Consider The Flagellum Motor

[Andrew]

Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.

It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
it to function.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y

Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
evidence reveal it to be?

Thank you.

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

Story time.

Lots of stuff on Wiki on that.
Do a Wiki search on "flagellum motor".
That and 4.5 billion years(no short time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=flagellum+motor&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MotA
...etc.

[casey]

Because Darwin didn't know about genetics there
were some things he had trouble explaining despite
the fact that the evidence was that life evolved
and mechanism for it was hereditable mutation and
natural selection.

So don't think coming up with some things that we
have yet to explain will disprove evolution when
the overwhelming evidence is that we evolved.

In the mean time do your research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

[raven1]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:29:55 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Richard Dawkins has the answer to that, actually:

"The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS [Type Three
Secretory System] are very similar to the components of the flagellar
motor. To the evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were
commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the
flagellar motor evolved. Given that the TTSS is tugging molecules
through itself, it is not surprising that it uses a rudimentary
version of the principle used by the flagellar motor, which tugs the
molecules of the axle round and round. Evidently, crucial components
of the flagellar motor were already in place and working before the
flagellar motor evolved. Commandeering existing mechanisms is an
obvious way in which an apparently irreducibly complex piece of
apparatus could climb Mount Improbable.

A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
be.Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a
lazy default such as "intelligent design theory" would encourage. Here
is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might
broadcast to scientists: "if you don't understand how something works,
never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the
nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid
down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex
process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give
up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't *work* on your mysteries.
Bring us your mysteries so we can use them. Don't squander precious
ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a
last refuge for God.""

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=dawkins+flagellar+motor&source=bl&ots=1hhH19MfwV&sig=GJ002d8kjHDZMbzyqo4hBnTMGaM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7tFpUZibMarp0AHM6IDQAw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dawkins%20flagellar%20motor&f=false

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[John Locke]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:29:55 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

...irreducible complexity has been totally and completely debunked.
The defense tried in vain to use this flawed argument in the
Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_Distric

The final determination:

"The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the
same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980s."

Here is a critique by Kem Miller of this highly flawed argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:k6WdnZ0nQP0uUPTM...@earthlink.com:

> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> evidence reveal it to be?

Evolution, of course. There is no question. If you don't understand it,
or are too thick-headed to give up your fairy stories for some real
answers, well, that's your problem.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:22:05 -0700, John Locke
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:29:55 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>>many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>>a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>
>>It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>>motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>>quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>>it to function.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>
>>Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>evidence reveal it to be?

Even if it hadn't been debunked over and over again, that is the
fallacy of the false dilemma.

Irreducible complexity is also an example of the argument from
personal ignorance - "Michael Behe doesn't know how it happened
therefore it must have been a particular god".

> ...irreducible complexity has been totally and completely debunked.
>The defense tried in vain to use this flawed argument in the
>Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_Distric

The in-your-face moron knows this because it has been explained to
him with monotonous regularity.

He also knows that evolution is nothing to do with atheism and vice
versa.

It is the biggest of the foundational falsehoods of creationism...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

>The final determination:
>
>"The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the
>same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
>science in the 1980s."

The idea came from a lawyer who is completely ignorant of science, the
scientific method, etc.

>Here is a critique by Kem Miller of this highly flawed argument:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

The bacteriologist and Christian who utterly demolished it at the
Dover trial.

[casey]

On Apr 14, 8:46 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> [...]

> He also knows that evolution is nothing to do with
> atheism and vice versa.

Religion uses creation as a proof of a god so anything
that shows god wasn't required for creation becomes
an issue for them.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k6WdnZ0nQP0uUPTM...@earthlink.com>,

Neither.

It's the result of natural selection.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[sbalneav]

Evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

--
sbalneav | Wealth consists not in having great possessions,
a.a #2171 | but in having few wants.
alt-atheism.org | -- Epictetus

[Mordecai]

You are aware that Darwin actually presented a THEOLOGICAL paper called
"The origin of species" which also happens to fit into the scientific
world?

I do wish you stupid bible thumpers actually read the bible.

Now do me a favour.

Go and breed two pure poodles ... heck get any heinz variety from the
pound, and sell them to a "good Christians" and claim they are pure bred
great danes on the grounds that "they are after their own kind" and "I have
decided that this means species so they are the species of dog and so they
are great danes as they also are the species of dogs and a species does not
change."

With so many ignorant christians out there - you can become rich!


--
Mordecai!

When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:10:24 +0930, Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont
spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote:

>
>
>Andrew wrote:
>>
>> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>
>> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>> it to function.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>
>> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>> evidence reveal it to be?
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>You are aware that Darwin actually presented a THEOLOGICAL paper called
>"The origin of species" which also happens to fit into the scientific
>world?

When and where?

[Virgil]

In article <k6WdnZ0nQP0uUPTM...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> it to function.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> result of a series of evolutionary accidents?

Since all of the parts, in various combinations and for other purposes,
occur in other locations than in flagella, it may easily have been
assembled by accident.

Also, there are any number of slightly differently constructed flagella
of varying efficiency, so evolution looks more likely.
--

[Mordecai]

The book? I cannot remember when it was published.
I no longer have a copy, nor have I any real interest in the subject. I am
more into mathematics than biology. And this subject requires more effort
that a person with only a casual interest in the subject can glean with an
overview.

Overviews cause more errors than ignorance. I prefer to be ignorant on
evolution - because I only need an overview.
The original theory, not the modern (more correct and detailed) one.
I just need to know it is "as proved as any scientific theory is required
to be." That is ... it makes predictions and the predictions work.

All I did was state the obvious ... every assumption that Darwin made was
biblical.
From the fact species change ... to survival of the fittest ... to the idea
that changes take place over generations.

I have an invested interest in dealing with fringe christianity.

It is because of my own theory of the back - predicated on the idea that
humans evolved from a four legged animal. I do not want some fanatical
redneck starting some weird campaign because my ideas upset "the bible."

Fanatics are dangerous.

It is much easier to demand that evolution is biblical (it actually is)
than arguing with them every second day as they find (invent) another
"fact."

Instead of defending, I decided to attack.

He is "correct" because "everyone knows that evolution is not biblical - it
is creationism."
And I replied "You are wrong because evolution is biblical."

He has not got a puppet master telling him what to say in this situation.
Except to revert to "I am correct - everyone knows ..."

Which he will do of course.

You have tried to fight creationism on scientific grounds.
Try fighting it on theological grounds.
It confuses the idiots.

Please note that theology does not have to be truth, or even correct.
Remember well, BBB.
And creationists are not renown for their "brains."

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-A45F2B...@news.giganews.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>
>> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>> it to function.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>
>> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>> evidence reveal it to be?
>
> Neither.
>
> It's the result of natural selection.

She believes that the flagellum motor is the product of natural
selection. Except that natural selection cannot create the new
genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
nano-machine.

[Andrew]

"Uncle Vic" wrote in message news:XnsA1A19E7D82C...@216.196.121.131...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>> evidence reveal it to be?
>
> Evolution, of course. There is no question.

"No question", he says.

[Andrew]

"raven1" wrote in message news:4hkjm8hsdo880iq9l...@4ax.com...

Here he is hypothesizing the unlikely scenario that has evolution
*commandeering* a supposedly previously existing biological
system to build a new structure having a different function. But
this is only fantasy, not science.

> A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
> be.Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a
> lazy default such as "intelligent design theory" would encourage. Here
> is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might
> broadcast to scientists: "if you don't understand how something works,
> never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the
> nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid
> down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex
> process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give
> up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't *work* on your mysteries.
> Bring us your mysteries so we can use them. Don't squander precious
> ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a
> last refuge for God.""

Here he is revealing his anger and prejudice,
and resorts using "straw-man" arguments.

[Tom McDonald]

In your fantasy, maybe. In the real world, no.

[Andrew]

"casey" wrote in message news:a4a8073b-fd57-4858...@kv16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>
>> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>> it to function.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>
>> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>> evidence reveal it to be?
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Because Darwin didn't know about genetics there
> were some things he had trouble explaining despite
> the fact that the evidence was that life evolved
> and mechanism for it was hereditable mutation and
> natural selection.

The mechanism you mention will be active upon the
existing genetic make-up of an existing organism or
species. It cannot create the new genetic information
necessary for one life form to change into another, as
per Darwin.

> So don't think coming up with some things that we
> have yet to explain will disprove evolution when
> the overwhelming evidence is that we evolved.

Evidence shows that life has indeed evolved (or shall
we say devolved) since the beauty and perfection that
it had at the original Creation.

> In the mean time do your research.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

Thanks for your video, which I note acknowledges that
the flagellum motor is...

"Without doubt one of the most amazing biological
machines ever discovered."

It is indeed.

[Andrew]

"Sir Fred M. McNeill" wrote in message news:79kjm8le50dkd4pdj...@4ax.com...

All excellent sources of information on
the fascinating super complex flagellum.

Thank you.

[Tom McDonald]

On 4/13/2013 8:21 PM, Andrew wrote:

Yes. Yes he did. And he's quite right. It's only in your fantasy that
it's otherwise.

[linuxgal]

Andrew wrote:
> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
> genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
> nano-machine.

Why not?

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Ralph]

No need to thank me but you're welcome anyway:

"Almost from the moment/The Origin of Species/was published in 1859,
the opponents of evolution have fought a long, losing battle against
their Darwinian foes. Today, like a prizefighter in the late rounds
losing badly on points, they've placed their hopes in one big punch
– a single claim that might smash through the overwhelming weight of
scientific evidence to bring Darwin to the canvas once and for all.
Their name for this virtual roundhouse right is "intelligent design."

In the last several years, the intelligent design movement has
attempted to move against science education standards in several
American states, most famously in Kansas and Ohio (Holden 1999; Gura
2002). The principal claim made by adherents of this view is that
they can detect the presence of "intelligent design" in complex
biological systems. As evidence, they cite a number of specific
examples, including the vertebrate blood clotting cascade, the
eukaryotic cilium, and most notably, the eubacterial flagellum (Behe
1996a, Behe 2002).

Of all these examples, the flagellum has been presented so often as
a counter-example to evolution that it might well be considered the
"poster child" of the modern anti-evolution movement. Variations of
its image (Figure 1) now appear on web pages of anti-evolution
groups like the Discovery Institute, and on the covers of
"intelligent design" books such as William Dembski's/No Free
Lunch/(Dembski 2002a). To anti-evolutionists, the high status of the
flagellum reflects the supposed fact that it could not possibly have
been produced by an evolutionary pathway.

*Figure 1:*The eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an
ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the
bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly
process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament
complex. OM, outer membrane; PG, peptidoglycan layer; IM,
cytoplasmic membrane (From Yonekura/et al/2000).

There is, to be sure, nothing new or novel in an anti-evolutionist
pointing to a complex or intricate natural structure, and professing
skepticism that it could have been produced by the "random"
processes of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, the
"argument from personal incredulity," as such sentiment has been
appropriately described, has been a weapon of little value in the
anti-evolution movement. Anyone can state at any time
that/they/cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have
produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements,
obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of
those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian
mechanisms.

The hallmark of the intelligent design movement, however, is that it
purports to rise above the level of personal skepticism. It claims
to have found a/reason/why evolution could not have produced a
structure like the bacterial flagellum, a reason based on sound,
solid scientific evidence.

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as
unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as
"irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are
told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that
matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and
therefore they must have been produced by something. That something
could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the
laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is
the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis
of the intelligent design movement.

The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon
of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its
status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very
moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to
explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been
achieved, and to review the research developments that have now
undermined they very foundations of those arguments.

*The Argument's Origins*

The flagellum owes its status principally to/Darwin's Black
Box/(Behe 1996a) a book by Michael Behe that employed it in a
carefully-crafted anti-evolution argument. Building upon William
Paley's well-known "argument from design," Behe sought to bring the
argument two centuries forward into the realm of biochemistry. Like
Paley, Behe appealed to his readers to appreciate the intricate
complexity of living organisms as evidence for the work of a
designer. Unlike Paley, however, he raised the argument to a new
level, claiming to have discovered a scientific principle that could
be used to prove that certain structures could not have been
produced by evolution. That principle goes by the name of
"irreducible complexity."

An irreducibly complex structure is defined as ". . . 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." (Behe
1996a, 39) Why would such systems present difficulties for
Darwinism? Because they could not possibly have been produced by the
process of evolution:

/"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by
numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system,
because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is
missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural
selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if
a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to
arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural
selection to have anything to act on."/(Behe 1996b)

The phrase "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is not
accidental. The very same words were used by Charles Darwin in/The
Origin of Species/in describing the conditions that had to be met
for his theory to be true. As Darwin wrote, if one could find an
organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous,
successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely
break down" (Darwin 1859, 191). To anti-evolutionists, the bacterial
flagellum is now regarded as exactly such a case – an "irreducibly
complex system" which "cannot be produced directly by numerous
successive, slight modifications." A system that could not have
evolved – a desperation punch that just might win the fight in the
final round – a tool with which the theory of evolution can be
brought down.

*The Logic of Irreducible Complexity*

Living cells are filled, of course, with complex structures whose
detailed evolutionary origins are not known. Therefore, in
fashioning an argument against evolution one might pick nearly any
cellular structure, the ribosome for example, and claim – correctly
– that its origin has not been explained in detail by evolution.

Such arguments are easy to make, of course, but nature of scientific
progress renders them far from compelling. The lack of a detailed
current explanation for a structure, organ, or process does not mean
that science will never come up with one. As an example, one might
consider the question of how left-right asymmetry arises in
vertebrate development, a question that was beyond explanation until
the 1990s (Belmonte 1999). In 1990 one might have argued that the
body's left-right asymmetry could just as well be explained by the
intervention of a designer as by an unknown molecular mechanism.
Only a decade later, the actual molecular mechanism was identified
(Stern 2002), and any claim one might have made for the intervention
of a designer would have been discarded. The same point can be made,
of course, regarding any structure or mechanism whose origins are
not yet understood.

The utility of the bacterial flagellum is that it seems to rise
above this "argument from ignorance." By asserting that it is a
structure "in which the removal of an element would cause the whole
system to cease functioning" (Behe 2002), the flagellum is presented
as a "molecular machine" whose individual parts must have been
specifically crafted to work as a unified assembly. The existence of
such a multipart machine therefore provides genuine scientific proof
of the actions of an intelligent designer.

In the case of the flagellum, the assertion of irreducible
complexity means that a minimum number of protein components,
perhaps 30, are required to produce a working biological function.
By the logic of irreducible complexity, these individual components
should have no function until all 30 are put into place, at which
point the function of motility appears. What this means, of course,
is that evolution could not have fashioned those components a few at
a time, since they do not have functions that could be favored by
natural selection. As Behe wrote: " . . . natural selection can only
choose among systems that are already working" (Behe 2002), and an
irreducibly complex system does not work unless all of its parts are
in place. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore, it
must have been designed. Case closed.

*Answering the Argument*

The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and
therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the
scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared
in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of
recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of
biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and
Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific
literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution
cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other
workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms
allow biological systems to increase in information content
(Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have
not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution.
Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific
work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and
other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that
the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced
as an argument against evolution is wrong –*the bacterial flagellum
is not irreducibly complex*. As we will see, the flagellum – the
supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has
failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any
precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is
by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is
filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are
indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional
enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

*The Type -III Secretory Apparatus*

In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" – tiny microscopic
bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that
generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and
many are beneficial – even essential – to human life. Nonetheless,
there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the
mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or
disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a
variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them
directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break
down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage,
and sometimes even death.

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only
produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their
hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell
membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means
of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known
as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative
bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a
host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS
include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are
known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the
pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence
(Büttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device
that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell
membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do
with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the
TTSS have revealed a surprising fact – the proteins of the TTSS are
directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the
bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these
homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found
in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these
homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself
should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such
studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with
both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the
two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common
physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear,
therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins
in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of
the TTSS.

*Figure 2:*There are extensive homologies between type III secretory
proteins and proteins involved in export in the basal region of the
bacterial flagellum. These homologies demonstrate that the bacterial
flagellum is not "irreducibly complex." In this diagram (redrawn
from Heuck 1998), the shaded portions of the basal region indicate
proteins in the/E. coli/flagellum homologous to the Type III
secretory structure of/Yersinia./. OM, outer membrane; PP,
periplasmic space; CM, cytoplasmic membrane.

Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of
proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point
of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be
expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix
and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to
the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be
possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then
removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what
remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed
fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the
flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria
that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.

The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates
that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can
indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a
function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention
that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its
component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this
means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum
has failed.

*Counterattack*

Classically, one of the most widely-repeated charges made by
anti-evolutionists is that the fossil record contains wide "gaps"
for which transitional fossils have never been found. Therefore, the
intervention of a creative agency, an intelligent designer, must be
invoked to account for each gap. Such gaps, of course, have been
filled with increasing frequency by paleontologists – the
increasingly rich fossil sequences demonstrating the origins of
whales are a useful examples (Thewissen, Hussain, and Arif 1994;
Thewissen, Williams, Roe, and Hussain 2001). Ironically, the
response of anti-evolutionists to such discoveries is frequently to
claim that things have only gotten worse for evolution. Where
previously there had been just one gap, as a result of the
transitional fossil, now there are two (one on either side of the
newly-discovered specimen).

As word of the relationship between the eubacterial flagellum and
the TTSS has begun to spread among the "design" community, the first
hints of a remarkably similar reaction have emerged. The TTSS only
makes problems worse for evolution, according to this response,
because now there are two irreducibly-complex systems to deal with.
The flagellum is still irreducibly complex – but so is the TTSS. But
now there are two systems for evolutionists to explain instead of
just one.

Unfortunately for this line of argument, the claim that one
irreducibly-complex system might contain another is
self-contradictory. To understand this, we need to remember that the
entire point of the design argument, as exemplified by the
flagellum, is that only the entire biochemical machine, with all of
its parts, is functional. For the intelligent design argument to
stand, this must be the case, since it provides the basis for their
claim that only the complete flagellum can be favored by natural
selection, not any its component parts.

However, if the flagellum contains within it a smaller functional
set of components like the TTSS, then the flagellum itself cannot be
irreducibly complex – by definition. Since we now know that this is
indeed the case, it is obviously true that the flagellum is not
irreducibly complex.

A second reaction, which I have heard directly after describing the
relationship between the secretory apparatus and the flagellum, is
the objection that the TTSS does not tell us how either it or the
flagellum evolved. This is certainly true, although Aizawa has
suggested that the TTSS may indeed be an evolutionary precursor of
the flagellum (Aizawa 2001). Nonetheless, until we have produced a
step-by-step account for the evolutionary derivation of the
flagellum, one may indeed invoke the argument from ignorance for
this and every other complex biochemical machine.

However, in agreeing to this, one must keep in mind that the
doctrine of irreducible complexity was intended to go one step
beyond the claim of ignorance. It was fashioned in order to provide
a rationale for claiming that the bacterial flagellum couldn't have
evolved, even in principle, because it is irreducibly complex. Now
that a simpler, functional system (the TTSS) has been discovered
among the protein components of the flagellum, the claim of
irreducible complexity has collapsed, and with it any "evidence"
that the flagellum was designed.

*Combinatorial Argument*

At first glance, William Dembski's case for intelligent design seems
to follow a distinctly different strategy in dealing with biological
complexity. His recent book,/No Free Lunch/(Dembski 2002a), lays out
this case, using information theory and mathematics to show that
life is the result of intelligent design. Dembski makes the
assertion that living organisms contain what he calls "complex
specified information" (CSI), and claims to have shown that the
evolutionary mechanism of natural selection cannot produce CSI.
Therefore, any instance of CSI in a living organism must be the
result of intelligent design. And living organisms, according to
Dembski, are chock-full of CSI.

Dembski's arguments, couched in the language of information theory,
are highly technical and are defended, almost exclusively, by
reference to their utility in detecting information produced by
human beings. These include phone and credit card numbers,
symphonies, and artistic woodcuts, to name just a few. One might
then expect that Dembski, having shown how the presence of CSI can
be demonstrated in man made objects, would then turn to a variety of
biological objects. Instead, he turns to just one such object, the
bacterial flagellum.

Dembski then offers his readers a calculation showing that the
flagellum could not have possibly have evolved. Significantly, he
begins that calculation by linking his arguments to those of Behe,
writing: "I want therefore in this section to show how irreducible
complexity is a special case of specified complexity, and in
particular I want to sketch how one calculates the relevant
probabilities needed to eliminate chance and infer design for such
systems" (Dembski 2002a, 289). Dembski then tells us that an
irreducibly complex system, like the flagellum, is a "discrete
combinatorial object." What this means, as he explains, is that the
probability of assembling such an object can be calculated by
determining the probabilities that each of its components might have
originated by chance, that they might have been localized to the
same region of the cell, and that they would be assembled in
precisely the right order. Dembski refers to these three
probabilities as*P*orig,*P*local, and*P*config, and he regards each
of them as separate and independent (Dembski 2002a, 291).

This approach overlooks the fact that the last two probabilities are
actually contained within the first. Localization and self-assembly
of complex protein structures in prokaryotic cells are properties
generally determined by signals built into the primary structures of
the proteins themselves. The same is likely true for the amino acid
sequences of the 30 or so protein components of the flagellum and
the approximately 20 proteins involved in the flagellum's assembly
(McNab 1999; Yonekura/et al/2000). Therefore, if one gets the
sequences of all the proteins right, localization and assembly will
take care of themselves.

To the ID enthusiast, however, this is a point of little concern.
According to Dembski, evolution could still not construct the 30
proteins needed for the flagellum. His reason is that the
probability of their assembly falls below what he terms the
"universal probability bound." According to Dembski, the probability
bound is a sensible allowance for the fact that highly improbable
events do occur from time to time in nature. To allow for such
events, he agrees that given enough time, any event with a
probability larger than 10-150might well take place. Therefore, if a
sequence of events, such as a presumed evolutionary pathway, has a
calculated probability less than 10-150, we may conclude that the
pathway is impossible. If the calculated probability is greater than
10-150, it's possible (even if unlikely).

When Dembski turns his attention to the chances of evolving the 30
proteins of the bacterial flagellum, he makes what he regards as a
generous assumption. Guessing that each of the proteins of the
flagellum have about 300 amino acids, one might calculate that the
chances of getting just one such protein to assemble from "random"
evolutionary processes would be 20-300, since there are 20 amino
acids specified by the genetic code. Dembski, however, concedes that
proteins need not get the/exact/amino acid sequence right in order
to be functional, so he cuts the odds to just 20-30, which he tells
his readers is "on the order of 10-39"(Dembski 2002a, 301). Since
the flagellum requires 30 such proteins, he explains that 30 such
probabilities "will all need to be multiplied to form the
origination probability"(Dembski 2002a, 301). That would give us an
origination probability for the flagellum of 10-1170, far below the
universal probability bound. The flagellum couldn't have evolved,
and now we have the numbers to prove it. Right?

*Assuming Impossibility*

I have no doubt that to the casual reader, a quick glance over the
pages of numbers and symbols in Dembski's books is impressive, if
not downright intimidating. Nonetheless, the way in which he
calculates the probability of an evolutionary origin for the
flagellum shows how little biology actually stands behind those
numbers. His computation calculates only the probability of
spontaneous, random assembly for each of the proteins of the
flagellum. Having come up with a probability value on the order of
10-1170, he assures us that he has shown the flagellum to be
unevolvable. This conclusion, of course, fits comfortably with his
view is that "The Darwinian mechanism is powerless to produce
irreducibly complex systems..." (Dembski 2002a, 289).

However complex Dembski's analysis, the scientific problem with his
calculations is almost too easy to spot. By treating the flagellum
as a "discrete combinatorial object" he has shown only that it is
unlikely that the parts flagellum could assemble spontaneously.
Unfortunately for his argument, no scientist has ever proposed that
the flagellum or any other complex object evolved that way. Dembski,
therefore, has constructed a classic "straw man" and blown it away
with an irrelevant calculation.

By treating the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object he has
assumed in his calculation that no subset of the 30 or so proteins
of the flagellum could have biological activity. As we have already
seen, this is wrong. Nearly a third of those proteins are closely
related to components of the TTSS, which does indeed have biological
activity. A calculation that ignores that fact has no scientific
validity.

More importantly, Dembski's willingness to ignore the TTSS lays bare
the underlying assumption of his entire approach towards the
calculation of probabilities and the detection of "design."/He
assumes what he is trying to prove./

According to Dembski, the detection of "design" requires that an
object display complexity that could not be produced by what he
calls "natural causes." In order to do that, one must first examine
all of the possibilities by which an object, like the flagellum,
might have been generated naturally. Dembski and Behe, of course,
come to the conclusion that there are no such natural causes. But
how did they determine that? What is the scientific method used to
support such a conclusion? Could it be that their assertions of the
lack of natural causes simply amount to an unsupported personal
belief? Suppose that there are such causes, but they simply happened
not to think of them? Dembski actually seems to realize that this is
a serious problem. He writes: "Now it can happen that we may not
know enough to determine all the relevant chance hypotheses [which
here, as noted above, means/all relevant natural processes/(hvt)].
Alternatively, we might think we know the relevant chance
hypotheses, but later discover that we missed a crucial one. In the
one case a design inference could not even get going; in the other,
it would be mistaken" (Dembski 2002, 123 (note 80)).

What Dembski is telling us is that in order to "detect" design in a
biological object one must first come to the conclusion that the
object could not have been produced by any "relevant chance
hypotheses" (meaning, naturally, evolution). Then, and only then,
are Dembski's calculations brought into play. Stated more bluntly,
what this really means is that the "method" first involves/assuming
the absence/of an evolutionary pathway leading to the object,
followed by a calculation "proving" the impossibility of spontaneous
assembly. Incredibly, this/a priori/reasoning is exactly the sort of
logic upon which the new "science of design" has been constructed.

Not surprisingly, scientific reviewers have not missed this point –
Dembski's arguments have been repeatedly criticized on this issue
and on many others (Orr 2002; Charlesworth 2002; Padian 2002).

*Designing the Cycle*

In assessing the design argument, therefore, it only/seems/as though
two distinct arguments have been raised for the unevolvability of
the flagellum. In reality, those two arguments, one invoking
irreducible complexity and the other specified complex information,
both depend upon a single scientifically insupportable position.
Namely, that we can look at a complex biological object and
determine with absolute certainty that none of its component parts
could have been first selected to perform other functions. The
discovery of extensive homologies between the Type III secretory
system and the flagellum has now shown just how wrong that position was.

When anti-evolutionary arguments featuring the bacterial flagellum
rose into prominence, beginning with the 1996 publication of
Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a), they were predicated upon the
assertion that each of the protein components of the flagellum were
crafted, in a single act of design, to fit the specific purpose of
the flagellum. The flagellum was said to be unevolvable since the
entire complex system had to be assembled first in order to produce
any selectable biological function. This claim was broadened to
include all complex biological systems, and asserted further that
science would never find an evolutionary pathway to any of these
systems. After all, it hadn't so far, at least according to one of
"design's" principal advocates:

/There is no publication in the scientific literature – in
prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes
how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system
either did occur or even might have occurred./(Behe 1996a, 185)

As many critics of intelligent design have pointed out, that
statement is simply false. Consider, as just one example, the Krebs
cycle, an intricate biochemical pathway consisting of nine enzymes
and a number of cofactors that occupies center stage in the pathways
of cellular metabolism. The Krebs cycle is "real," "complex," and
"biochemical." Does it also present a problem for evolution?
Apparently yes, according to the authors of a 1996 paper in the
Journal of Molecular evolution, who wrote:

/"The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the
evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural
selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a
complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no
obvious fitness functionality?/(Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante
1996)

Where intelligent design theorists throw up their hands and declare
defeat for evolution, however, these researchers decided to do the
hard scientific work of analyzing the components of the cycle, and
seeing if any of them might have been selected for other biochemical
tasks. What they found should be a lesson to anyone who asserts that
evolution can only act by direct selection for a final function. In
fact, nearly all of the proteins of the complex cycle can serve
different biochemical purposes within the cell, making it possible
to explain in detail how they evolved:

/In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also
useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete
design was a very clear case of opportunism. . . . the Krebs cycle
was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘‘evolution
by molecular tinkering,’’ stating that evolution does not produce
novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most
novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new
material, evolution created the most important pathway of
metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this
case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the
process could not have found a better design than the cycle which
works in living cells."/(Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Since this paper appeared, a study based on genomic DNA sequences
has confirmed the validity of this approach (Huynen, Dandekar, and
Bork 1999). By contrast, how would intelligent design have
approached the Krebs Cycle? Using Dembski's calculations as our
guide, we would first determine the amino acid sequences of each of
the proteins of the cycle, and then calculate the probability of
their spontaneous assembly. When this is done, an origination
probability of less than 10-400is the result. Therefore, the result
of applying "design" as a predictive science would have told both
groups of researchers that their ultimately successful studies would
have been fruitless, since the probability of spontaneous assembly
falls below the "universal probability bound."

We already know, however, the reason that such calculations fail.
They carry a built-in assumption that the component parts of a
complex biochemical system have no possible functions beyond the
completely assembled system itself. As we have seen, this assumption
is false. The Krebs cycle researchers knew better, of course, and
were able to produce two important studies describing how a real,
complex, biochemical system might have evolved – the very thing that
design theorists once claimed did not exist in the scientific
literature.

*The Failure of Design*

It is no secret that concepts like "irreducible complexity" and
"intelligent design" have failed to take the scientific community by
storm (Forrest 2002). Design has not prompted new research studies,
new breakthroughs, or novel insights on so much as a single
scientific question. Design advocates acknowledge this from time to
time, but they often claim that this is because the scientific deck
is stacked against them. The Darwinist establishment, they say,
prevents them from getting a foot in the laboratory door.

I would suggest that the real reason for the cold shoulder given
"design" by the scientific community, particularly by life science
researchers, is because time and time again its principal scientific
claims have turned out to be wrong. Science is a pragmatic activity,
and if your hypothesis doesn't work, it is quickly discarded.

The claim of irreducible complexity for the bacterial flagellum is
an obvious example of this, but there are many others. Consider, for
example, the intricate cascade of proteins involved in the clotting
of vertebrate blood. This has been cited as one of the principal
examples of the kind of complexity that evolution cannot generate,
despite the elegant work of Russell Doolittle (Doolittle and Feng
1987; Doolittle 1993) to the contrary. A number of proteins are
involved in this complex pathway, as described by Behe:

/When an animal is cut, a protein called Hagemann factor (XII)
sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hagemann factor
is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hagemann
factor. Immediately the activated Hagemann factor converts another
protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein./(Behe
1996a, 84)

How important are each of these proteins? In line with the dogma of
irreducible complexity, Behe argues that each and every component
must be in place before the system will work, and he is perfectly
clear on this point:

/. . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except
controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of
the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails./(Behe
1996a, 86)

As we have seen, the claim that every one of the components must be
present for clotting to work is central to the "evidence" for
design. One of those components, as these quotations indicate, is
Factor XII, which initiates the cascade. Once again, however, a
nasty little fact gets in the way of intelligent design theory.
Dolphins lack Factor XII (Robinson, Kasting, and Aggeler 1969), and
yet their blood clots perfectly well. How can this be if the
clotting cascade is indeed irreducibly complex? It cannot, of
course, and therefore the claim of irreducible complexity is wrong
for this system as well. I would suggest, therefore, that the real
reason for the rejection of "design" by the scientific community is
remarkably simple – the claims of the intelligent design movement
are contradicted time and time again by the scientific evidence.

*The Flagellum Unspun*

In any discussion of the question of "intelligent design," it is
absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself.
If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the
intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of
meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine
intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It
is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along
with many scientists. As H. Allen Orr pointed out in a recent review:

/Plenty of scientists have, after all, been attracted to the notion
that natural laws reflect (in some way that's necessarily poorly
articulated) an intelligence or aesthetic sensibility. This is the
religion of Einstein, who spoke of "the grandeur of reason incarnate
in existence" and of the scientist's "religious feeling [that] takes
the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural
law."/(Orr 2002).

This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the
parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a
universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought
a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a
universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made
expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires
that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and
active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the
very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent
design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have
come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging
landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of
its designer.

Certainly, the issue of design and purpose in nature is a
philosophical one that scientists can and should discuss with great
vigor. However, the notion at the heart's of today intelligent
design movement is that the direct intervention of an outside
designer can be demonstrated by the very existence of complex
biochemical systems. What even they acknowledge is that their entire
scientific position rests upon a single assertion – that the living
cell contains biochemical machines that are irreducibly complex. And
the bacterial flagellum is the prime example of such a machine.

Such an assertion, as we have seen, can be put to the test in a very
direct way. If we are able to search and find an example of a
machine with fewer protein parts, contained within the flagellum,
that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of
irreducible complexity is refuted. As we have also seen, the
flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting
apparatus that carries out an important function even in species
that lack the flagellum altogether. A scientific idea rises or falls
on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the
bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear.

As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen.

The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the
bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also
demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible
complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon
the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science
has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a
certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the
claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are
left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the
rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in
some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick
to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from
ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and
information theory.

When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently
given a chance to make their case in an issue of/Natural
History/magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for
design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in
life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a
possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences
need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true.
Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent
design" of which they speak.

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life,
a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their
philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not
believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or
diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in
confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world.
Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the
Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop,
the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood
as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science
because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion
because they think too little of God.

[Ralph]

Considering that the flagellum appears in difference sizes, shapes and
propulsion(Including none), I see no
logic in calling it irreducible, as it is self evident that it is not.
Pull your head out of your ass Andrew, not only is the air fresher
but you become more knowledgeable with increased fresh air.

[Ralph]

On 4/13/2013 9:21 PM, Andrew wrote:

Absolutely no scientific question. Only religious questions and they
don't count except in your mind.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <3sudnaulROoCmffM...@earthlink.com>,

It may be. But that by no means is any indication of your fantasy of
irreducible complexity.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <DISdnT5Za8QQmffM...@earthlink.com>,

Why are you libeling Dawkins with such a stupid lie?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <VradnZxEM5RunvfM...@earthlink.com>,

Bullshit.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:47:33 +0930, Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont

In other words you were talking through your sporran.

>Overviews cause more errors than ignorance. I prefer to be ignorant on
>evolution - because I only need an overview.
>The original theory, not the modern (more correct and detailed) one.
>I just need to know it is "as proved as any scientific theory is required
>to be." That is ... it makes predictions and the predictions work.
>
>All I did was state the obvious ... every assumption that Darwin made was
>biblical.

Complete and utter bullshit.

>From the fact species change ... to survival of the fittest ... to the idea
>that changes take place over generations.

No, moron.

He didn'ty even come up with evolution - he just provided the first
scientifically derived explanation.

>I have an invested interest in dealing with fringe christianity.
>
>It is because of my own theory of the back - predicated on the idea that
>humans evolved from a four legged animal. I do not want some fanatical
>redneck starting some weird campaign because my ideas upset "the bible."

Sign.

>Fanatics are dangerous.
>
>It is much easier to demand that evolution is biblical (it actually is)

No, liar. It is not.

>than arguing with them every second day as they find (invent) another
>"fact."
>
>Instead of defending, I decided to attack.
>
>He is "correct" because "everyone knows that evolution is not biblical - it
>is creationism."

Creationism is fundamentalist Christianity pretending to be science.

>And I replied "You are wrong because evolution is biblical."

And you were wrong.

>He has not got a puppet master telling him what to say in this situation.
>Except to revert to "I am correct - everyone knows ..."
>
>Which he will do of course.
>
>You have tried to fight creationism on scientific grounds.

We fight it using reality.

>Try fighting it on theological grounds.
>It confuses the idiots.

???????

>Please note that theology does not have to be truth, or even correct.
>Remember well, BBB.
>And creationists are not renown for their "brains."

Theology is utterly irrelevant in the real world.

[raven1]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:23:57 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

You're missing the point badly, Andrew. He doesn't have to give the
correct answer to show that "irreducible complexity" is false, the
fact that an answer is possible at all is sufficient to refute the
notion.

>> A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
>> be.Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a
>> lazy default such as "intelligent design theory" would encourage. Here
>> is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might
>> broadcast to scientists: "if you don't understand how something works,
>> never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the
>> nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid
>> down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex
>> process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give
>> up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't *work* on your mysteries.
>> Bring us your mysteries so we can use them. Don't squander precious
>> ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a
>> last refuge for God.""
>
>Here he is revealing his anger and prejudice,
>and resorts using "straw-man" arguments.

He's spot-on, Andrew. "Intelligent Design" isn't scientific
investigation, it's the abandonment of it. It boils down to "I don't
understand this, therefore, God, er, an unspecified intelligent
designer whom I'm careful not to publicly identify as God so I can
slip my religious beliefs into public schools under the guise of
science, did it".

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[casey]

On Apr 14, 11:23 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "raven1" wrote in messagenews:4hkjm8hsdo880iq9l...@4ax.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:21:23 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

You need to stop reading outdated literature collected by anti-science
fools.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:25:50 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>Andrew wrote:
>> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>> genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
>> nano-machine.
>
>Why not?

Because some idiot made that claim and Andrew believed it. At the Dover
trial, the evidence that the creationists were making a false claim was
brought forward to show how wrong they were.

Real creationists never, ever let silly things like scientific evidence
get in their way of their foolish interpretation of the Bible, however,
so Andrew never learned why he is wrong. He worships ignorance.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:51:39 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

These morons can't grasp the idea of natural selection filtering the
genetic mutations.

When they think of natural selection, the mutations aren't there - and
when they think about the mutations they forger about natural
selection.

For them it'd either/or not both/and.

[harry k]

On Apr 13, 2:29 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> it to function.
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> evidence reveal it to be?
>

> Thank you.

Suppose you read the Dover trial reports - all your questions will be
answered and not to your satisfaction.
That "flagellum" crap you theistic morons are so proud of was shot
down in flames years ago.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Apr 13, 6:23 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "raven1" wrote in messagenews:4hkjm8hsdo880iq9l...@4ax.com...

Here YOU asre using "argument from incredulity"...and very stupidly
done at that.

Harry K

[Devils Advocaat]

On 14 Apr, 02:24, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "casey" wrote in messagenews:a4a8073b-fd57-4858...@kv16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> >  "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> >> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> >> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> >> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> >> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> >> it to function.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>
> >> Thank you.
>
> > Because Darwin didn't know about genetics there
> > were some things he had trouble explaining despite
> > the fact that the evidence was that life evolved
> > and mechanism for it was hereditable mutation and
> > natural selection.
>
> The mechanism you mention will be active upon the
> existing genetic make-up of an existing organism or
> species. It cannot create the new genetic information
> necessary for one life form to change into another, as
> per Darwin.

Care to explain why mutations can't produce new information?

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 13, 6:21 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas"  wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-A45F2B...@news.giganews.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> >> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> >> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> >> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> >> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> >> it to function.
>
> >>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>
> > Neither.
>
> > It's the result of natural selection.
>
> She believes that the flagellum motor is the product of natural
> selection.

Yup.

> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
> genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
> nano-machine.

*Sure* it can. It does so all the time. See mutation, diploidy,
haploidy, and polyploidy. And those are just the first ones off the
top of my head, and I'm not a scientist.

--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 13, 4:40 pm, Mordecai <"mldavis(please dont

spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> > many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> > a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> > It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> > motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> > quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> > it to function.
>
> >  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> > Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> > result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> > a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> > evidence reveal it to be?
>

> > Thank you.
>
> You are aware that Darwin actually presented a THEOLOGICAL  paper called
> "The origin of species" which also happens to fit into the scientific
> world?
>

> I do wish you stupid bible thumpers actually read the bible.
>
> Now do me a favour.
>
> Go and breed two pure poodles ... heck get any heinz variety from the
> pound, and sell them to a "good Christians" and claim they are pure bred
> great danes on the grounds that "they are after their own kind" and "I have
> decided that this means species so they are the species of dog and so they
> are great danes as they also are the species of dogs and a species does not
> change."

Psssst! Mordecai, ix-nay on the og-day are ecies-spay. They're not.
All breeds of dogs are the same species. In fact, dogs and *wolves*
are the same species technically, just two variants.

[casey]

The simple example I have already given Andrew is
an artificial neural network which starts with no
information as to how to recognize a pattern but
over time by mutating the connections and using
feedback as to the results (selection) it will
accumulate information it needs to carry out
the recognition task. The information isn't there
at the beginning and it is not programmed into
the network by a designer. So although these
simple networks may not be as complex as the
molecular mechanisms they do show how it
is possible to increase the information content
of a system.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 14 Apr, 02:23, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "raven1" wrote in messagenews:4hkjm8hsdo880iq9l...@4ax.com...

So taking a lump of flint and shaping it to give it a cutting edge is
fantasy is it?

[Andrew]

"casey" wrote in message news:ebcff9c0-6641-43e9...@ka6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 3:19 pm, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On 14 Apr, 02:24, "Andrew" wrote:

The acknowledged philosophy of the author of the video
you posted is, "If I can imagine how something evolved,
then it could have evolved. And if it could have evolved,
it did thus evolve, and was not the product of a creation."

This is an excellent example of how materialists employ
*fantasy* (not observable, repeatable science) to support
their atheistic dogma.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-EDAE78...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

Yes, but remember that it is only *one of* the most
amazing biological machines ever discovered. There
are many more. All testify to the skill and wisdom of
our awesome Creator ---> God.

> But that by no means is any indication of your
> fantasy of irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity in the flagellum motor is not 'my
fantasy' Jeanne, but is an acknowledged fact that is noted
even in the above skeptic video posted by Casey. It states:

"Studies have shown that removing any of the roughly 42
proteins common to all flagella results in ZERO function."

In other words, it IS irreducibly complex.

[Mordecai]

I am aware of "the variants" and actually used this point within the
argument.
The verse they quote is "bring forth after their own kind."

As "they" interpret "after their own kind" to mean species, and both breeds
of dogs are the same species - then it follows that a dog can bring forth
** any dog ** within the same species (their logic.)
So poodles can ** obviously ** give birth to great danes and so on.

It is called a contradiction.
I like mathematics.
It can be used to prove or disprove rather esoteric things if you use it
well - not just in the mathematical world.

IOW - one of their great "I have a verse - KAPLONK" which they use to
explain creationism and they use to prove species do not change actually
preaches ... genetics.

Just like Darwin postulated ... though he was a tad before his time of
course.

As for species changes ... I do remember a talking snake being changed from
a four legged creature to the one who slithers on the ground. One of many
times that changes in species are mentioned in the bible. Me and a friend
composed a little list ... there were quite a few entries on it. ROTFLOL.

****

I saw an interesting experiment on TV which began during the time of the
former USSR and finished in Russia (same place, different political times)
where they tried, and succeeded in breeding dogs from wolves, replicating
what they theorized occurred ... I think from memory, 100,000 years ago.

The experiment succeeded - they thought it would take 40 years but it
succeeded in 35.

But you must remember that creationists do not think in terms of species in
the same way science does. Wombats are NOT the same species as hippo's and
Tasmanian tigers are not related to Kangaroos.
And G_d has a magical wand which kazaps "the words" and Powie ... there is
a rabbit!

I note Andrew has avoided me.

Why does he hate me so much? What have I done to him that he will not
reply?
I want to talk all about biblical evolution.

All he has to do is ask ...
But for some reason, I doubt if he will.

--
Mordecai!

When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is
wrong, and reality is Never wrong.

[Andrew]

"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:b798b618-5e33-46b2...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

Scrambling, repeating or damaging existing genetic instructions
is not a known mechanism for the development of new complex
structures and functions. However it IS a fantasized mechanism.

[Andrew]

"linuxgal" wrote in message news:IKKdnblp_fU2mPfM...@giganews.com...

> Andrew wrote:
>
>> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>> genetic information necessary to produce a super-

>> complex bio nano-machine.
>
> Why not?

Because natural selection can only possibly
select from that which already exists.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 14 Apr, 09:18, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in messagenews:IKKdnblp_fU2mPfM...@giganews.com...

I write the sentence:

"I have a god"

I then reverse the direction of just three letters:

"I have a dog"

A small change.

But a big difference.

In fact new information has emerged.

[casey]

On Apr 14, 6:17 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:b798b618-5e33-46b2...@l5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

No it is a real mechanism which is used to train an
artificial neural network to recognize patterns.

[casey]

On Apr 14, 6:18 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in messagenews:IKKdnblp_fU2mPfM...@giganews.com...

It can select from new things that come into
existence when the thing that "already" exists
is able to duplicate many variations of itself

[Andrew]

"harry k" wrote in message news:26e41c64-7f7c-40bb...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Shot down with hypothetical fantasy, which means that your
objections to truth are based on fantasy, which indicates that
your entire worldview and belief structure is a delusion and
also based on fantasy.

[Andrew]

"casey" wrote in message news:85e67eae-296a-41c1...@ul7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

Was your artificial neural network the product of
a creation? Yes.

In God's creation, living things learn and adapt all
the time.

[Andrew]

"casey" wrote in message news:1aefc822-b3ee-47a4...@k6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "linuxgal" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>>
>> >> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>> >> genetic information necessary to produce a super-
>> >> complex bio nano-machine.
>>
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Because natural selection can only possibly
>> select from that which already exists.
>
> It can select from new things that come into
> existence when the thing that "already" exists
> is able to duplicate many variations of itself

OK, but the variations arise only from the
existing genetic information that is already
in the gene pool of that species, or from a
corruption of that information.

Thus natural selection could not possibly
be a mechanism to produce the new genetic

information necessary to produce a super-
complex bio nano-machine.

Thank you.

And may God be with you as you
study His fantastic creation.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <fcadnRNB9YQy9_fM...@earthlink.com>,

Why do you think that your simply declaring that what we say is fantasy
is worth anything?

If you think it's fantasy, it's your responsiblity to provide some
evidence to support that assertion. And evidence is DATA, not
quote-mined lies nor scripture.

But we all know you can't provide any such thing, so you'll continue to
make ridiculous and unsubstantiated statements that prove how out of
touch with reality you are.

I really don't know how you function out in the real world, as totally
ignorant of reality that you are.

[Andrew]

"raven1" wrote in message news:ln3km815m5o7uc3iu...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

Yes he provides an answer, but the "answer" he provides (see above)
is pure fantasy.

>>> A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
>>> be.Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a
>>> lazy default such as "intelligent design theory" would encourage. Here
>>> is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might
>>> broadcast to scientists: "if you don't understand how something works,
>>> never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the
>>> nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid
>>> down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex
>>> process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give
>>> up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't *work* on your mysteries.
>>> Bring us your mysteries so we can use them. Don't squander precious
>>> ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a
>>> last refuge for God.""
>>
>>Here he is revealing his anger and prejudice,
>>and resorts using "straw-man" arguments.
>
> He's spot-on, Andrew. "Intelligent Design" isn't scientific
> investigation, it's the abandonment of it.

It is rather an acknowledgment of where the evidence leads.

> It boils down to "I don't understand this, therefore, God,

But in your case, you don't understand, so you *fantasize*
a *hypothetical* evolutionary scenario.

> er, an unspecified intelligent designer whom I'm careful
> not to publicly identify as God so I can slip my religious
> beliefs into public schools under the guise of science, did it".

Just teach the kids the facts, let them make up their own
mind concerning origins.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ZY-dna0fO_pe-PfM...@earthlink.com>,

Bullshit.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <TqednTwhpP4J-PfM...@earthlink.com>,

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4_6dnX_QS54e_ffM...@earthlink.com>,

Only in your deluded mind.

> > But that by no means is any indication of your
> > fantasy of irreducible complexity.
>
> Irreducible complexity in the flagellum motor is not 'my
> fantasy' Jeanne, but is an acknowledged fact that is noted
> even in the above skeptic video posted by Casey. It states:
>
> "Studies have shown that removing any of the roughly 42
> proteins common to all flagella results in ZERO function."
>
> In other words, it IS irreducibly complex.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <N5adnZVpntW6_ffM...@earthlink.com>,

Are you truly this delusional?

> This is an excellent example of how materialists employ
> *fantasy* (not observable, repeatable science) to support
> their atheistic dogma.

What is "atheistic dogma" and what does it have to do with science?

> > an artificial neural network which starts with no
> > information as to how to recognize a pattern but
> > over time by mutating the connections and using
> > feedback as to the results (selection) it will
> > accumulate information it needs to carry out
> > the recognition task. The information isn't there
> > at the beginning and it is not programmed into
> > the network by a designer. So although these
> > simple networks may not be as complex as the
> > molecular mechanisms they do show how it
> > is possible to increase the information content
> > of a system.

Why didn't you respond to this? Though I am surprised you didn't just
snip it.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-EF55D7...@news.giganews.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

Yes, I have provided the evidence from Harvard University,
Dr. Howard C. Berg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y

[casey]

On Apr 14, 7:10 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "casey" wrote in messagenews:1aefc822-b3ee-47a4...@k6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew"  wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
>
> >> >> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
> >> >> genetic information necessary to produce a super-
> >> >> complex bio nano-machine.
>
> >> > Why not?
>
> >> Because natural selection can only possibly
> >> select from that which already exists.
>
> > It can select from new things that come into
> > existence when the thing that "already" exists
> > is able to duplicate many variations of itself
>
> OK, but the variations arise only from the
> existing genetic information that is already
> in the gene pool of that species, or from a
> corruption of that information.
>
> Thus natural selection could not possibly
> be a mechanism to produce the new genetic
> information necessary to produce a super-
> complex bio nano-machine.

Existing genetic information can be modified
to produce new genetic information. This
happens in an ANN when it learns a new
pattern. There is so much you don't know
that your views are based on ignorance and
I haven't the time to teach you even the
small amount I do know.

[Dakota]

I find it amusing that people who believe that animals talk because
their holy book says so tell us that we're the ones living in a
fantasy world.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <M_6dnUIYL50x6PfM...@earthlink.com>,

Describe the fantasy in great detail, complete with data as evidence.

> >>> A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
> >>> be.Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a
> >>> lazy default such as "intelligent design theory" would encourage. Here
> >>> is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might
> >>> broadcast to scientists: "if you don't understand how something works,
> >>> never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the
> >>> nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid
> >>> down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex
> >>> process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give
> >>> up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't *work* on your mysteries.
> >>> Bring us your mysteries so we can use them. Don't squander precious
> >>> ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a
> >>> last refuge for God.""
> >>
> >>Here he is revealing his anger and prejudice,
> >>and resorts using "straw-man" arguments.
> >
> > He's spot-on, Andrew. "Intelligent Design" isn't scientific
> > investigation, it's the abandonment of it.
>
> It is rather an acknowledgment of where the evidence leads.

Bullshit. Pure bullshit.

> > It boils down to "I don't understand this, therefore, God,
>
> But in your case, you don't understand, so you *fantasize*
> a *hypothetical* evolutionary scenario.

If it was fantasy and hypothetical, then please explain how using it
produce results based on it in the real world?

> > er, an unspecified intelligent designer whom I'm careful
> > not to publicly identify as God so I can slip my religious
> > beliefs into public schools under the guise of science, did it".
>
> Just teach the kids the facts, let them make up their own
> mind concerning origins.

You have no facts. All you have are assertions based on bullshit.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <CtWdnd1mRuB95ffM...@earthlink.com>,

A youtube video is not DATA, so it's not the evidence I asked for.

Here's a clue for you: Peer-reviewed papers are usually where the data
lives.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <MMadnTH7vtlT7PfM...@earthlink.com>,

Complete and total bullshit.

[Andrew]

"John Locke" wrote in message news:bsljm8hb7an8rgo93...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>>Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>>many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>>a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>
>>It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>>motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>>quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>>it to function.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>
>>Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>evidence reveal it to be?
>>

> ...irreducible complexity has been totally and completely debunked.
> The defense tried in vain to use this flawed argument in the
> Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_Distric
>
> The final determination:
>
> "The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the
> same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
> science in the 1980s."
>
> Here is a critique by Kem Miller of this highly flawed argument:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

Here Ken Miller acknowledges that natural selection is
NOT evidence for the evolution of the flagellum motor,
it is rather an "argument". And you fail to realize that it
is a *fantasized* argument, based on hypothetical highly
improbable imagined evolutionary scenarios.

In other word, pure fantasy.

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:exnat.579616$Q91.3...@newsfe26.iad...
> On 4/13/2013 8:21 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Uncle Vic" wrote:

>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>>> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>>> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>>> evidence reveal it to be?
>>>

>>> Evolution, of course. There is no question.
>>
>> "No question", he says.
>>
> Yes. Yes he did. And he's quite right.

Here's someone else who actually believes that the
complex flagellum motor http://alturl.com/zf9ju
is the result of a series of "evolutionary accidents".

Amazing!

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <KNudna7pefAEHvfM...@earthlink.com>,

Who cares about people's personal opinions? You seem to be stuck on
that, and it's meaningless.

Nothing matters but data. And data only matters when it can be
replicated and when it can be used to predict things that actually occur
and produce products that actually work as intended.

Your assertions cannot do any of that, nor can the personal opinions of
any person. Therefore, they are pure bullshit.

[Andrew]

"casey" wrote in message news:508e3290-ba86-42cc...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> Religion uses creation as a proof of a god

Creation is positive evidence for a Creator.

> so anything that shows god wasn't required
> for creation becomes an issue for them.

Can you explain how you could have a
creation without there being a Creator?

No.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <CIadnVwPe9JVHPfM...@earthlink.com>,

Complete and total bullshit.

Where's the data? If you cannot provide data which has been
peer-reviewed and replicated, then anything you say is bullshit.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Zu-dnaEFDKAqG_fM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "casey" wrote in message
> news:508e3290-ba86-42cc...@ot10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Religion uses creation as a proof of a god
>
> Creation is positive evidence for a Creator.

Sez you. The real world disagrees.

> > so anything that shows god wasn't required
> > for creation becomes an issue for them.
>
> Can you explain how you could have a
> creation without there being a Creator?
>
> No.

The answer is simple--there was no "creation".

[Tom McDonald]

On 4/14/2013 2:54 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "casey" wrote in message news:ebcff9c0-6641-43e9...@ka6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 14, 3:19 pm, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> On 14 Apr, 02:24, "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "casey" wrote:

>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>>>>>> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>>>>>> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>>
>>>>>> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>>>>>> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>>>>>> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>>>>>> it to function.
>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>>
>>>>>> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>>>>> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>>>>> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>>>>> evidence reveal it to be?
>>>

>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>>> Because Darwin didn't know about genetics there
>>>>> were some things he had trouble explaining despite
>>>>> the fact that the evidence was that life evolved
>>>>> and mechanism for it was hereditable mutation and
>>>>> natural selection.
>>>
>>>> The mechanism you mention will be active upon the
>>>> existing genetic make-up of an existing organism or
>>>> species. It cannot create the new genetic information
>>>> necessary for one life form to change into another, as
>>>> per Darwin.
>>>
>>> Care to explain why mutations can't produce new information?
>>
>> The simple example I have already given Andrew is
>
> The acknowledged philosophy of the author of the video
> you posted is, "If I can imagine how something evolved,
> then it could have evolved. And if it could have evolved,
> it did thus evolve, and was not the product of a creation."
>

> This is an excellent example of how materialists employ
> *fantasy* (not observable, repeatable science) to support
> their atheistic dogma.
>

>> an artificial neural network which starts with no
>> information as to how to recognize a pattern but
>> over time by mutating the connections and using
>> feedback as to the results (selection) it will
>> accumulate information it needs to carry out
>> the recognition task. The information isn't there
>> at the beginning and it is not programmed into
>> the network by a designer. So although these
>> simple networks may not be as complex as the
>> molecular mechanisms they do show how it
>> is possible to increase the information content
>> of a system.
>
>

Nicely played, Andrew! You avoid the actual experiment (observable,
repeatable science) by preemptively calling it fantasy! Why didn't I
think of that? You can win any argument, as long as you don't look at
the evidence presented by the other side!

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 03:37:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

From an engineering POV(point of view), people experience as 'reality',
a representation or model, I call a 'virtual reality'. That goes on in all,
including "Andrew", including 'you' and 'me'. 'Human' cultural dealings
with this needs improving. One person's "bullshit", is to that person,
'reality'.

The taking of this 'virtual reality' as 'reality' is
another example where legacy 'folk talk' gets 'us' into trouble.
Analogous to the 'flat earth' debacle.

[Tom McDonald]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=As1HlmYeh7Q&feature=fvwp

[casey]

On Apr 14, 9:55 pm, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 03:37:14 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <CIadnVwPe9JVHPfMnZ2dnUVZ_sqdn...@earthlink.com>,

This virtual reality however has to reflect the actual reality
otherwise we couldn't function.

Kanizsa's triangle is an example of a constructed reality which
we can show doesn't exist "out there" by scanning the light
levels with a light measuring instrument. So there are ways
we can test our experience of reality with reality itself.

[Tom McDonald]

On 4/14/2013 4:40 AM, Andrew wrote:

Ah. The video isn't by Berg, and it explicitly states that it shows
*speculative* illustrations of how the flagellum works.

Can you say 'fantasy', Andrew?

I knew you could.

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

It is getting such that 'we' can't function.

>
>Kanizsa's triangle is an example of a constructed reality which
>we can show doesn't exist "out there" by scanning the light
>levels with a light measuring instrument. So there are ways
>we can test our experience of reality with reality itself.
>

'Our' legacy 'instruments', will have to do, at least with 'our'
present genome. Then there are constraints on the brain and
brain function.

'Reality' remains mysterious, despite any translation instruments.

[Sir Fred M. McNeill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_contours

[Devils Advocaat]

On 14 Apr, 10:10, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "casey" wrote in messagenews:1aefc822-b3ee-47a4...@k6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew"  wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
>
> >> >> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
> >> >> genetic information necessary to produce a super-
> >> >> complex bio nano-machine.
>
> >> > Why not?
>
> >> Because natural selection can only possibly
> >> select from that which already exists.
>
> > It can select from new things that come into
> > existence when the thing that "already" exists
> > is able to duplicate many variations of itself
>
> OK, but the variations arise only from the
> existing genetic information that is already
> in the gene pool of that species, or from a
> corruption of that information.
>
> Thus natural selection could not possibly

> be a mechanism to produce the new genetic

> information necessary to produce a super-
> complex bio nano-machine.
>

> Thank you.
>
> And may God be with you as you
> study His fantastic creation.

So you're saying variations can occur, but nothing new can occur.

If the variation didn't exist before, then it must be new.

You must either be a smart troll to be so stupid.

Or you must be so stupid you only seem to be a smart troll.

[linuxgal]

Andrew wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in messagenews:IKKdnblp_fU2mPfM...@giganews.com...

>> >Andrew wrote:
>> >
>>> >>Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>>> >>genetic information necessary to produce a super-
>>> >>complex bio nano-machine.
>> >
>> >Why not?
> Because natural selection can only possibly
> select from that which already exists.

Baby steps. By analogy think of the modern dual core processor, and how
we got there from Edison's light bulb. Someone put an aluminum foil
"plate" around the glowing filament and got a diode which could extract
the audio information imposed on a radio carrier wave. Then another
someone put a screen between the filament and plate so a very small
signal coming from an antenna could control the larger stream of current
flowing through the vacuum in the bulb and you had amplification. Two
such bulbs and some resistors gave you a flip-flop that could store one
bit of data. The bulbs were replaced by little cans of silicon, and
eventually what used to fill an entire floor of a building could be
placed on a single wafer of silicon. After that we were really off and
running.


--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:KNudna7pefAEHvfM...@earthlink.com:

What is amazing is that there are still people alive in the 21st century
who insist life began with a wave of a magic wand, and call *that*
science.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:VradnZxEM5RunvfM...@earthlink.com:

> She believes that the flagellum motor is the product of natural
> selection.

No. She KNOWS that. That's the difference between fact and fantasy.

> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
> genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
> nano-machine.

Yes, it can. No gods necessary.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:ZY-dna0fO_pe-PfM...@earthlink.com:

> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:IKKdnblp_fU2mPfM...@giganews.com...

>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Except that natural selection cannot create the new

>>> genetic information necessary to produce a super-
>>> complex bio nano-machine.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because natural selection can only possibly
> select from that which already exists.
>

So you're going to have to wait until your churchy authority figures tell
you it's OK to accept natural selection as fact, plus a few hundred years.
We already accept it and are moving on, while you're stuck in the Medieval
sludge of creationism.

Which is your problem. Now go shit on your own carpet.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:MMadnTH7vtlT7PfM...@earthlink.com:

> "casey" wrote in message
> news:1aefc822-b3ee-47a4...@k6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>> "linuxgal" wrote:
>>> > Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>>> >> genetic information necessary to produce a super-
>>> >> complex bio nano-machine.
>>>
>>> > Why not?
>>>
>>> Because natural selection can only possibly
>>> select from that which already exists.
>>

>> It can select from new things that come into
>> existence when the thing that "already" exists
>> is able to duplicate many variations of itself
>
> OK, but the variations arise only from the
> existing genetic information that is already
> in the gene pool of that species, or from a
> corruption of that information.
>
> Thus natural selection could not possibly

> be a mechanism to produce the new genetic

> information necessary to produce a super-
> complex bio nano-machine.

The truth is, we have no conclusive evidence for the origin of life. But
science doesn't fill holes in knowledge with a Big Dumb Guess.

>
> Thank you.
>
> And may God be with you as you
> study His fantastic creation.
>
>
>

Magic wands again, Andrew. You're uneducatable.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:mvadnRON4aUh7PfM...@earthlink.com:

> "casey" wrote in message
> news:85e67eae-296a-41c1...@ul7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>>> > "Andrew" wrote:

>>> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:
>>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is
>>> >> >> found on many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient
>>> >> >> bio-nanomotor having a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton
>>> >> >> motor drive system.
>>>
>>> >> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The
>>> >> >> flagellum motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse
>>> >> >> direction in a quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which
>>> >> >> MUST be in place for it to function.
>>>
>>> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>>

>>> >> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>> >> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>> >> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>> >> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>>>

>>> >> > Neither.
>>>
>>> >> > It's the result of natural selection.

>>>
>>> >> She believes that the flagellum motor is the product of natural
>>> >> selection.
>>>

>>> > Yup.

>>>
>>> >> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>>> >> genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
>>> >> nano-machine.
>>>

>>> > *Sure* it can. It does so all the time. See mutation, diploidy,
>>> > haploidy, and polyploidy. And those are just the first ones off
>>> > the top of my head, and I'm not a scientist.
>>>
>>> Scrambling, repeating or damaging existing genetic instructions
>>> is not a known mechanism for the development of new complex
>>> structures and functions. However it IS a fantasized mechanism.
>>
>> No it is a real mechanism which is used to train an
>> artificial neural network to recognize patterns.
>
> Was your artificial neural network the product of
> a creation? Yes.

And your evidence for this is what? I know, it's in The Book. A book
which also claims bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, and people can
float around in the sky and cure disease by talking to their hands.

>
> In God's creation, living things learn and adapt all
> the time.
>

Your "creation" seems to contradict science. Why is that? Is gaining
knowledge a "sin"? Are you afraid you're going to lose your imagined
afterlife? Hint: you never had eternal life in the first place. You're
a biological being like the rest of us. You will die like the rest of
us. And you will cease to exist. Like the rest of us.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:03:28 -0500, Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew is very proud to be rejecting science so he can rely on the
indefensible falsehoods of his religious doctrines.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:18:43 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"linuxgal" wrote in message news:IKKdnblp_fU2mPfM...@giganews.com...

>> Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>>> genetic information necessary to produce a super-
>>> complex bio nano-machine.
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because natural selection can only possibly
>select from that which already exists.
>
>

Which is why _variation_ precedes natural selection.

Do you know anything at all about biology?

[nature bats_last]

On Apr 13, 2:29 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> it to function.
>
>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> evidence reveal it to be?
>
> Thank you.

Since that has been answered here twice, to you,
for your benefit -- at least once, I do recall, with
a detailed paper -- why are you
so arrogant as to think anyone will waste
time on you yet again?

Really, "fantasy" boi, why should anyone bother?


NBL

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:09:49 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"casey" wrote in message news:85e67eae-296a-41c1...@ul7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote:

>>> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>>> >> >> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>>> >> >> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>>
>>> >> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>>> >> >> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>>> >> >> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>>> >> >> it to function.
>>>
>>> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>>
>>> >> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>> >> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>> >> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>> >> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>>>

>>> >> > Neither.
>>>
>>> >> > It's the result of natural selection.
>>>
>>> >> She believes that the flagellum motor is the product of natural
>>> >> selection.
>>>
>>> > Yup.
>>>

>>> >> Except that natural selection cannot create the new

>>> >> genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
>>> >> nano-machine.
>>>
>>> > *Sure* it can. It does so all the time. See mutation, diploidy,
>>> > haploidy, and polyploidy. And those are just the first ones off the
>>> > top of my head, and I'm not a scientist.
>>>
>>> Scrambling, repeating or damaging existing genetic instructions
>>> is not a known mechanism for the development of new complex
>>> structures and functions. However it IS a fantasized mechanism.
>>
>> No it is a real mechanism which is used to train an
>> artificial neural network to recognize patterns.
>
>Was your artificial neural network the product of
>a creation? Yes.
>

>In God's creation, living things learn and adapt all
>the time.

Clearly Andrew hates the god that he claims to worship. Why else would
he tell such lies about how his gods "creation" works?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:40:16 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-EF55D7...@news.giganews.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>> "harry k" wrote:
>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>>> >> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>>> >> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>> >>
>>> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>>> >> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>>> >> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>>> >> it to function.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>> >>
>>> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>>> >>

>>> >> Thank you.
>>> >
>>> > Suppose you read the Dover trial reports - all your questions
>>> > will be answered and not to your satisfaction.
>>> > That "flagellum" crap you theistic morons are so proud of was
>>> > shot down in flames years ago.
>>>
>>> Shot down with hypothetical fantasy, which means that your
>>> objections to truth are based on fantasy, which indicates that
>>> your entire worldview and belief structure is a delusion and
>>> also based on fantasy.
>>
>> Why do you think that your simply declaring that what we say
>> is fantasy is worth anything?
>>
>> If you think it's fantasy, it's your responsiblity to provide some
>> evidence to support that assertion. And evidence is DATA, not
>> quote-mined lies nor scripture.
>
>Yes, I have provided the evidence from Harvard University,
>Dr. Howard C. Berg:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y

You have a long history of misrepresenting things. Why should I watch a
video just because you cannot find any actual science to support your
false religious delusions?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT), nature bats_last
<seqk...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew acts as if he is infallible and mere evidence must be dismissed
because he is the purveyor of the words of the god he worships. Andrew
is always right because Andrew says he is always right.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in news:M_
6dnUIYL50x6PfMn...@earthlink.com:

>>>Here he is revealing his anger and prejudice,
>>>and resorts using "straw-man" arguments.
>>
>> He's spot-on, Andrew. "Intelligent Design" isn't scientific
>> investigation, it's the abandonment of it.
>
> It is rather an acknowledgment of where the evidence leads.

You've NEVER posted satisfactory evidence that shows evolution is wrong.
Which means it's only what you believe, and then only because your gods are
included, and if you finally decide to accept the facts you'll lose
something you never had in the first place.

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:4_6dnX_QS54e_ffM...@earthlink.com:

> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message

> news:hlwdjsd2-EDAE78...@news.giganews.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "casey" wrote:

>>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found
>>> >> on many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor
>>> >> having a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive
>>> >> system.
>>> >>
>>> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The
>>> >> flagellum motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse
>>> >> direction in a quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which
>>> >> MUST be in place for it to function.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>> >>
>>> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you.
>>> >

>>> > Because Darwin didn't know about genetics there
>>> > were some things he had trouble explaining despite
>>> > the fact that the evidence was that life evolved
>>> > and mechanism for it was hereditable mutation and
>>> > natural selection.
>>>
>>> The mechanism you mention will be active upon the
>>> existing genetic make-up of an existing organism or
>>> species. It cannot create the new genetic information
>>> necessary for one life form to change into another, as
>>> per Darwin.
>>>

>>> > So don't think coming up with some things that we
>>> > have yet to explain will disprove evolution when
>>> > the overwhelming evidence is that we evolved.
>>>
>>> Evidence shows that life has indeed evolved (or shall
>>> we say devolved) since the beauty and perfection that
>>> it had at the original Creation.
>>>
>>> > In the mean time do your research.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
>>>
>>> Thanks for your video, which I note acknowledges that
>>> the flagellum motor is...
>>>
>>> "Without doubt one of the most amazing biological
>>> machines ever discovered."
>>>
>>> It is indeed.
>>
>> It may be.
>
> Yes, but remember that it is only *one of* the most
> amazing biological machines ever discovered. There
> are many more. All testify to the skill and wisdom of
> our awesome Creator ---> God.

Another claim. Which you refuse to back up. Which makes it dismissable.
Science made the discovery of the flagellan motor. Which you claim is
irreducibly complex. Yet science has also discovered that part of the
flagellan mechanism, separated from the rest of the mechanism, functions
differently from the FM. It functions. IOW, it is NOT irreducibly
complex. IOW, you're wrong, Andrew. Gee, what else could you be wrong
about?

>
>> But that by no means is any indication of your
>> fantasy of irreducible complexity.
>
> Irreducible complexity in the flagellum motor is not 'my
> fantasy' Jeanne, but is an acknowledged fact that is noted
> even in the above skeptic video posted by Casey. It states:
>
> "Studies have shown that removing any of the roughly 42
> proteins common to all flagella results in ZERO function."
>
> In other words, it IS irreducibly complex.
>


IOW, you didn't watch anything beyond that point, where it is SHOWN how
the FM could have evolved. But you prefer the magic wand, to send the
scientists home where they can read their bibles and pray, instead of
looking for a working cure for cancer, AIDS, and diabetes. You prefer
"safe", out-dated science, before its findings challenged your beliefs
and debunked the bible's creation story. You prefer to fill the gaps in
human knowledge with a fiat answer that supports your belief in some kind
of life after you have passed away.

Don't think so? Then why did you choose that angle to oppose the facts
instead of claiming life was dropped off on earth by space aleins? I'll
tell you why - it doesn't fit your agenda. YOUR agenda, you self
centered moron.

[harry k]

On Apr 14, 12:56 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-EDAE78...@news.giganews.com...

> > But that by no means is any indication of your
> > fantasy of irreducible complexity.
>
> Irreducible complexity in the flagellum motor is not 'my
> fantasy' Jeanne, but is an acknowledged fact that is noted
> even in the above skeptic video posted by Casey. It states:
>
> "Studies have shown that removing any of the roughly 42
> proteins common to all flagella results in ZERO function."
>
> In other words, it IS irreducibly complex.

Why do you persist in spewing lies? That was shot down on the witness
stand at Dover years ago as well as in this forum and by scientists
repeatedly

Harry K

[harry k]

On Apr 14, 2:26 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "raven1" wrote in messagenews:ln3km815m5o7uc3iu...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:

> >>"raven1" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >>>>Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> >>>>many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> >>>>a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> >>>>It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> >>>>motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> >>>>quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> >>>>it to function.
>
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> >>>>Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> >>>>result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> >>>>a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> >>>>evidence reveal it to be?
>

> >>> Richard Dawkins has the answer to that, actually:
>
> >>> "The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS [Type Three
> >>> Secretory System] are very similar to the components of the flagellar
> >>> motor. To the evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were
> >>> commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the
> >>> flagellar motor evolved. Given that the TTSS is tugging molecules
> >>> through itself, it is not surprising that it uses a rudimentary
> >>> version of the principle used by the flagellar motor, which tugs the
> >>> molecules of the axle round and round. Evidently, crucial components
> >>> of the flagellar motor were already in place and working before the
> >>> flagellar motor evolved. Commandeering existing mechanisms is an
> >>> obvious way in which an apparently irreducibly complex piece of
> >>> apparatus could climb Mount Improbable.
>
> >>Here he is hypothesizing the unlikely scenario that has evolution
> >>*commandeering* a supposedly previously existing biological
> >>system to build a new structure having a different function. But
> >>this is only fantasy, not science.
>
> > You're missing the point badly, Andrew. He doesn't have to give the
> > correct answer to show that "irreducible complexity" is false, the
> > fact that an answer is possible at all is sufficient to refute the notion.
>
> Yes he provides an answer, but the "answer" he provides (see above)
> is pure fantasy.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
> >>> be.Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a
> >>> lazy default such as "intelligent design theory" would encourage. Here
> >>> is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might
> >>> broadcast to scientists: "if you don't understand how something works,
> >>> never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the
> >>> nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid
> >>> down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex
> >>> process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give
> >>> up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't *work* on your mysteries.
> >>> Bring us your mysteries so we can use them. Don't squander precious
> >>> ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a
> >>> last refuge for God.""

>
> >>Here he is revealing his anger and prejudice,
> >>and resorts using "straw-man" arguments.
>
> > He's spot-on, Andrew. "Intelligent Design" isn't scientific
> > investigation, it's the abandonment of it.
>
> It is rather an acknowledgment of where the evidence leads.
>

> > It boils down to "I don't understand this, therefore, God,
>
> But in your case, you don't understand, so you *fantasize*
> a *hypothetical* evolutionary scenario.
>
> > er, an unspecified intelligent designer whom I'm careful
> > not to publicly identify as God so I can slip my religious
> > beliefs into public schools under the guise of science, did it".
>
> Just teach the kids the facts, let them make up their own
> mind concerning origins.

How do you teach known facts withouth the kids "learning" what the
origins were?

All you guys have is kids learning the facts and then being brain
washed at home and chruch into denying them.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Apr 14, 2:40 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd2-EF55D7...@news.giganews.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:

> >> "harry k" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> >> >> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> >> >> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> >> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> >> >> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> >> >> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> >> >> it to function.
>
> >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> >> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> >> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> >> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> >> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>

> >> >> Thank you.
>
> >> > Suppose you read the Dover trial reports - all your questions
> >> > will be answered and not to your satisfaction.
> >> > That "flagellum" crap you theistic morons are so proud of was
> >> > shot down in flames years ago.
>
> >> Shot down with hypothetical fantasy, which means that your
> >> objections to truth are based on fantasy, which indicates that
> >> your entire worldview and belief structure is a delusion and
> >> also based on fantasy.
>
> > Why do you think that your simply declaring that what we say
> > is fantasy is worth anything?
>
> > If you think it's fantasy, it's your responsiblity to provide some
> > evidence to support that assertion. And evidence is DATA, not
> > quote-mined lies nor scripture.
>
> Yes, I have provided the evidence from Harvard University,
> Dr. Howard C. Berg:
>
>      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y

You tube as evidence is worth the piece of toilet paper I used this
morning.

Harry K

[harry k]

On Apr 14, 1:39 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "harry k" wrote in messagenews:26e41c64-7f7c-40bb...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
> >> Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
> >> many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
> >> a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>
> >> It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
> >> motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
> >> quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
> >> it to function.
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>
> >> Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
> >> result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
> >> a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
> >> evidence reveal it to be?
>
> >> Thank you.
>
> > Suppose you read the Dover trial reports - all your questions
> > will be answered and not to your satisfaction.
> > That "flagellum" crap you theistic morons are so proud of was
> > shot down in flames years ago.
>
> Shot down with hypothetical fantasy, which means that your
> objections to truth are based on fantasy, which indicates that
> your entire worldview and belief structure is a delusion and
> also based on fantasy.

I have news for you. Your denial of evidence does not make it go away.

Harry K

[Uncle Vic]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in news:N5adnZVpntW6
_ffMnZ2dnU...@earthlink.com:

> The acknowledged philosophy of the author of the video
> you posted is, "If I can imagine how something evolved,
> then it could have evolved. And if it could have evolved,
> it did thus evolve, and was not the product of a creation."

Who "acknowledged" this? You're doing more to destroy your religious views
than to support them, if you have to resort to lying.

>
> This is an excellent example of how materialists employ
> *fantasy* (not observable, repeatable science) to support
> their atheistic dogma.

Another disgusting moron who doesn't understand that atheism has nothing to
do with biology, although (as in Darwin's case) understanding biology can
cause one to lose one's faith.

[raven1]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 02:26:37 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"raven1" wrote in message news:ln3km815m5o7uc3iu...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:

>>>"raven1" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Folks, let is consider today the flagellum motor which is found on
>>>>>many bacteria. It is in fact a super efficient bio-nanomotor having
>>>>>a water-cooled rotary engine and a proton motor drive system.
>>>>>
>>>>>It has two gears, forward and reverse, and a clutch. The flagellum
>>>>>motor whirls at hundred rpm. It can stop and reverse direction in a
>>>>>quarter turn. It has forty parts -all- of which MUST be in place for
>>>>>it to function.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y
>>>>>
>>>>>Now here is my question for you please, "Is this product the
>>>>>result of a series of evolutionary accidents? OR the result of
>>>>>a design envisioned by a powerful Designer"? What does the
>>>>>evidence reveal it to be?
>>>>

>>>> Richard Dawkins has the answer to that, actually:
>>>>
>>>> "The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS [Type Three
>>>> Secretory System] are very similar to the components of the flagellar
>>>> motor. To the evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were
>>>> commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the
>>>> flagellar motor evolved. Given that the TTSS is tugging molecules
>>>> through itself, it is not surprising that it uses a rudimentary
>>>> version of the principle used by the flagellar motor, which tugs the
>>>> molecules of the axle round and round. Evidently, crucial components
>>>> of the flagellar motor were already in place and working before the
>>>> flagellar motor evolved. Commandeering existing mechanisms is an
>>>> obvious way in which an apparently irreducibly complex piece of
>>>> apparatus could climb Mount Improbable.
>>>
>>>Here he is hypothesizing the unlikely scenario that has evolution
>>>*commandeering* a supposedly previously existing biological
>>>system to build a new structure having a different function. But
>>>this is only fantasy, not science.
>>
>> You're missing the point badly, Andrew. He doesn't have to give the
>> correct answer to show that "irreducible complexity" is false, the
>> fact that an answer is possible at all is sufficient to refute the notion.
>
>Yes he provides an answer, but the "answer" he provides (see above)
>is pure fantasy.

Why, because you say so? And again, you're missing the point: *any*
answer, however unlikely, falsifies the notion of IC. It doesn't have
to be correct, just possible:

Andrew: "This is clearly impossible!"
Dawkins:: "No it's not, what about [example above]?"
Andrew: "Well what are the chances of *that*?"

The point is that "this is impossible" has been shown to be false, no
matter what possibilities you choose to reject as unlikely.

>>>> A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I'm sure it will
>>>> be.Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a
>>>> lazy default such as "intelligent design theory" would encourage. Here
>>>> is the message that an imaginary "intelligent design theorist" might
>>>> broadcast to scientists: "if you don't understand how something works,
>>>> never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the
>>>> nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand how memories are laid
>>>> down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex
>>>> process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give
>>>> up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't *work* on your mysteries.
>>>> Bring us your mysteries so we can use them. Don't squander precious
>>>> ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a
>>>> last refuge for God.""
>>>
>>>Here he is revealing his anger and prejudice,
>>>and resorts using "straw-man" arguments.
>>
>> He's spot-on, Andrew. "Intelligent Design" isn't scientific
>> investigation, it's the abandonment of it.
>
>It is rather an acknowledgment of where the evidence leads.

No, it is not. It's shrugging and saying "I don't know how this
happened, therefore, Goddidit.". It's not just intellectually lazy,
it's outright abandonment of examining where the evidence leads.

>> It boils down to "I don't understand this, therefore, God,
>
>But in your case, you don't understand, so you *fantasize*
>a *hypothetical* evolutionary scenario.

Missing the point again Andrew. Nothing we have ever investigated has
turned out to have anything other than a natural explanation, and
since science deals exclusively with the natural world, our hypotheses
are always going to start there.

>> er, an unspecified intelligent designer whom I'm careful
>> not to publicly identify as God so I can slip my religious
>> beliefs into public schools under the guise of science, did it".
>
>Just teach the kids the facts, let them make up their own
>mind concerning origins.

You may not want to go that route, Andrew. As I noted above, no
phenomenon has ever turned out to have anything other than a natural
explanation. If the kids watch "Scooby Doo" at all, they're eventually
going to notice that fact, and start to realize it's always going to
be a mundane explanation, not a real ghost, for things we don't
understand yet.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:24:58 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in news:N5adnZVpntW6
>_ffMnZ2dnU...@earthlink.com:
>
>> The acknowledged philosophy of the author of the video
>> you posted is, "If I can imagine how something evolved,
>> then it could have evolved. And if it could have evolved,
>> it did thus evolve, and was not the product of a creation."
>
>Who "acknowledged" this? You're doing more to destroy your religious views
>than to support them, if you have to resort to lying.
>
>>
>> This is an excellent example of how materialists employ
>> *fantasy* (not observable, repeatable science) to support
>> their atheistic dogma.
>
>Another disgusting moron who doesn't understand that atheism has nothing to
>do with biology, although (as in Darwin's case) understanding biology can
>cause one to lose one's faith.

I suspect that Andrew knows that he would have to abandon the
religiously-inspired falsehoods he spreads here if he were to start
learning, to deal honestly with science. That is why he has chosen
falsehoods instead of knowledge. He worships the false religion he
preaches.

[linuxgal]

Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 18:25:50 -0800, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>
>> >Andrew wrote:
>>> >>Except that natural selection cannot create the new
>>> >>genetic information necessary to produce a super-complex bio
>>> >>nano-machine.
>> >

>> >Why not?
> Because some idiot made that claim and Andrew believed it. At the Dover
> trial, the evidence that the creationists were making a false claim was
> brought forward to show how wrong they were.

I want to see an abstract of a paper published in a mainstream journal
demonstrating how complex organelles cannot develop through natural
means and require supernatural intervention. Otherwise life is short
and I have more important things to attend.