People keep saying ID presents both sides.. every person I've asked said they were taught that creationism was an alternative to evolution, and their book/teacher presented both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ID simply merges the two together into an unscientific, unproven way of looking at the world. Seeing I'm going for a bio major, it doesn't make any sense to me that I could simply come to a conclusion without evidence. -_-

 

 

 

1. In science you would know, there are unknowns. When observations/conclusions/and theories are made about those unknowns, we cannot quickly assume that they are right because they appear right. In science, there are some areas where there is not a right and wrong answer only because not enough is known to really make a definite conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the problem is, IDiocy claims that God IS the definite conclusion and that any evidence otherwise is wrong. And it's been ove 120 years, I think that's more than enough time for the Scientific Theory of Evolution to have ample evidence for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Almost how evolution can't be tested?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this a joke? Evolution CAN be tested! Just look at vestigial organs, look at adaptation, natural selection, the DNA molecule, bone structure, taxonomy, Drosophila sp., so many tests for evolution that were passed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Just because the origin of the idea can from a place where you must believe in the bible, does not mean that this is the same for all other cases. The rules of the source does not translate into the laws of all others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In any case, I believe the Bible is corrupted, so can you give me non-biblical support for Intelligent Design? And I don't want to hear crickets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. While I wouldn't state that there "arn't any" non-Christians that believe in ID, the majority of ID believers are Christian. Also, ID is most relavent to Christianity, its almost apologetics in a way. Then again, I haven't seen very many non-Christian apologetical arguements. Im not saying they arn't out there, just I haven't come across any.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um... then start coming across them. I'm have yet to see non-biblical evidence for IDiocy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. So when do life forms "become too complex" in your views? It doesn't matter as its only subjective truth.. that is truth pending upon your views and not on fact. Saying that life forms "arn't too complex" has no relavency, as it's impossible to really state when they have become too complex. After carefully examining the process of dna replication and the inter-cellular motor required to move the flagellum in many unicellular organisms, I have come to that conclusion. Obviously you have not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm being honest, are you fibbing? Because you act as if this has never been responded to by non-IDiots. Well guess what, DNA replication is a simple principle, COPY YOURSELF! Is it that hard to perceive its evolution? Start with basic prions that can self-replicate. Then, maybe a few DNTPs and some polymerase got together... Voila! Maybe 10 bps!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"too complex" is nonsense ambiguity that is used as a smokescreen:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.

 

 

 

Source:

 

 

 

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* deletion of parts

 

 

 

* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)

 

 

 

* change of function

 

 

 

* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)

 

 

 

* gradual modification of parts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Mel̮̩̉̉ndez-Hevia et al. 1996).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:

 

 

 

* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.

 

 

 

* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.

 

 

 

* In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).

 

 

 

* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links:

 

 

 

TalkOrigins Archive. n.d. Irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

 

 

 

References:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics [Epub Nov. 28 ahead of print]

 

 

 

2. Dujon, B. et al. 2004. Genome evolution in yeasts. Nature 430: 35-44.

 

 

 

3. Hooper, S. D. and O. G. Berg. 2003. On the nature of gene innovation: Duplication patterns in microbial genomes. Molecular Biololgy and Evolution 20(6): 945-954.

 

 

 

4. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.

 

 

 

5. Mel̮̩̉̉ndez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell and Marta Cascante. 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3): 293-303.

 

 

 

6. Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3: 422-499. http://www.genetics.org/content/vol3/issue5/index.shtml

 

 

 

7. Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14: 261-280.

 

 

 

8. Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2001. Genome duplications: The stuff of evolution? Science 294: 2458-2460.

 

 

 

9. Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further Reading:

 

 

 

Gray, Terry M.. 1999. Complexity--yes! Irreducible--maybe! Unexplainable--no! A creationist criticism of irreducible complexity. http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/evolu ... compl.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lindsay, Don. 1996. Review: "Darwin's black box, the biochemical challenge to evolution" by Michael Behe. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/behe.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miller, K. 1999. Finding Darwin's God. Harper-Collins, chap. 5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shanks, N. and K. H. Joplin. 1999. Redundant complexity: A analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science 66: 268-298. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologet ... oplin.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ussery, David. 1999. (see above)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get it now? And here's to your flagellum argument:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design.

 

 

 

Source:

 

 

 

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links:

 

 

 

Matzke, N. J. 2003. Evolution in (brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellu ... round.html or http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There you go, beautifully explained by talkorigins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Im not God and I can't state why he did or didn't create certain organisms. When considering pathogens, a few have said that its God's way of testing mankind, or his way of punishing certain people, or his way of making sure certain species don't overbreed... I really can't say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God has no place in science. Science deals with ONLY the natural. God is supernatural.

I can't be bothered any more, topics like this just sadden me, to see what the world is coming to at the hands of theists with blinkers on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a theist...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it is. Even these little viruses are life forms, and they were put on Earth for a purpose. Most likely to keep down population and reduce food consumption. Sorry if it offends you to think of humans as numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lmao, they were put here on a purpose? :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um... have you ever even studied virology? Viruses are unstable little creatures, which is what makes them so crazy. And if it's so intelligently design, how come we can stop them? Are we better than God in that case?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a place for everything and everything is in it's place. At least according to Intelligent Design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what part of IDiocy do you draw that conclusion, and what is the evidence for it, and what does it predict?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just because you dont agree with a theory does not mean you can go around making fun of it (ie IDiocy). We are not flaming Evolutionism, please return the favor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. Period. It is a claim, it holds no weight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wha? Who said only applying it when it is in my favour?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By "your", I meant supporters of Intelligent Design. And that's exactly what Intelligent Design does, it blindly ignores evidence to its demise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I would say with an Intelligent Being overseeing evolution, it's not really random chance anymore, is it? If I cook a meal, no one is going to say, "Wow! Crazy how those ingredients randomly came together and ended up in an oven like that!", are they? (but again this is origin talk)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anthropic principle. Have you heard of it? It knocks down your claim. No matter what the condition of the universe, there are going to be people saying "wow, there is hardly any chance of the universe being the way it is now!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think a quote from Douglas Adams is most apropriate:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's rather like a puddle waking up one morningÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

*Wonders why a mod has not stepped in to say "please stay on topic"...then realizes that mods are participating in the arguement*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously guys, we are all guilty of being really off topic, and have hijacked this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It surprises me how far off tangent this forum can go on these sorts of subjects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just respect that the other guy has his opinion, and stop bickering like children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Otherwise I may just contact an administrator, this is really getting out of hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make a topic called "Darwin-lovers vs IDiots" or something.

 

I can't be bothered any more, topics like this just sadden me, to see what the world is coming to at the hands of theists with blinkers on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a theist...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I think your beliefs are wrong too - just in different ways not relevant to this topic. I also don't know enough about your religion's structure to form a decent argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since abiogenesis is scientifically disproven, life couldn't have formed from non-life. To say otherwise when there is no evidence supporting it, is not being scientific, is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, when was it scientifically disproven, would you mind showing me the peer-reviewed scientific journal which disproved it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every experiment since Louis Pasteur's has shown that life can only come from life. This is a FACT. If random proteins were able to place themselves together in the right order and create life, don't you think scientists should be able to replicate this in their experiments?

Every experiment since Louis Pasteur's has shown that life can only come from life. This is a FACT. If random proteins were able to place themselves together in the right order and create life, don't you think scientists should be able to replicate this in their experiments?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said that it's been disproven - that means that someone did an experiment. He's just asking for a reference to the journal in which it was published - if it's a fact then I'm sure you'll have no problem pointing him to one... Or did you just believe it because you heard it from someone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I know I said I couldn't be bothered any more, but this isn't even on the subject.

Heh, and there I was thinking the crusades had ended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. It is a claim, it holds no weight.

Exactly. Anyone who seriously thinks Intelligent Design is science needs to consider retroactive abortion. (I'm in a fascist mood today, sue me).

It has come to my attention that topics like these (perhaps even this topic) are driving people away from the forums.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back on topic please, cool the flame war, or I *will* lock this thread.

You do that. Then you can add it to the collections of topics which the TIF moderating staff have killed off because the mod who locked it couldn't be [bleep]ed cleaning it and keeping the decent stuff. THAT, from experience, is why people leave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since abiogenesis is scientifically disproven, life couldn't have formed from non-life. To say otherwise when there is no evidence supporting it, is not being scientific, is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, when was it scientifically disproven, would you mind showing me the peer-reviewed scientific journal which disproved it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every experiment since Louis Pasteur's has shown that life can only come from life. This is a FACT. If random proteins were able to place themselves together in the right order and create life, don't you think scientists should be able to replicate this in their experiments?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pasteur's experiment only dealt with the theory of Generatio Spontanosa (sp?), a popular theory during that time that basically stated that animals could grow from trees or magically appear in garbage bags. However, that experiment holds no relevance to Miller's experiment, since there are roughly 300 years between the two. Pasteur had no idea what DNA was, or how the ancient earth functioned. He didn't even know how old the idea was. While Miller's test might not have been a perfect replica of the circumstances, it did show that amino acids could be formed from the elements in earth's atmosphere and oceans at that time. And don't forget, the Miller device may have had only hours, days or weeks to run. Earth had a few hundred million years.

Classicnerd please don't filter evade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keep on topic please and try to discuss and not argue too much and this won't end in a locked post (cleaned).