Posted on 10/20/2005 6:39:01 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Intelligent design and evolution proponents agree that a test on bacterial flagellum could show if it was or wasn't able to evolve, which could provide evidence to support intelligent design.
But neither side wants to test it.
The test calls for a scientist to place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under selective pressure and let it grow for 10,000 generations — roughly two years — to see if a flagellum or an equally complex system would be produced, according to testimony on Wednesday. A flagellum is a whip-like structure that can propel the bacteria.
Michael Behe, biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, testified in U.S. Middle District Court that he didn't know of anyone who had tested bacterial flagellum that way, including himself.
During cross examination by plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild, Behe said he hadn't completed the test because he has better ways to spend his time. He also said he already knows intelligent design is science.
"It's well-tested from the inductive arguments," Behe said. "When we have found a purposeful arrangement of parts, we have always found this as designed."
Outside court, Dover school board members Alan Bonsell and Sheila Harkins said if anyone should perform the test, it should be the evolutionists.
"Somebody could do that if they wanted to," Harkins said. "If somebody believes intelligent design is not science, certainly they have a means to prove it's not."
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said scientists — who widely accept evolution as the cornerstone of modern biology — aren't going to take two years on an expensive test to disprove something they don't consider science.
They wouldn't bother, she said.
"This is not the first time creationists have tried to get scientists to do their work for them," Scott said.
This time around, even if the flagellum grew, Scott speculated that intelligent design proponents would say the test refuted the design of bacterial flagellum, not intelligent design.
They could still point toward design of the immune system and blood-clotting cascade as evidence, Scott said.
Behe has testified that if evolutionists ran the test and it didn't work, they would provide a reason such as they didn't have the right bacteria, selective pressure or length of time.
Evolution is harder to falsify than intelligent design, Behe said. He describes intelligent design as a fully testable, falsifiable scientific theory.
The design, he testified, is inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts. During his time on the stand, he also testified about the concept of irreducible complexity, which means organisms are too complex to have evolved by natural selection or genetic mutation, so multiple systems had to arise simultaneously.
Scott said scientists couldn't disprove the purposeful arrangement of parts because too much could qualify. Anything outside of purposely arranged partswould be in state of chaos, she said.
The purposeful arrangements of parts is quickly taking over as the essence of intelligent design from the idea of irreducible complexity, Scott said.
Bonsell and Harkins believe intelligent design qualifies as a testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and Bonsell said he was ready for it to be put to the test.
"I'm all for scientific discovery and doing scientific experiments," Bonsell said. "They're the ones that are not."
No one expects you to blindly believe in evolution. If this is the way it was taught to you in biology class then I'm really sorry but this isn't the fault of the Theory of Evolution but rather the quality of your biology lessons.
What I have observed during all these years that I've been active in this debate is that most people who do not accept the ToE have often a completely distorted conception thereof which becomes obvious when they present a ridiculously cartoonish version.
The problem however is, that they still cling to their misconceptions even after they get corrected by other more knowledgeable posters.
Hey do you preach global warming, too?
No, why, do you?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolution doesn't predict that any particular structure will necessarily evolve, even if selection favors it.
Agreed.
What that tells us is that, in all too many cases, it's not ignorance at all. At best, it's willful ignorance, and at worst it's knowingly spreading falsehoods.
Observing the general knowledge level of FR global warming critics has led me to suspect they are probably wrong about this also. I'm not a chicken little yet, but it's easy to see why GW skeptics are being ignored.
Does Behe show any sign of knowing this?
Just what I thought. Not sure where Michelle Starr is coming from, but she clearly is wrong to say "both sides agree" on this rather fantastic claim.
You and me, both. You have to rethink when you realize your sources are crap.
He must know it. But he's long since given up being a scientist, and mutated into a political weasel, so I doubt you'd get him to admit it.
Lying doesn't help your credibility.
That kind of jumped out at me, but I'm not the expert.
I suspect that some of us amateur FReepers are quicker on our feet than some PhDs who have not spent hours every day confronting this nonsense.
Some of the stuff is so bizarre you could never imagine it, so the first time you see it you are caught flatfooted.
In Caltech's Digital Life Lab, they discovered they could evolve software to do some rather complicated stuff, but the process was very step oriented. Only one feature could be selected for at a time.
Assuming that real experiments involving bacteria to reproduce a flagellum were similar, you'd have to break the process down into the individual steps. First a structure, then a structure that could turn, then something to turn it, then energy to turn it. Or perhaps another sequence, but the point is that only one elemental feature could be selected for at one time.
The difficult part of such a test I'd guess would be testing to find the rare bacteria that met the requirement for the next step.
But why bother? Once you can demonstrate that a single step can be evolved (I assume that's been done any number of times), then logically you can continue the process. Just as once you demonstrate that you can put one brick on top of another proves that you can continue the process indefinitly as long as you keep the structure wide enough to support the pile and can lift bricks as high as the top.
I'm waiting with bated breath for the plaintiffs' attorney to ask Behe on cross examination if he thinks Evolutionary scientists should have to run experiments to try to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster....
:-)
Indeed. If mobility is an advantage, then selection pressure could result in a corkscrew propeller (Spirochete), or pole vaulting (Chromatium), or a surface effect glider (Oscillatoria), or even a jet engine (Sea squirts).
But that wouldn't be a flagellum now would it?
Evilution disproved. Teach the controversy!
I'm a fairly schooled layman on ToE. You're right, some have a cartoonish vision of what it actually covers. However...
While ToE explains a great deal about the development of living forms on earth, it does not completely explain it, there is a whole level which it does not address.
I find it objectionable as well when some scientists overreach as well, ascribing to ToE as complete in itself in explaining all knowledge possible about the development of life when an important aspect is beyond science's capability to describe.
Obviously you are right. Evolution is complex or chaotic, or both. Starting at any given point, you are unlikely to repeat a specific set of changes.
One thing I don't see are any ID advocates asking us to praise and worship the Designer for the marvelous invention of the flagellum. I don't think any of them are smart enough to know what it is used for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.