient is like the water in a dam, feeding a water turbine to generate energy). The second subunit has to be stably tethered to the membrane the proper distance away.
2. This is an irreducibly complex system, where a minimal number of at least five functional parts of ATP synthase must work together in an interlocked way, in a joint venture to bear function. The challenge is particularly onerous because these components are highly complex in all of life and are interdependent to provide energy for life. Individually, the subunits have no function whatsoever ( Not even in different setups). Besides ATP synthase, the membrane is essential to pump protons across the membrane. This setup cannot be the product of evolution, because it had to be fully operational and functional to start life ( The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution). No life form without ATP synthase is known.
3. We know by experience that complex machines made of various interlocked subparts with specific functions are always created by intelligent minds. Therefore, ATP synthase is definitely evidence of a powerful intelligent creator, who knew how to create power-generating turbines.

The genetic code, insurmountable problem for non-intelligent origin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2363-the-genetic-code-insurmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin

1. Creating a translation dictionary, for example of English to Chinese, requires always a translator, that understands both languages.
2. The meaning of words of one language that are assigned to words of another language that mean the same requires the agreement of meaning in order to establish translation.
3. That is analogous to what we see in biology, where the ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids.
4. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

John Frederick William Herschel: A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, page 149, 1830
If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.Flagellum, Behe’s prime example of irreducible complexity
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1528-the-flagellum-behe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity

The irreducible complexity of the flagellum
1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids
2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts.
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum
4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.

They will still deny it…..

Comments

Alan Fox: How can you test a hypothesis if you can’t allow yourself a method? Jerry (comment 13 at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-seat-at-the-table/) says ID cannot be subject to the normal hypothesis testing kind of science like physics and chemistry because . . . well, I'll let you read his comment. I think it means ID accepts miracles as science.JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

@ Seversky, Paul Nelson popped in to The Skeptical Zone a while ago and I asked if such was still the case. Don't recall any denial. I'll see if I can track down the exchange. Here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/getting-beyond-abstruse-theorems-to-science/comment-page-1/#comment-211662Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Do you have an objective, repeatable, observer independent hypothesis and test for ID? Or are you bailing out like Jerry and claiming ID cannot be tested like physics and chemistry because . . . well, I'll leave you to figure that out.JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Do you suppose that’s why they have trouble coming up with an ID hypothesis that can be tested with an objective, repeatable, observer independent test with clear standards of ‘success’?
Trouble? Oh yes, I think so. But then, the task is impossible, in my view. How can you test a hypothesis if you can't allow yourself a method? Come on guys! How does the designer do stuff? What's the mechanism.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 55, https://www.discovery.org/a/sixfold-evidence-for-intelligent-design/ https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/research-confirms-id-hypothesis-in-the-field-of-informatics/relatd_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Regardless, sorry to hear you have COVID and hope you recover quickly.
Thanks. I'm quadruple vaccinated so it's been a bit of a shock. Been laid up for a week now and still have flu-like fever. Ah well, there's many worse off.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Paul Nelson believed,
Easily, the biggest challenge facing the I.D. community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions and a handful of notions, such as irreducible complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological design.
Seversky_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox: folks who are ideologically opposed to the scientific method. Do you suppose that's why they have trouble coming up with an ID hypothesis that can be tested with an objective, repeatable, observer independent test with clear standards of 'success'?JVL_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Nice bluff. You don't have it because there isn't any. It will be just more like what you submitted earlier, which shows exactly the opposite of your claims. Regardless, sorry to hear you have COVID and hope you recover quickly.AnimatedDust_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

“First” directly implies that you would be forthcoming with your own step by step account.
Not specifically. It suggests, if A is progress, B can follow. Anyway, I might just explain that I have too much time on my hands currently as I'm down with COVID at the moment. So while I have plenty of time to comment, I don't have the energy or inclination to invest effort in supplying research info on flagellar systems to folks who are ideologically opposed to the scientific method. On the other hand, scientific endeavour carries on very well without my support.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

AF: “I’ll show you a sample of someone else’s first.” "First" directly implies that you would be forthcoming with your own step by step account. Words have meaning AF. But alas, and as a Darwinist, words are not your friend AF,
Moreover, (although the ‘narrative gloss’ of unguided Darwinian evolution’ can be, somewhat easily, removed from the peer-reviewed literature without negatively effecting the actual scientific research of the papers), it is interesting to note what type of language cannot be removed from these peer-reviewed papers without negatively effecting the actual scientific research of the papers. Specifically, teleological language cannot be sacrificed from these research papers without negatively effecting the actual scientific research of the papers.,, i.e. the very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing, and/or describing, their actual biological research falsifies Darwinian evolution,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-jonathan-bartlett-will-the-sokal-hoaxes-worsen-the-academic-echo-chamber/#comment-742456 teleological – adjective exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleological
bornagain77_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

At 36 Alan Fox told Animated Dust that he was going to (finally) show us a step by step Darwinian process by which a flagellum came about.
Wrong. I said I would show someone else's work. Which I did. There's a wealth of material available to those interested in scientific research into biological systems. No need for me to reinvent the wheel and no need for anyone to look at the science if they feel threatened.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

I did, and BA, as usual, pointed out why you refuse to get it.AnimatedDust_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Moreover, in so far as Darwinian principles have been applied to society at large, Darwinian ideas have had unimaginable horrid consequences for mankind.
Quotes: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced in their political philosophy by Darwinian ideology. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831 Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
So thus, in regards to "Cargo cult science" failing, "like an airplane with no motor—to deliver anything of value", we find that Darwinian evolution itself is actually much worse than a harmless, and humorous, cargo cult science. Not only does Darwinian evolution fail to "deliver anything of value", but it also, in so far as Darwinian ideas are taken seriously, has been an unmitigated disaster for man. Of related note: Francis Bacon himself, the father of the scientific method, in his book “Novum Organum”, stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically he stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019 Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately? https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/
And 160 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinism, we can now accurately surmise that both, scientifically and politically speaking, Darwinism has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Well Alan Fox seems to have lost track. At 36 Alan Fox told Animated Dust that he was going to (finally) show us a step by step Darwinian process by which a flagellum came about.
AD: "Ok, what is the Darwinian process for how they came to be? Show your work. AF: "I’ll show you a sample of someone else’s first."
Yet, as I pointed out to AF at 37, 'someone else's' sample that AF provided had not one peep about how a flagellum might have possibly come about. In fact, the research paper which AF cited, since it elucidated even more regulatory complexity on top of what was already known, actually adds even more support to the claim that flagella must be intelligently designed and cannot possibly be the result of unguided Darwinian processes. But be that as it may, I was waiting for AF to finally give us his personal step by step description about how unguided Darwinian processes produced flagella. This would be VERY interesting for AF to do since no one, not even Matzke, has been able to do so thus far,
“,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." - Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205. ?*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA Matzke Is Back On The Flagellum Horse – November 11, 2019 Excerpt: I won’t go into a lengthy discussion of this latest article. Suffice it to say that in the 13 years since the ’06 review article, apparently there still are no peer reviewed research studies that provide the Darwinian model of how a bacterial flagellum came to be. There’s really nothing to review in this article because there just isn’t anything new here. Its more a bunch of assertions without evidence. ,,, The real take away here, of course, is that 23 years after Behe’s book was published, it is still the case that there simply are no peer reviewed research studies that provide an evolutionary model to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. If there was, then all Matke et.al. would have to do is reference all those studies. Yet that remains the one thing missing in all of the articles and comments. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/matzke-is-back-on-the-flagellum-horse/
But alas, AF has apparently slipped back into fallacious Ad Hominem type attacks and has forgotten to give us his personal step by step description about how unguided Darwinian processes produced flagella. Oh well, maybe one day we will get the detailed 'just-so stories' of how flagella came about.. But anyways, one particularly telling Ad Hominem type attack from AF was when AF labelled Otangelo Grasso's featured OP, which lamented the difficulty faced by anyone who is trying to reason with Darwinian atheists, as a 'Cargo cult style presentations'. The reason that that particular Ad Hominem attack from AF jumped out at me is because if anything ever qualified for the term "Cargo cult science' then Darwinian evolution is certainly it.
Cargo cult science Cargo cult science is a pseudoscientific method of research that favors evidence that confirms an assumed hypothesis. In contrast with the scientific method, there is no vigorous effort to disprove or delimit the hypothesis.[1] The term cargo cult science was first used by physicist Richard Feynman during his 1974 commencement address at the California Institute of Technology.[1] Cargo cults are religious practices that have appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures. They focus on obtaining the material wealth (the "cargo") of the advanced culture by imitating the actions they believe cause the appearance of cargo: by building landing strips, mock aircraft, mock radios, and the like.[2] Similarly, although cargo cult sciences employ the trappings of the scientific method, they fail—like an airplane with no motor—to deliver anything of value.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
And indeed, Darwinian evolution, although it is surrounded by a plethora of imaginary just-so stories with no empirical support,,,
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 “... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012
,,, And indeed, Darwinian evolution, although it is surrounded by a plethora of imaginary just-so stories with no empirical support, has failed, "like an airplane with no motor—to deliver anything of value." In other words, Darwinian evolution itself is very much a "Cargo cult science" As Jerry Coyne himself honestly conceded, “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say."
“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” - Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).
Darwinian evolution, unlike other theories in science, simply has not led to any important breakthroughs and/or discoveries in science. As the late Philip Skell noted, "Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic, (guiding principle), in experimental biology."
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." - Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 http://www.discovery.org/a/2816
As the following quotes also make clear, the 'narrative gloss' of Darwinian 'just-so stories' simply are not needed in the science of biology and/or molecular biology,
"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).
In fact, besides failing to provide a 'fruitful heuristic' in experimental biology, Darwinian 'predictions', such as with vestigial organs, junk DNA and eugenics, have been a major hinderance, if not an outright disaster, for biological research in general.
Post-ENCODE Posturing: Rewriting History Won't Erase Bad Evolutionary Predictions - Casey Luskin - November 10, 2015 (Part 4) Excerpt: Just Kidding -- We Anticipated Function! When ENCODE's findings were published, many evolutionists reacted harshly to the conclusion that virtually our entire genome is functional. Others, however, realized that it would be sage advice to switch their bets, or simply place new ones alongside the old.,,, Thus, while it's true that, (through the years leading up to ENCODE), some scientists have proposed various functions for noncoding DNA, evolutionary theorists by and large predicted that the vast majority of the genome would turn out to be functionless. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/post-encode_pos100771.html Oct. 2021 - Here is a short history of how the fallacious Junk DNA argument came about from Darwinian thinking. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heres-a-lay-friendly-explanation-of-the-critical-role-junk-dna-plays-in-mammalian-development/#comment-738837 Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - July 20, 2012 Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the "vestigial organs" argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim's original list, and each of those is questionable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/vestigial_organ062281.html The Origins of Eugenics Learn about Francis Galton and the beginnings of eugenics, or “race science,” and consider the relationship between science and society. - August 4, 2015 Excerpt: Francis Galton, an English mathematician and Charles Darwin’s cousin, offered an attractive solution to those who believed that these groups posed a threat. Galton decided that natural selection does not work in human societies the way it does in nature, because people interfere with the process. As a result, the fittest do not always survive. So he set out to consciously “improve the race.” He coined the word eugenics to describe efforts at “race betterment.” https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/origins-eugenics
bornagain77_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Your paper makes my case.
You're welcome. I hope you actually read some of it.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

AF @36: Your paper makes my case. Thank you for that. We live in a cause and effect driven universe. Cause and effect with respect to human engineering does not cease when we extrapolate to living systems. That you explicitly choose to do so is the fulcrum of your intentional denial and suppression of the truth. Romans 1: 19-20 anyone?AnimatedDust_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Well, I note what you say, Martin_r.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox
Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING. No it isn’t.
I won't fight with you ... you are ridiculous .... like all Darwinists, you don't know what you are talking about ... just think about why after 150 years, you guys struggle to reproduce even the simplest biology, let alone something like that cheetah i submitted the video for :))))))))) Let alone an fully autonomous self-navigating flying system in the size of a fruit fly :)))))))))) You guys are soooo ridiculous :))))))))))martin_r_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING.
No it isn't. Engineers are fine people. Just a bit OCD, sometimes.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox
.... impress nobody.
i am just telling you, that you guys are ridiculous. What is worse, you don't even realize how ridiculous you are. And let me repeat it once more time: Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING. PERIOD.martin_r_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox, JVL, Seversky and co. give it a break … it is so desperate what you are presenting here …
This is why the "Intelligent Design" movement needs ideas of its own. Cargo cult style presentations by fringe pseudonymous amateurs impress nobody.Alan Fox_{October 11, 2022
October
10
Oct
11
11
2022
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox, JVL, Seversky and co. give it a break ... it is so desperate what you are presenting here ... Biology is ALL ABOUT ENGINEERING. PERIOD. I understand, it is not easy to accept that, to admit that you guys were wrong for decades, i know it hurts .... But this is what happens when you listen to biologists, archeologists, paleontologists and other natural science graduates, instead of engineers ... in other words, you should listen to EXPERTS. Human engineering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g God's engineering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgQ0cyNJZV4martin_r_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Of note:
New BIO-Complexity Paper Details Complexity of Function and Assembly of Bacterial Flagellum Casey Luskin - September 10, 2021 Excerpt: Now Schulz has published a second peer-reviewed scientific paper in BIO-Complexity, “An Engineering Perspective on the Bacterial Flagellum: Part 2 — Analytic View,”,,, (Quote from paper) "[T]he evolutionary biological community has yet to hypothesize a likely, detailed, step-by-step scenario to explain how the flagellum and its control system could have been blindly engineered naturalistically. Yet even that would still fall short of real evidence that such a thing actually happened, given real-world constraints.",,, https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/new-bio-complexity-paper-details-complexity-of-function-and-assembly-of-bacterial-flagellum/ Bacterial Flagellum Demonstrates the Explanatory and Predictive Power of Engineering Models Brian Miller - January 3, 2022 Excerpt: He (Schultz) presented his research (on flagella) at the Conference on Engineering in Living Systems, and his insights stunned and mesmerized even biologists with intimate knowledge of the related technical literature. As his top-down/bottom-up approach is applied to other systems, investigators will increasingly recognize that the only viable framework for understanding life starts from the assumption of design. https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/bacterial-flagellum-demonstrates-the-explanatory-and-predictive-power-of-engineering-models/ Amazing Flagellum : Michael Behe and the Revolution of Intelligent Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNR48hUd-Hw&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3L98qRoQ6CqpCQbsdEgqQ-&index=4
bornagain77_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

AF presents a paper that found even more regulatory complexity in flagella assembly than was first realized. Not one peep is given in the paper as to how that regulatory complexity originated, and yet AF fraudulently presented the paper as if it might shed some light on the origin of flagella.
SUMMARY A single region of the Pseudomonas putida genome, designated the flagellar cluster, includes 59 genes potentially involved in the biogenesis and function of the flagellar system. Here we combine bioinformatics and in vivo gene expression analyses to clarify the transcriptional organization and regulation of the flagellar genes in the cluster. We have identified eleven flagellar operons and characterized twenty-two primary and internal promoter regions. Our results indicate that synthesis of the flagellar apparatus and core chemotaxis machinery is regulated by a three-tier cascade in which fleQ is a Class I gene, standing at the top of the transcriptional hierarchy. FleQ- and ?54-dependent Class II genes encode most components of the flagellar structure, part of the chemotaxis machinery and multiple regulatory elements, including the flagellar ? factor FliA. FliA activation of Class III genes enables synthesis of the filament, one stator complex and completion of the chemotaxis apparatus. Accessory regulatory proteins and an intricate operon architecture add complexity to the regulation by providing feedback and feed-forward loops to the main circuit. Because of the high conservation of the gene arrangement and promoter motifs, we believe that the regulatory circuit presented here may also apply to other environmental pseudomonads. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.457346v3.full
A few more notes:
Two Flagella Are Better than One - September 3, 2014 Excerpt: The assembly instructions,, are even more irreducibly complex than the motor itself. Parts are arriving on time and moving into place in a programmed sequence, with feedback to the nucleus affecting how many parts are to be manufactured. Dr. Jonathan Wells added, "What we see is irreducible complexity all the way down." Twelve years of closer looks at these astonishing machines have only amplified those conclusions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/two_flagella_ar089611.html The Bacterial Flagellum: A Paradigm for Design - Jonathan M. - Sept. 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, so striking is the appearance of intelligent design that researchers have modeled the assembly process (of the bacterial flagellum) in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations (McAuley et al.). Not only does the flagellum manifestly exhibit engineering principles, but the engineering involved is far superior to humanity’s best achievements. The flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity in spades. In all of our experience of cause-and-effect, we know that phenomena of this kind are uniformly associated with only one type of cause – one category of explanation – and that is intelligent mind. Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down. http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum The Surprising Relevance of Engineering in Biology - Brain Miller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9i2vFEa6rE Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk
bornagain77_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Ok, what is the Darwinian process for how they came to be? Show your work.
I'll show you a sample of someone else's first. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.457346v3.full I found the paper fascinating. Hope you do, too.Alan Fox_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

Otangelo, why are you posting as Elshamah? Is it because you are legion?Alan Fox_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

AF @30: Flagellar argument is BS because there are two families. etc. Ok, what is the Darwinian process for how they came to be? Show your work. Good grief, you people. Suppress the truth much? :(AnimatedDust_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, nested hiearchy? What are you even talking about. The eukaryotic flagellum is an entirely different beast. The remarkable intraflagellar transport for Flagellum assembly https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2642-the-remarkable-intraflagellar-transport-for-flagellum-assembly The trafficking of bacterial type rhodopsins into the Chlamydomonas eyespot and flagella is IFT mediated 1 500 proteins required for the Flagellum assembly through intracellular highways ! The Type three secretion system T3SS has over 25 proteins, the flagellum has over 60 proteins. The assembly of the flagellum, however, is a huge commitment for the cell, as this requires the correct production and assembly of more than 500 proteins !! Intraflagellar transport ( IFT ) is a highly orchestrated and dedicated means of protein transport in the cilia/flagella. Both in time (right moment of the cell cycle) and in space (in a defined compartment). Since the flagellum does not possess any ribosomes, all the components needed for its construction must first be synthesized in the cytoplasm and then imported into the flagellum before reaching the distal tip either by transport or by diffusion. In 1993, an active transport of ‘rafts’ was discovered within the flagellum of Chlamydomonas and termed intraflagellar transport (IFT) IFT plays a key role in the construction of the flagellum as its inactivation blocks flagellum formation in all species studied so far.Elshamah_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

A few notes,
Flagellar Diversity Challenges Darwinian Evolution, Not Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - July 22, 2015 Excerpt: flagella are distributed in a polyphyletic manner that doesn't fit what we'd expect from common ancestry,,, https://evolutionnews.org/wp-content/uploads/mt-import/tim_flag_phyl_500.jpg Reprinted from Figure 2, Trends in Microbiology, Vol 17, LAS Snyder, NJ Loman, K. Fuetterer, and MJ Pallen, “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?,” pp. 1-5, Copyright 2009, with permission from Elsevier. What you see in the figure above are various major groups of bacteria, represented by triangles (or in some cases written text). They are arranged here according to a standard phylogeny of bacteria. The purple groups have flagella throughout the clade, and the groups with question marks have only a minority of species with flagella within that clade. The white triangles show groups not thought to have flagella. What’s the problem? The groups with flagella are scattered all about the tree and do not form a single monophyletic group. In other words, the diversity of flagella cannot be easily explained by common ancestry. Writing in Trends in Microbiology, the authors of the figure reprinted above explain the problem: When we attempted to map the known distribution of flagellar genes on to a recently published ‘tree of life’, instead of a single monophyletic grouping of flagella-bearing phyla, we found multiple apparent points of origin for flagellar systems on the phylogenetic tree (Figure 2). This highlights a fundamental problem with any simple model of flagellar divergence: although there is some agreement as to the existence of bacterial phyla, there is no consensus on the order of their divergence. The problem here is that flagella do not fit into the nice, neat nested hierarchy that you’d expect from common ancestry. Quite the opposite — their diversity conflicts with what you would expect from a Darwinian origin of the flagellum. Indeed, the caption for the figure above from the paper states, “Arrows indicate apparent points of origins for flagellar lineages.” Common descent predicts there should be just one arrow, but as you can see on the diagram there are five arrows, because there are no fewer than five clades — widely separated on the tree — that have flagella. This is not what common descent predicts. Common design, on the other hand would predict that complex features like flagella might be re-used in a manner that doesn’t match a nested hierarchy, which is exactly what we see here. Ironically, the nature of bacterial flagellar diversity — far from being a problem for intelligent design — is actually a significant problem for Darwinian evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/flagellar_diver097831.html Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors - 2011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/ Figure 3 - Manual segmentation of conserved (solid colours) and unconserved (dotted lines) motor components based on visual inspection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160247/figure/f3/ Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291 Matzke Is Back On The Flagellum Horse - November 11, 2019 Excerpt: I won’t go into a lengthy discussion of this latest article. Suffice it to say that in the 13 years since the ’06 review article, apparently there still are no peer reviewed research studies that provide the Darwinian model of how a bacterial flagellum came to be. There’s really nothing to review in this article because there just isn’t anything new here. Its more a bunch of assertions without evidence. ,,, The real take away here, of course, is that 23 years after Behe’s book was published, it is still the case that there simply are no peer reviewed research studies that provide an evolutionary model to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. If there was, then all Matke et.al. would have to do is reference all those studies. Yet that remains the one thing missing in all of the articles and comments. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/matzke-is-back-on-the-flagellum-horse/ A short history of Matzke's (shameless) literature bluffing tactics – Nov. 2015 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-view-of-the-fossil-record/#comment-589458
bornagain77_{October 10, 2022
October
10
Oct
10
10
2022
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply