Then a Miracle Happens

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 1, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Evolutionists have relied heavily on preadaptation to explain biology’s complexities. The latest example is a new paper that uses preadaptation to explain a machine that transports proteins across the mitochondria inner membrane. Read more

Comments

Joseph @12 Point! Match!IRQ Conflict_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver:
Y’all do realize that Herman Muller proposed “interlocking complexity” as a necessary feature of evolution back in 1918.
1- People will say anything if they think their position is in trouble 2- He didn't know of what goes on inside of a cell.Joseph_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

camanintx
Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.
Yes, by design.Joseph_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Y'all do realize that Herman Muller proposed "interlocking complexity" as a necessary feature of evolution back in 1918. Right?SingBlueSilver_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Peter @8 I concur. The Darwinists gloss over the relevant facts and create their own example in order to not have to deal with what is actually presented. It is a misrepresentation, a form of strawman. They build it up so they can tear it down. One only needs to look at the 'debunking' of Behe's mousetrap to witness it in all it's dishonest glory. Take any one part and use it as a hammer, right? ...Right.IRQ Conflict_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Matteo, #5
“You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex.” Yes, so much for it. I take it then, that because early engines did not have these things, that I can take the spark plugs or pushrods out of my VW’s engine and just sacrifice a little highway speed?
Just because an existing form may not function without certain parts does not mean that an earlier form could not either. Early engines may not have been as powerful or efficient as today's, but they functioned just fine without many of the same parts.camanintx_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Blue Lotus "Does noting that removing parts for a car stops the car working prove anything about ID? No." What would happen to the automobile if you removed the fuel line, steering wheel, or the timing chain. The car could not functions. You are cherry picking the components to demonstrate your point. Like those who accept evolution, you ignore significant data that refutes your pov.Peter_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Blue Lotus (4): "So novel technologies are constructed from combinations of existing technologies. While this moves us forward, it is not yet the full story. Novel technologies (think of radar) are also sometimes created by capturing and harnessing novel phenomena (radio waves are reflected by metal objects). But again, if we look closely, we see that phenomena are always captured by existing technologies – radar used high-frequency radio transmitters, circuits, and receivers to harness its effect. So we are back at the same mechanism: novel technologies are made possible by – are created from – combinations of the old." The historical development of technology certainly looks a little like the fossil record. Many cases of cooption of previously developed systems and components. It's essential, it is how technological progress happens. It is far easier to utilize a suitable previously developed mechanism than to invent a new one. Each stage is partially based on the previous, with the addition of creative, purposive intelligence to see the links, invent the missing parts, and put it all together in a probably IC system. What BL ignores is this essential additional component - analysis, integrative insight and purposeful action by human beings.magnan_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

I can take the spark plugs or pushrods out of my VW’s engine and just sacrifice a little highway speed?
Indeed you can! Remove a spark plug and you find your car might be hard to start, especially on cold mornings. Your engine might run rough, as if it's not firing on all cylinders, which might actually be the case. Sluggish response when you push on the gas pedal might be another indication of ignition system problems. Or, you might notice a decrease in gas mileage. Sure, if you remove all the sparkplugs it won't go at all. But in case you had not noticed there are many cars on the highway, some of them very old indeed. So, no, you can't take the sparkplugs or rods out of a car and expect it to go. But you can find a car with fewer sparkplugs, a car with cruder sparkplugs and so work your way back to their invention in 1839 or so. Does that mean that that cars are IC? Perhaps when considered alone, but cars don't reproduce remember? Does noting that removing parts for a car stops the car working prove anything about ID? No.Blue Lotus_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

"You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex." Yes, so much for it. I take it then, that because early engines did not have these things, that I can take the spark plugs or pushrods out of my VW's engine and just sacrifice a little highway speed?Matteo_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

camanintx You may be interested in a new book then http://tinyurl.com/kvkzek
So what would a theory of evolution for technology look like? Do technologies descend by some unambiguous process from the collective of earlier technologies? In my new book, The Nature of Technology, I argue that they do. But to see how, we need to tailor our thinking directly to technology, not borrow from biology. To start with, we can observe that all technologies have a purpose; all solve some problem. They can only do this by making use of what already exists in the world. That is, they put together existing operations, means, and methods - in other words, existing technologies - to do the job. Take the Global Positioning System. This measures the time that signals take to travel to a location in question from four or more satellites. Knowing these timings and the satellites' positions, the system can calculate the location's exact coordinates. To do this, GPS combines the existing technologies of satellites, computing chips, radio receivers, transmitters and atomic clocks. So novel technologies are constructed from combinations of existing technologies. While this moves us forward, it is not yet the full story. Novel technologies (think of radar) are also sometimes created by capturing and harnessing novel phenomena (radio waves are reflected by metal objects). But again, if we look closely, we see that phenomena are always captured by existing technologies - radar used high-frequency radio transmitters, circuits, and receivers to harness its effect. So we are back at the same mechanism: novel technologies are made possible by - are created from - combinations of the old.
Blue Lotus_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.
You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn't use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex. Besides, the double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism was invented in 1206 for moving water and spark gap generators were invented in 1887 to generate radio signals. Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.camanintx_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

I was hoping you would address this or Behe. "You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre." That would be common sense. Biology cannot "do" anything at all remotely close to what he is about to say. "But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense." LOL! Here is a challenge for all Darwinist at UD. Define: Neutral Evolutionary Fashion Machineries Emerge "before there's a need for them" and "makes sense" Hahahahaha......... Poof Darwinism! Todays big mystic joke brought to you by Bear-To-Whale products. Where Blubber is Bear-tastic! And our customers buy it by the pawful. That right folks, you too can be a Blubber customer. Just open your mouths wide and let the Darwinism inside!DATCG_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

No miracle required if those proteins were designed to evolve into transport mechanisms. But anyway this evolutionary scenario only makes sense in light of at least two assumptions- 1- That mito are the leftovers of engulfed but not digested bacteria 2- That bacteria's proteins were not involved in transportJoseph_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply