God Bless America!
Freedom, reason, and evolution!
Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
This is far from showing that the bacterial flagellum evolved. There are over 40 genes involved in the operation of the bacterial flagellum. If any of the genes is knocked out, it fails to work. That some parts of the flagellum may have existed in other species does not solve the problem. The problem is 40+ genes, not used for anything else working together to form a single unit to provide locomotion to bacteria. While you can assume whatever you like, the science of it remains unexplained and unexplainable. I also need to point to you to the following list of genes involved in the flagellar structure:
Overview of flagellar gene hierarchy
Class I - Master Switch
Class II
CtrA regulatory molecule for class II expression
fliF MS ring
fliG & fliM C-ring
rpoN sigma54 factor required for classIII & IV expression
Class III
rpoN and FlbD Regulatory proteins
flgF proximal rod
flaD E-ring
flgG Distal rod
flgI P-ring
flgH L-ring
flgE Hook
Class IV: Flagellar Filament
fljJ, fljK, fljL flagellin proteins
flhA, fliQ, fliR, fliP, flhB, fliI, and fliJ Export Molecules
(Mohr, et al., 1998)
From: Flagellar Structure
Note that none of the proteins mentioned in the article are to be found in the flagellum's structure. Also note the names of the proteins - almost all of them are specific to the flagellum. Also note that the mechanism you cited has not been part of the many discussions on the flagellum from either side. Methinks you are wrong in your assumption.
Yes, yes and no. I think the Creator simply plugged in some values for fundamental constants, dimensionality of space, and a few other things, and let the whole shebang go on its own. After all, if one were all-knowing, one could just get it right, right at the start. Only amateurs need to tinker with things constantly.
Perhaps the evolutionists have realized a couple of things:
1. this is a Christian country.
2. suppressing discussion is not the American way.
“… suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that”
5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that
6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that
7. We should he surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,
in view of the enormous improbability, demonstrated repeatedly by Barrow and Tipler, that the universe should possess such features.
The reason the falsity of (7) does not follow from (3) is that subimplication fails for first order predicate calculus. For (3) may he schematized as
3'. ~S: (x) ([Fx × ~Cx] É ~Ox)
where S: is an operator expressing 'we should he surprised that', F is 'is a feature of the universe', C is 'is compatible with our existence', and O is 'is observed by us'. And (7) may he schematized as
7'. S: ($x) ([Fx × Cx] × Ox)
It is clear that the object of surprise in (7') is not equivalent to the object of surprise in (3'); therefore the truth of (3') does not entail the negation of (7').
Therefore, the attempt of the Anthropic Philosophy to stave off our surprise at the basic features of the universe fails. It does not after all follow from WAP that our surprise at the basic features of universe is unwarranted or inappropriate and that they do not therefore cry out for explanation. But which features of the universe should thus surprise us?-those which are necessary conditions of our existence and which seem extremely improbable or whose coincidence seems extremely improbable. Thus, we should amend (7) to read
7*. We should be surprised that we do observe basic features of the universe which individually or collectively are excessively improbable and are necessary conditions of our own existence.
Against (7*), both the WAP and the Anthropic Philosophy are impotent. But which features are these specifically? Read Barrow and Tipler's book. Once this central fallacy is removed, their volume becomes for the design argument in the twentieth century what Paley's Natural Theology was in the nineteenth, viz., a compendium of the data of contemporary science which point to a design in nature inexplicable in natural terms and therefore pointing to the Divine Designer. - William Lane Craig
fC...
Anarchy is a prelude to THE POLICE STATE...liberalism/EVOLUTION perpetuates it! AP...
If Liberalism be evolution Then its a backwards track in time we take when freedom and liberty a spike in the eye of a king and a sting to aristocrats and monarchs once again we must beat back those red diaper doper babies who would bind us in chains and call it Evolution when its actually Tyranny
79 posted on 10/16/02 6:03 PM Pacific by ATOMIC_PUNK
Intelligent Design obviously
Only amateurs need to tinker with things constantly.
You are aware of what you are saying, and you have read the Old and New Testament?
Irreducible complexity is not a matter of terminology. It is a matter of facts. Behe clearly defines what is irreducible complexity. This complexity is found in many things. In fact, the making of a single protein is in itself an irreducibly complex mechanism and requiring many different parts of an organism to work together. First you need the gene, but a gene is merely a factory, it takes orders from others. Then because of introns, you need to tell the RNA what part of the gene to use for the protein and what not. You also need another part of the organism to tell the gene when to start producing protein, when to stop, and how much to make at any given time. Then you need to have in other places in the organism a system to tell the developmental program where to produce the cells that will make these proteins, and how many cells to make of this kind. Then you also need some sort of mechanism to 'sense' when and where the proteins need to be made (ie - all our muscles due to the production of certain proteins which make them contract and expand, of course these proteins have to be made only exactly where one needs to move a muscle), you also need to have some sort of specific message ordering the production of that specific protein. So as you can see, even a single protein requires a tremendously large system to back it up and make it work. This makes practically every single function in an organism irreducibly complex.
Aaah, Patrick Henry doing what he does best - trying to silence opposing views. Of course you need to silence the truth, heck your actions are exactly the same as shown in the essay - calling all oponents ignorant and fools. Seems to me that the essay is very much a refutation of your statements continuously posted and never defended by you that all those who oppose evolution are know-nothings. Seems to me the opposite is true Patrick. If you knew something, you would not need to try to silence the exposition of opposing views.
BTW - your post itself is spamming since it adds nothing to the discussion. It also makes you look like the tyrant you are so it also discredits your position.
Science is about discovering the truth, not about how it is found or what conclusions can be made from it. What you and evolutionists are trying to do is to politicize science as a means of promoting a materialist ideology.
Let me stop you right here. Not all genes have introns. Therefore, that part isn't irreducible. Nor are all genes regulated; some gene expression is constitutive. So that's also not irreducible. Even in the complex machinery of a eukaryotic cell, some parts sometimes simply aren't used all the time.
How reducible is the system? Well, no-one knows. RNA molecules substitute for DNA as carriers of the genetic code. They also can do enzymatic functions. We've evolved complexity over time, and even the simplest organisms are more likely degenerate versions of more complex predecessors, rather than remnants of ancestral primitiveness. But to say this complexity must always have been there is silly; one might as well argue that because brains are crucial to humans, no organism can exist without a brain.
That's your view of the Old and NewTestament?
Nice rhetoric, but pick up a dictionary and you will note that answer and refute mean different things. RWP has in no way refuted Behe and neither have any of the great 'scientists' of evolution. In fact, none of the 'scientists' of evolution has had the nerve to use the example given by RWP as a refutation for the flagellum. Also see my Post# 221 for more details on why RWP's post does not refute Behe.
What is more complex; your brain, the solar system, or even the entire Milky Way? What knows more about the other?
A human brain packs ten trillion cells… (this is what they call in the FBI – a ‘clue’)
An amusing but weak analogy. To be a good analogy, we should have no direct experience of having been dragged before the firing squad. So say we drank ourselves to oblivion the previous night, woke to find ourselves looking out at 100 trained marksmen lying dead, and had to figure out how we got there. We could certainly hypothesize we'd been dragged out to be shot, and they all missed and fell dead instead. If we believed that, we would indeed be surprised. But it's more likely we'd come up with a completely different explanation of events. Surprise only comes when we expect one occurence and experience another. But we did not exist at a time when it was possible to expect that we would not evolve.
So yeah, if the Angel Gabriel appeared in my office tomorrow morning, said hey guess what Gerry, evolution really is all nonsense and the creationists were right, then I'd be surprised.
God created life for a purpose… Nope! – natural occurrence. Nothing to see here kids – move along…
Yep, I look at my beautiful wife and think, “Man, I’m glad monkeys continued to reproduce over and over thousands of years”
I look at my child and think, “Yep, just another generation closer to the next species”.
I have no problem with my friends who are theistic evolutions. I have a problem with strict scientific realism though – people who claim that there is ‘only’ natural causes based upon empirical data for everything. The statement is self-refuting and based only on philosophy.
Naturalism is a religion, like it or not…
That's the standard line from ARN. They're all IDers there and not a single one of them is a (choke!) Creationist. Behe's an anti-evolutionist. Besides, universal common ancestry is the weakest part of evolution theory, solely rooted in ancient prehistory.
Whatever happened to the eye as an irreducible complex organ? Was it shown that simpler, functional eyes existed?
Is this based upon some preconceived belief? (possibly about IDers)
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.