Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Spin Flagellum, Spin

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This month in Current Biology Vol 18 No 16, Howard C. Berg writes a “Quick guide” to the Bacterial Flagellar motor. In it he outlines what is currently known of these amazing structures.

“The flagellar motor is a remarkably small rotary electric motor that includes a stator, drive shaft, bushings, mounting plate, and a switch complex. The motors are powered by protons or sodium ions, that flow through channels from the outside to the inside of the cell. Depending upon the configuration, the rod, hook, and filament are driven clock wise or counter clock wise. Other components include a rod cap, discarded upon rod completion, hook cap, discarded upon hook completion, hook-length control protein, and a factor that blocks late-gene expression.”

As “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, Berg concludes with a few brief comments.

“Is the flagellar motor unique? Yes and no. As a device that powers flagellar rotation, yes. As a device composed of rings, rods, and external filaments, no. There is a homologous structure, called the needle structure, assembled by the same kind of transport apparatus, used by pathogenic species (such as Salmonella) to inject virulence factors into eukaryotic cells. Some argue that the flagellar rotary motor evolved from the needle structure, but it was probably the other way around, since flagellated bacteria existed long before their eukaryotic targets. Perhaps they evolved from a common ancestor. What was the rotary motor doing before the helical propeller was invented, if indeed that was the order of events? Serving as a secretory apparatus that acquired the ability to spin? Packaging polynucleic acids into virus heads? Food for thought.”

Recently Nature Reviews Microbiology volume 6 June 2008 p 455 has a review of the regulation of Flagellar construction, where the authors say “The bacterial flagellum, one of the most remarkable structures in nature: a complex self-assembling nanomachine” where “dozens of proteins, many of which have intrinsic self-assembly properties, need to come together in an ordered assembly process to complete these molecular nanomachines.”

These authors also need to remind us of the inescapable compelling logic of evolutionary biology:

“Finally, it seems that the bacterial flagellum is a structure of great complexity. In an attempt to understand why, it is not necessary to resort to intelligent designers, because surely a designer would have fashioned a simpler structure and gene regulation system. We only need to be reminded that evolution demands that changes occur on the existing structure — no starting from scratch. It is fair to say that we are at long last making a dent in our understanding of how this evolutionary process might have occurred for the reducibly complex bacterial flagellum and the beautiful result it has produced.”

The flagellum is obviously too complex to have been designed. It must have evolved. The logic is inescapable.

Comments
parlar What you ask for requires reading some books not some blog comments. Read Behe's "Edge of Evolution", Sanford's "Genetic Entropy", Mike Genes "The Design Matrix", and Graville Sewell's papers on thermodynamics. I'd also recommend (although I have not yet but I've been following its development over the past year and am in contact with the authors) downloading and running Mendel's Accountant. I was waiting for a working Windows version and it looks as if that's been released now. DaveScot
September 10, 2008
September
09
Sep
10
10
2008
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I dont know if you read my entry above. Bud I'd really like to see some credible statistical mechanic, or ID for that matter, explaination for, say, spreading of antibiotic resistance or the existence of DNA homology. Why not address the evidence without the rethorics?parlar
September 10, 2008
September
09
Sep
10
10
2008
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
nullasalus Your comments are appreciated. I don't care where you sit with regard to ID science or pseudoscience as long as you don't apply a double standard. I fall on the side that both the chance and design hypotheses are good science and encourage further research to resolve the dispute. The reason I think that way is because we haven't observed under controlled conditions any unexplainable genetic transformations actually happening and I doubt that we ever will. Everything so far actually observed happening in organic evolution is explained by statistical mechanics without resort to ignoring impossibly long odds. What can't be explained in terms of statistical mechanics all happened in the past. When I'm presented with the argument "well, what happens if we observe in a lab CSI forming de novo won't you just claim it's an act of design accomplished by your invisible creator/God". Actually I won't make that claim and I hope that every means possible will be used to find a material explanation congruent with statistical mechanics. If it's under controlled conditions we can look for a cause and I'm confident we'll find an explanation congruent with statistical mechanics. I don't think that observation will happen but if it does we can address it when it does. In the meantime there's nothing to analyze. We're talking about a hypothetical observation. We could just as well talk about how we'd explain an apple falling from a tree and hovering in midair defying gravity. Why waste time talking about something that hasn't happened and likely won't ever happen? It's just woolgathering. Discuss actual observations. Just the facts, please. So what we have are design inferences made on actual, existing molecular machines in living cells. I encourage the design doubters to keep seeking non-design explanations because the harder they search and fail the stronger the design inference becomes. The basic problem here boils down to what Karl Popper exemplified with the Black Swan hypothesis. He states that the no Black Swan exists in nature and that is a valid scientific hypothesis even though we can never be sure we've searched everywhere in nature. We can't prove that no black swan exists in nature but finding a single black swan will falsify the hypothesis. Lots of things in science can't be proven but they can be disproven. ID states, for instance, that there is no non-intelligent process that can bring about the de novo formation of a bacflag. Obviously we can't prove that because we can never be assured beyond doubt that we've simply overlooked a non-intelligent mechanism that can reasonably explain it. But the design hypothesis can be falsified by demonstrating (not just speculating but actually demonstrating) a single non-intelligent process able to perform the task. That non-intelligent process would be Popper's Black Swan. In the meantime, until and if a single black swan is found, the hypothesis that the black swan doesn't exist remains a valid scientific hypothesis. The chance pundits, when they object to this, merely demonstrate their lack of confidence in their ability to locate a black swan. I understand their lack of confidence. I don't have any confidence in their finding it either.DaveScot
September 10, 2008
September
09
Sep
10
10
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
In following this discussion, there seems to be one point that is being completely overlooked: when speaking of the origin of the bacterial flagellum, you're not just simply asking for the origin of a structure, you're asking for the origin of life itself. The first form of "life" we know about is bacteria. Since bacteria having no flagella would lack motility, they would be unlikely to survive; hence, we're dealing with an original structure. (Yes, there are bacteria which lack the flagella, but they survive only through the presence of other forms of life. This wouldn't have been the case initially.) So, if you're asking how ID explains the bacterial flagellum, you're indirectly asking how life began. Darwinism has no answer for that. Our answer would be that it was somehow designed and constructed. IOW, the complexity of structure---and, hence, its improbability---is so immense as to be beyond 'chance' events. As to the T3S system, it is quite conclusively derivative. I've just looked at a 2005 review article, and it is abundantly clear, from molecular phylogenies and such, that the flagellar structure existed first. (Physiology 20: 326-339, 2005)PaV
September 10, 2008
September
09
Sep
10
10
2008
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I agree with you fully, and I take the second choice. I think I've been saying as much here. I have tremendous sympathy for ID precisely because I believe a double standard has been in play for a long time, and the reaction to ID has been particularly furious and obsessive in some quarters precisely because ID forces that dilemma to be realized. Whether the choice is to drop both C&E (or other forms of it) and ID as scientific conclusions or agree both views are scientific ones, it's a step down from what was previously the norm: C&E being viewed as scientific, while ID is not. Thanks in large part to the efforts of ID proponents, it's now much harder to hold that position without the flaw being noticed. That said, I look at the sidebar: "Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project." Whatever my misgivings about the first goal listed, I happily and enthusiastically support the second two goals. And my misgivings about ID as science aren't rooted in ID so much as the perception of science. I don't think science can rule on what many people believe it can - not just chance versus ID, but many other things (morality, aesthetics, etc.) Anyway, that's it for me tonight. I'll gladly respond more to StephenB tomorrow - and if I'm derailing this thread, my apologies. Please inform me as much and I'll quiet up quickly.nullasalus
September 10, 2008
September
09
Sep
10
10
2008
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
If ID isn't science then neither is chance & necessity. Confirmation of the chance & necessity hypothesis as the mechanism behind the origin and diversification of life constitutes the falsfication of the design hypothesis. Conversly confirmation of the design hypothesis constitutes the falsification of the chance hypothesis. It is a true dichotomy that the origin and diversification of life either did or did not involve intelligent agency. There's no third option. Either both are science or both are not science. Takes yo pick. No double standards. DaveScot
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
-----nullasalus: “No, I’m not saying ‘ID cannot be falsified and is therefore not science’. You keep putting it in a way that makes it sound like I’m militant or certain about this - really, I’m open to being corrected.” I am not saying that you are “militant,” I am simply saying that you don’t believe ID is science and I still do not understand why. If you were open to being corrected, you would have already acknowledged ID methodology as science, and that would be the end of it. Only recently have you proposed “falsifiability” as your standard, so only recently have I asked you about it. If, indeed, falsifiability is your standard, it would seem that you would acknowledge that ID is science, since ID is obviously falsifiable. Yet, you do not accept ID as science, so evidently you have some other standard. If you like, we can use your own working definition of science, since you must have one. So, would you be willing to define science, and then explain why ID doesn’t meet that definition. My definition of science and its method is as follows: science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Obviously, ID meets that standard, but you don’t believe that ID is science. So, obviously, you have another standard. Would you share it?StephenB
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
StephenB, "Are you saying that your standard for science is falsifiability? Is that your argument that ID is not scienc? Are you saying that ID cannot be falsified and is therefore not science?" Sure, I'd say my standard for science is falsifiability. It's a vague limit, but I think it's a practical one. No, I'm not saying 'ID cannot be falsified and is therefore not science'. You keep putting it in a way that makes it sound like I'm militant or certain about this - really, I'm open to being corrected. Hey, even particular ID claims may be falsifiable - Behe's comes to mind, though I'm in no way prepared to judge his scientific claims. I've said in the past that I'm certainly open to the idea that some kinds of design are detectable (though attributing said design to God is a whole other matter, scientifically.) I've also said that I think it's very hard to, say... justify SETI as science in action, or a scientific endeavor, while at the same time arguing ID is never itself scientific. Again, it always goes back to the atheist God-equivalent. You have guys like Dawkins insisting that we don't see design in nature - but we absolutely see illusions of design. I think passing off that claim as a scientific viewpoint is an abuse of science, especially when the inverse ('Those aren't illusions, you're actually seeing design') is immediately ruled out. But how do you scientifically propose to demonstrate or falsify design when you have people willing to imagine what amounts to an omnipotent but mindless force as a counter-example?nullasalus
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
-----nullasalus: Are you saying that your standard for science is falsifiability? Is that your argument that ID is not scienc? Are you saying that ID cannot be falsified and is therefore not science?StephenB
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
StephenB, Taken in reverse. "You have stated many times that ID is not science. Please tell my why the above is not a scientific argument." Small point, but no. I've said I don't believe claims of design or no-design are decidable by science. So it's not just ID, and I'm not stating it as incontrovertible fact - it's simply my view. I also think some of the issue centers around what a person defines science to be (Hence my position that, if someone claims science demonstrates a lack of design, then questions of design must be scientific by their measure - and therefore claims that science demonstrates the presence of design must themselves be scientific by the same measure. And my continual complaints that ID is treated to a double standard.) "ID says that a DNA molecule contains empirically based, observable patterns that manifest themselves as functionally specified complex information FSCI. Under the circumstances, design is the best inference because our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause." "Please tell my why the above is not a scientific argument." What are you defining 'a scientific argument' as here? I'm not arguing that you can't make reference to scientific knowledge to bolster or attack a design claim, or even a philosophical claim for that matter. But I don't think such arguments are themselves 'science' - I guess you could say I go by the falsification standard. How do you falsify the claim that FSCI patterns don't arise from non-intelligent sources? Watch one spontaneously develop in nature? But even if you did, how do you know you didn't just witness an intelligence creating the FSCI, either in a front-loaded way or through some kind of intervention?nullasalus
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
nullasalus: Excuse me, but I think you may have missed my question. Here it is again: ID says that a DNA molecule contains empirically based, observable patterns that manifest themselves as functionally specified complex information FSCI. Under the circumstances, design is the best inference because our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence is the cause. You have stated many times that ID is not science. Please tell my why the above is not a scientific argument.StephenB
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
StephenB, "In effect, you are saying that you think questions of agency and intention are not science because you think they are not science." Let me try to make my reasoning clearer. Your example will provide a good way to frame the explanation. "That is not really an answer. ID says that a DNA molecule contains empirically based, observable patterns that manifest themselves as functionally specified complex information FSCI. Under the circumstances, design is the best inference because our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence was the cause. And you say that is not science because………" Because you're underestimating what an atheist can and will dream up to explain anything and everything. I know atheists aren't the only critics of ID, but it's the atheist reply which most of those criticisms unconsciously focus on. Think of it this way: To the atheist, anything an omnipotent, omniscient God can do, 'nature' can do either directly or by a proxy. Directly meaning it can just happen with no guidance whatsoever (Is the universe fine tuned? Well, then there are probably multiple universes! Is the Origin of Life an event of fantastic unlikelihood? Well, then we just got lucky. Etc, etc.) By a proxy, meaning 'By some intelligent agent who is not God, and who in turn was created unintentionally by nature'. This can be the observer themselves ("Did I just witness a miracle? No, clearly I'm either mistaken about nature or hallucinating."), large groups of observers ("Did thousands of us just witness a miracle? No, clearly we're either all mistaken about nature or this is a case of mass hallucination."), or an intelligent entity who is not God, and who likely came about through unintentional natural processes as well ("Clearly aliens did this. Or the Sysop who is running the simulated universe we're all in. Or humans with secret technology. Or...") I see no way to scientifically distinguish between the atheist explanation and the theist explanation. Now, I can see one explanation as more persuasive than the other - I think theism, or at least some form of deism, wins hands down every time when it comes to fundamental questions of nature like this - but if there's no scientific test between the two perspectives, that is that. Both theism and atheism (Which is just, really, a mindless God) cannot be falsified. Science can't settle that fight - it can barely assist with it indirectly.nullasalus
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Rude, "But I do get tired of arguments over whether ID is or is not “science”. The distinction between science and nonscience is overwraught and silly, that is, unless you intend like the rest of them to cast Darwinism on the side of fact, of evidence driven theory, and throw ID into the realm of wishful thinking and irrational nonsense." First, I don't think ID is wishful thinking or irrational nonsense. I see it as a powerful perspective and the most defensible position to take with regards to nature and existence philosophically/rationally. Don't mistake my thinking that design can't be ruled in or out scientifically as a belief that there is no evidence for design, or that there aren't powerful reasons to affirm design in nature. Probably more powerful than any of the TEs I'm aware of argue, and possibly most of the ID proponents. Second, I don't see Darwinism and ID as mutually exclusive - unless we're talking about the warped, philosophy-laden 'Darwinism' StephenB routinely and rightly talks about, where purposelessness, a lack of guidance, etc are required by the theory. Those are examples of an abuse where extraneous philosophy is infused into the science, and passed off as 100% science. I see evolution, mutation, etc as yet more tools available in a designer's suite (We've used evolutionary principles in the creation of transistors, etc already - and I don't have to tell UD regulars how often we refer to nature for design schematics). So again, I take a position that oddly enough may be stronger than what Behe takes - I don't limit design considerations to IC structures, etc. I see design in even scenarios where Behe would accept gradualism and evolution as sufficing to explain the non-IC structures. Call it "design all the way down". Lastly, and I think ultimately, I see science as a very limited enterprise. It can accomplish great things (And also a lot of terrible things, but such is life), it's given us access to quite a lot of useful technologies (And the flipside, some devastating ones), but I think there are questions - many intellectual spheres - where its usefulness taps out quickly. And I don't see this changing.nullasalus
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
-----Rude: "But I do get tired of arguments over whether ID is or is not “science”. The distinction between science and nonscience is overwraught and silly, that is, unless you intend like the rest of them to cast Darwinism on the side of fact, of evidence driven theory, and throw ID into the realm of wishful thinking and irrational nonsense." Actually, nullasalus is skeptical of both Darwinian claims and ID science. The problem is that he equates the fantasies of the former with the reasonableness of the latter.StephenB
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
-----nullasalus: (Why don’t you think that ID is science) “The same reasons as ever - I think questions of agency and intention, especially on the scale ID supposes, are just not something that can be investigated or ruled upon and still be science. I think evidence of design is present and extremely abundant, but the debate falls under philosophy. Same old reasons I always give.” In effect, you are saying that you think questions of agency and intention are not science because you think they are not science. That is not really an answer. ID says that a DNA molecule contains empirically based, observable patterns that manifest themselves as functionally specified complex information FSCI. Under the circumstances, design is the best inference because our experience confirms that each time FSCI is present, intelligence was the cause. And you say that is not science because............StephenB
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
DaveScot
Genetic engineering, also known as intelligent design, has already been proven to be a capable mechanism. No further testing of its capacity is required.
That fact that we (21st century homo sapiens) can do genetic engineering shows that we have the capacity in theory, but since we weren't around the billions of years ago when flagella appeared we know it wasn't us. :-D
It is not, even in principle, possible to look everywhere. So even if my story is true, we could simply be missing the evidence for it.
Absolutely true. But the point I'm trying to make has to do with the strength of the argument. We're never going to get the full story about anything that happened in the past, but what we can do is collect whatever it is we can collect, using current hypotheses to narrow the search whenever possible. Make a hypothesis, create a test for the hypothesis, and go forth and see what you find. The better the hypothesis, the better the test, the more convincing that the hypothesis is true. Any hypothesis that is consistent with lots and and lots of different tests and lots and lots of data makes that hypothesis much more convincing than one that doesn't.
How do we know when to stop searching?
Well, never. People in general and scientists in particular are curious creatures and given that perfect knowledge of everything is practically unattainable, there's never a shortage of things to investigate. Scientists continue to investigate even well-established and well-proven phenomena looking for exceptions and applying new level of precision.
Just so, it is not possible to show chance incapable of doing things that are physically possible and evolution theory leverages that to absurdity.
I don't think that NDE relies on chance, I think rather they take existing mechanisms that capably explain a certain set of phenomena ("microevolution", whatever that means to you) and extrapolates that that also solves a certain other set of phenomena ("macroevolution"). That extrapolation may not be warranted, and may not even be strongly verifiable for certain cases (the unlikely preservation of ancient flagella, for example), but it is, demonstrably, compelling for many people.
I put to you that testing has virtually stopped with no success in any of the above categories yet the theory is not abandoned. Why?
Because a more convincing hypothesis hasn't been presented? This is what I'm talking about: if ID is to supplant NDE it needs to be more convincing. It is demonstrably less convincing than NDE at present. Why is that?
[NDE is] not compelling to any objective observer.
and
Only a tiny fraction of observers in academia and elsewhere with a vested interest in preserving the status quo are not compelled by it. Most people know a machine when they see one and also know that machines don’t create themselves. It requires years of indoctrination into evolutionary dogma to sway people into the belief that complex machines can create themselves.
That's a very big claim. Are you saying that the real reason for the popularity of NDE is brainwashing? Wow.... that's very tin-foil-hat of you. Think about the geocentrists. I happen to think anyone who believes the Earth is the center of the Universe is completely off their rocker, and they are certainly in the (distinct) minority of people in general and scientists in particular. But oddly enough there's no really good way to prove them wrong because it is possible given a certain choice of reference frame that the Earth really is the Center of the Universe. There's a non-zero chance they might be right. But the common opinion is that these people are wackaloons. How does ID avoid this level of marginalization? How can the ID story be told in a way to make it compelling to the scientific community and the general population? I hear your frustration that you think everything's already been done that needs to be done, but clearly that's not true.Trimbach
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
DaveScot, This response became too long, sorry about that. I recognize that there are many things about biology that we don’t understand. One thing that really puzzles me, for example, is the relative short time that life had to get started. But that doesn’t mean that I instantly buy religious (or the ID proxy) arguments for how it happened. Admittedly, a significant problem in evolutionary theory (which IDists take careful note of) is that historical events cannot be proved, simply because we cannot turn back time to see what actually happened. It is likewise clear also that major evolutionary feats happen extremely rarely, often just once, in an earth-sized test tube over billions of years, which make probabilities difficult to estimate. We’re also kind of biased by the end result. Most of the time, however, we can quite easily reconstruct plausible chains of events of how things likely could have happened. I did my homework regarding ‘irreducible complexity’ (IC), and found that I indeed had misunderstood the concept, please excuse my ignorance. Here is the definition that I found: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” (Darwin's Black Box p39.) Thus, if the ORIGINAL function of a complex structure disappears by the removal of one subpart of it, then that would establish that evolution couldn’t have done it. (indirectly supporting that a maker must have constructed it.) The reasoning of this argument is appealing if you are inclined to accept the concept of a creator, but is logically flawed as I’ll demonstrate. The more conservative connotation that I intuitively thought it had, namely that subparts of the system would at all not be allowed to have other (previous) functions, actually made more sense. It would still suffer from the same logical flaw, but it would be more impressive. The logical flaw lies in the test implied in the first sentence of the cited paragraph. The principal reason comes from the fact that a molecular complex (AB) evolves together. Original functionality in one part A is likely to disappear if a second part B exists that performs that function more efficiently. If B did not perform it more efficiently, evolution would not have promoted this complex AB. The reason why A doesn’t keep the function is that (purifying) selection pressure is required to maintain protein functions; otherwise they are degraded by genetic drift. And if B does the job, selection doesn’t make A keep the function. Simple enough. So, if you remove B and test the function of A, you will often find that it cannot do anything. Behe’s argument can therefore not be used as an evolutionary test. I can now imagine arguments that purifying selection and genetic drift is just Darwinist complicated wish-thinking, but I assure you that these are well-established facts with tons of concordant evidence behind. Just to briefly re-connect to the previous discussion on the flagellum: the paper that you refer to from the year 2000 was written and coordinated (last name authorship) by Milton Saier Jr., who was also last name on the review in Microbe by Wong et. al. (2007) that I referred to earlier in this conversation. Apparently, he changed his mind. Actually, I’m not really sure what this significance is of the progression of these appearances. If the flagellum appeared first (I’ll gladly admit that it very well might), and that the T3SS then would be partly derived from flagellum components, wouldn’t that still require evolution? Or how does ID then explain that the T3SS later came about? How does this support the ID case? To really disprove evolution, you would have to find a credible way to deal with the massive amounts of data that supports it in all corners of biology and paleontology. How can the progressions in fossil records be dealt with in a credible way? What about the real-time observations that we make every day on the spreading of antibiotic resistance (adaptive phenotypes)? What about data that demonstrates increased genetic drift in small populations? What about data that demonstrates how new pathogens have come into existence by import of pathogenicity traits (such as genes for T3SSs). Actually, what about molecular data that demonstrates phylogenetic relationships between taxa? From an ID perspective, this must be extremely weird. Homology must be devastating.parlar
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
I'm sympathetic when you say that design cannot be proved---ID seeks the best explanation---only if we actually saw it all happen could we say we have absolutely proved it. It's theory based on fact. We're not saying---as the Darwinists do about Darwinism---that the theory IS fact. But I do get tired of arguments over whether ID is or is not "science". The distinction between science and nonscience is overwraught and silly, that is, unless you intend like the rest of them to cast Darwinism on the side of fact, of evidence driven theory, and throw ID into the realm of wishful thinking and irrational nonsense.Rude
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
StephenB, The same reasons as ever - I think questions of agency and intention, especially on the scale ID supposes, are just not something that can be investigated or ruled upon and still be science. I think evidence of design is present and extremely abundant, but the debate falls under philosophy. Same old reasons I always give. I'm still open to having my mind changed about it all, but I view the problems of materialism and 'darwinism' differently. We saw a sample of it here in action - 'We can test for chancedidit, but not goddidit!' Well, no. We can't. And pretending that we not only can, but have, is one of the reasons I have little sympathy for the claims that ID is a threat to science. Davescot actually provides one of the reasons I take the position I do: We humans can genetically engineer. We can create simulations, plan in advance, orchestrate natural processes towards certain ends, etc. And our knowledge not only grows, but we have the minds to entertain what a truly superior mind (or minds) would be capable of producing: Everything we see and have seen. So when it comes to awkward ideas of utter inexplicable chance to explain anything - cosmological coincidences, evolutionary events, convenient natural structures, etc - I take a version of LaPlace's tact. "I have no need for that hypothesis."nullasalus
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
nullasalus: " personally think ID can’t really be scientifically proven or disproven." Why do you think that?StephenB
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Trimbach I know you’re being facetious but even this hypothesis is useful since it can be tested. Genetic engineering, also known as intelligent design, has already been proven to be a capable mechanism. No further testing of its capacity is required. Does the dark side of the moon show evidence of laboratories and rail guns in the past? It is not, even in principle, possible to look everywhere. So even if my story is true, we could simply be missing the evidence for it. How do we know when to stop searching? Just so, it is not possible to show chance incapable of doing things that are physically possible and evolution theory leverages that to absurdity. For instance, it's possible that chance alone could assemble a microprocessor. The odds against it are so long that we don't reasonably expect it has ever happened in the history of the universe. The study of how matter behaves in bulk, including predicting how it will behave in the future starting from a given state in the present, is called statistical mechanics and is virtually ignored in evolutionary biology. It's physically possible for a flagellum to become assembled by random chance. How do we know when to stop searching? Is there evidence of bacteriophages inserting (or capable of inserting) fully functioning IC components? Not just evidence, it's an established fact. A bacteriophage is a fully functional IC component in its own right and some of them operate by inserting genetic material into the host genome which causes the host to manufacture copies of the phage. Do we see evidence of Species X without a flagellar motor followed by Species X with a flagellar motor within a period of time consistent with infection? Any direct evidence of flagellar saltation billions of years ago would be unrecoverable given the reality of fossilization. However, we can look for evidence of a gradual process that should still be occuring today. We don't see half formed flagella today. Maybe we just haven't looked hard enough. When do we know when to stop looking? Do we see IC structures appearing in the absence of bacteriophages? Phages are everywhere in vivo so there is no absence of them in the wild. In vitro where we can artificially remove them we have not observed the de novo formation of any IC structures. Is this theory consistent with the observed behaviors of bacteriophages in the present? Absolutely yes. We have observed enormous amounts of evidence for an Old Earth. Agreed. We have observed that life forms have appeared gradually over a long, long period of time (no life at all before Time X, no Eukaryotes before X+1, no fish before Time X+2… the whole “Tree” of life). Keeping in mind that lack of evidence is not proof of lack and the obstacles in the way of organic structures being preserved in quantities where we can reasonably expect to discover them billions of years later this might easily be wrong. However, we do know that the fossil record we have so far discovered is a record of saltation where new species with fully formed distinctions characteristic of their kind appear abruptly in the fossil record, remain stable (unchanging) for an average of about 10 million years, then abruptly disappear from the record. This is known as "the trade secret of paleontology". These are “just the facts.” NDE posits a mechanism of how these observed facts occurred, and this mechanism is subject to testing. Actually chance & necessity is not subject to confirmation testing of it happening in the past. The only thing that can be tested is what it can under do under observation in the present. Actual observation of NDE in trillions of opportunities to produce heritable change is the focus of Behe's "Edge of Evolution". It didn't do much. Whether this mechanism is a compelling explanation or not depends on the extent that tests support this explanation. It has failed all tests to produce novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. How should we know when to stop testing? I put to you that testing has virtually stopped with no success in any of the above categories yet the theory is not abandoned. Why? Surely this explanation is not compelling to ID-ists, but it is compelling to the vast majority of scientists. It's not compelling to any objective observer. Saying “chancedidit” is initially no more compelling than “goddidit” until you add in test and observations of the proposed mechanisms. True. But when we say intelligent agency did it, instead of "god", we can at least test the possibility. I assert that the test is successful and is embodied in the discipline known as genetic engineering. So it has been adequately demonstrated that the mechanism of intelligent agency can get the job done. In contrast, the mechanism of chance & necessity has never been demonstrated as able to get the same job done. If ID wants to convince people it needs to tell a compelling story, a story that is also backed by tests and observations. It IS backed by tests and observations. Stating the conclusion up front (”this was designed”) and ignoring the how may be correct but it’s not compelling. It's compelling to a vast majority of objective observers. That's why there is still a raging controversy today. Only a tiny fraction of observers in academia and elsewhere with a vested interest in preserving the status quo are not compelled by it. Most people know a machine when they see one and also know that machines don't create themselves. It requires years of indoctrination into evolutionary dogma to sway people into the belief that complex machines can create themselves. It’s like my old Calculus class where a right answer got less points than a wrong answer unless you showed your work. ID needs to show its work on how to get from A to B or (in my opinion) it will continue to be marginalized in the scientific community. We already have shown our work. Genetic engineering, which IS intelligent design operating in the present, is well established. Where the work needs to be shown is chance & necessity getting from point A to point B. And when we try to point out the lack of any demonstration in this regard to the chance & necessity narrative in science textbooks our opposition resorts to legal chicanery to keep it out. Why legal chicanery? The answer to that is quite simple - there's no scientific defense for the chance & necessity narrative.DaveScot
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
"Saying “chancedidit” is initially no more compelling than “goddidit” until you add in test and observations of the proposed mechanisms." One problem is, you're not actually testing if 'chancedidit'. At most, you're searching for mechanisms and events, and if you can find evidence of them - hell, if you can just dream them up, many times - you file it under chance regardless of what you find or imagine. Your 'chancedidit' is no more testable than 'goddidit'. The only difference is this position, philosophical and untestable at its core, gets stamped and passed off as scientific while questioning it is forever branded unscientific. Leading to a tidy hypocritical position where detecting design in nature is unscientific, but detecting the lack of design is somehow scientific. I personally think ID can't really be scientifically proven or disproven. But if it's scientific to say 'Aha, by looking at the data, I can determine that there was no design involved!', it's entirely scientific to say 'Aha, by looking at the data, I can determine that there was design involved!' Sure, such a view may be 'marginalized in the scientific community'. But frankly, who cares? Even the scientific community doesn't care what the scientific community thinks when it comes to ID. The concern is what people at large think, and even that concern seems to (strangely) boil down to 'Will they say they believe in darwinian evolution?' Not even 'Do they understand the theory and mechanisms and debates?' but a personal commitment to it.nullasalus
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
All, fascinating stuff, but I need clarification. OK, the flagellum rotary motor is too complex to have randomly evolved. So how did it get here? What is ID saying that keeps it from simply espousing a God of the Gaps? My intentions are to blog about this on my website at www.sophiesladder.com, which you might want to visit.sophiesladder
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
The retroviruses and phages were made in a lab on the dark side of the moon, packaged in cannisters for aerial dispersal, and boosted from the moon to the earth by magnetic rail guns. The genes that make up the parts of the flaggellar motor and control its assembly where inserted into existing bactreria by custom designed bacteriophages.
I know you're being facetious but even this hypothesis is useful since it can be tested. Does the dark side of the moon show evidence of laboratories and rail guns in the past? Is there evidence of bacteriophages inserting (or capable of inserting) fully functioning IC components? Do we see evidence of Species X without a flagellar motor followed by Species X with a flagellar motor within a period of time consistent with infection? Do we see IC structures appearing in the absence of bacteriophages? Is this theory consistent with the observed behaviors of bacteriophages in the present? Etc. etc. We have observed enormous amounts of evidence for an Old Earth. We have observed that life forms have appeared gradually over a long, long period of time (no life at all before Time X, no Eukaryotes before X+1, no fish before Time X+2... the whole "Tree" of life). These are "just the facts." NDE posits a mechanism of how these observed facts occurred, and this mechanism is subject to testing. Whether this mechanism is a compelling explanation or not depends on the extent that tests support this explanation. Surely this explanation is not compelling to ID-ists, but it is compelling to the vast majority of scientists. Saying "chancedidit" is initially no more compelling than "goddidit" until you add in test and observations of the proposed mechanisms. If ID wants to convince people it needs to tell a compelling story, a story that is also backed by tests and observations. Stating the conclusion up front ("this was designed") and ignoring the how may be correct but it's not compelling. It's like my old Calculus class where a right answer got less points than a wrong answer unless you showed your work. ID needs to show its work on how to get from A to B or (in my opinion) it will continue to be marginalized in the scientific community.Trimbach
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
DaveScot, Isn't the point that ID is better science than your opponents? So why would you settle for explanations that are just as weak?Winston Macchi
September 9, 2008
September
09
Sep
9
09
2008
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Winston Macchi The retroviruses and phages were made in a lab on the dark side of the moon, packaged in cannisters for aerial dispersal, and boosted from the moon to the earth by magnetic rail guns. The genes that make up the parts of the flaggellar motor and control its assembly where inserted into existing bactreria by custom designed bacteriophages. You think that's a copout? Now you know how we feel about our opponents claiming that a random dance of atoms did the same thing. Chancedidit. Isn't that just precious? It's just so superior to Godidit. Somehow. I'm still trying to figure out the difference between chancedidit and godidit. Help me out there. Or how about if we both just forget about imaginary scenarios and focus on what can be demonstrated? As criminal investigator Sgt. Joe Friday on Dragnet famously said when interviewing witnesses, "Just the facts please." We're all waiting for an experimental demonstration that chance & necessity can build complex biological structures like the bacflag. Good luck with that. In the meantime we've already demonstrated that intelligent agents with expertise in biochemistry can purposely alter DNA with custom designed sequences - it's called genetic engineering. If you want to know who designed the designer we've figured that out too. Who designed the designer is the same agency that created the material in materialism. Isn't this fun? It's hard to believe evolutionary biologists get away with pretending their woolgathering isn't fiction, getting paid to make it up as they go along, and teach it to the gullible like its proven fact just as well tested as gravity. What a joke. DaveScot
September 8, 2008
September
09
Sep
8
08
2008
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
DaveScot, I think that is a bit of a cop-out. First of all, the question wasn't how is any CSI inserted, it was how was the flagellar motor inserted in particular, which is a very different question indeed. Furthermore, your answer just begs the question of how the retroviruses or phages were made in the first place. Now it's fair enough to say we don't know but I don't think your answer flies.Winston Macchi
September 8, 2008
September
09
Sep
8
08
2008
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Okay, y'all want a hypothetical mechanism a hypothetical designer used to used to insert complex specified information into the DNA of living organisms... Retroviruses and phages. Any questions other than wanting to know the address of the designer's lab and the brand of lab equipment he/she/they used to assemble the viruses or the fuel economy of the aircraft used to disperse the CSI vectors? If you want us to play the evolution game where anything we can imagine happening in the past, as long as it's physically possible, is as good as experimental demonstration then we can play that game too. We'd prefer to rise above the fabrication of stories that our opponents call evolutionary biology but I suppose when in Rome we should do as the Romans do and just start making crap up that goes far beyond the actual evidence. DaveScot
September 8, 2008
September
09
Sep
8
08
2008
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
After all, saying that “A designer did it” is describing a mechanism at a very high level, in the same way that NDE says “random change over time” did it. The more that can be said to support the supposition that a designer did it, the better.
Trimbach. I think you've hit the nail on the head. In fact, I believe my first post to UD, a couple of years ago, asked this question: "When and how would you expect 'design' to appear?" I've come to understand that ID currently isn't developed enough to have a hypothesis about this. I don't think this deficiency should disqualify ID, though. In fact, if the notion of "design" is given credence, this is a logical next step for exploration. The same want of a mechanism applies in psychology. Once credence is given to "mind" as an entity which is able to influence brain function in some way, the same question applies: "How and when is 'mind' able to influence 'brain?'" Neuroscientists haven't really looked in that direction, since it's seemed simpler simply to explain away 'mind' as an emergent property. But once the existence of "mind" becomes a credible variable, new horizons of research will open. We've hardly just begun! This is the heuristic value of ID. At least that's how I see it...Lutepisc
September 8, 2008
September
09
Sep
8
08
2008
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Thanks for the links. I'll check those out. Although it's possible that a precisely detailed account of an ID-compatible mechanism may be impossible (given an unknown creator and potentially unknowable technology) I think it's useful to find a general description in order to bolster the core ID hypothesis. A general description of the process gives you something to predict and test for and provides ID with experimental backing. For example, if the mechanism is "fully functional IC objects appear all-at-once, fully functional" then we should expect to see major changes in species within single generations. If the mechanism is "slow accumulation of non-functional pieces of an IC object" then we might expect to see half-finished non-functional structures in organisms (ex., a quarter of a flagellar motor in this generation, a half of a motor in a later generation, 3/4 later than that, etc.) This is very simplistic of course but still useful in making ID a compelling argument. After all, saying that "A designer did it" is describing a mechanism at a very high level, in the same way that NDE says "random change over time" did it. The more that can be said to support the supposition that a designer did it, the better.Trimbach
September 8, 2008
September
09
Sep
8
08
2008
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply