Complex Design Beyond mankinds capability
All-seeing-I
to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial
flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
Motors are the product of intelligent design.
Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an
"irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one
composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system
to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail
to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no
naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial
flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)
The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex
molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just
one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic
biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although
the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than
10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory
containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate
molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand
million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man
and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)
That sums it up nicely.
Boikat
No, what sums it up is "I can't see how...therfore it was created by a
magical sky pixie."
>
> http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
You are an idiot, a gullible fool, and a simplton, and are totally
clueless when it coems to science.
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<f23a92ef-1d8e-4aee...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
>to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
>the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial
>flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
>not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
>their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
>joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
>recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
>expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
>flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
>Motors are the product of intelligent design.
>
>Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
>evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an
>"irreducibly complex" system.
No it isn't. For a start parts of the flagellum are the same as the
type III secretion system, so it is not "irreducibly complex".
Here's a rebuttal, it's an animation showing how the flagellum could
have evolved in steps - each of which are functional:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
Here's some additional material on how the flagellum could have evolved,
none of them include magic:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
<snip - wishful thinking removed>
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <f23a92ef-1d8e-4aee-a2d0-2e8bbcb61...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> >When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
> >to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
> >the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial
> >flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
> >not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
> >their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
> >joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
> >recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
> >expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
> >flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
> >Motors are the product of intelligent design.
>
> >Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
> >evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an
> >"irreducibly complex" system.
>
> No it isn't. For a start parts of the flagellum are the same as the
> type III secretion system, so it is not "irreducibly complex".
Common design parts of irreducibly complex" system
>
> Here's a rebuttal, it's an animation showing how the flagellum could
> have evolved in steps - each of which are functional:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
How utterly childish. A video claiming "my story is better then your
story" while playing ancient "Boston" tunes.
Enough said
Boikat
> On Nov 22, 5:37 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message
> > <f23a92ef-1d8e-4aee-a2d0-2e8bbcb61...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> > >When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
> > >to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
> > >the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial
> > >flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
> > >not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
> > >their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
> > >joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
> > >recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
> > >expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
> > >flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
> > >Motors are the product of intelligent design.
>
> > >Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
> > >evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an
> > >"irreducibly complex" system.
>
> > No it isn't. For a start parts of the flagellum are the same as the
> > type III secretion system, so it is not "irreducibly complex".
>
> Common design parts of irreducibly complex" system
Which is not evidence of a *designer*, you incredulous twit.
>
>
>
> > Here's a rebuttal, it's an animation showing how the flagellum could
> > have evolved in steps - each of which are functional:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
>
> How utterly childish. A video claiming "my story is better then your
> story" while playing ancient "Boston" tunes.
>
> Enough said-
Ignorant fool. When you have some actual *evidence* of a *designer*,
do let everyone know about it. Your limited perceptive and reasoning
abilities do not count as *evidence*, in case you're wondering.
Boikat
Ron O
This is an old article by the looks of the citations. This was from
before the ID perps started running the bait and switch on the stupid
rubes that had believed the intelligent design bullpucky. You should
read the Dover court transcripts, or at least the decision to see how
much this old junk was worth. You could just realize that Denton left
the Discovery Institute after he wrote a second book that essentially
said that the first book was bogus, and that common descent
(biological evolution) was a fact of nature. He had some weird notion
of what he thought a god would be like in the second book that didn't
agree with the other ID perps and he was history. Behe claimed that
he never supported teaching the ID claptrap. He also admitted that
neither he nor anyone that he knew of had ever valdiated any of the ID
junk. He actually claimed that he hadn't tried to validate his junk,
and that he didn't think that he had to do any validation. What does
that tell you about any qoute out of his books? Just think of all the
stupid and dishonest arguments that you have not been able to validate
that came out of creationist literature. Behe thinks that he is being
honest by admitting that his junk is worthless after the fact, but
that doesn't stop the guys that bought his book from being fooled by
the bogus junk.
Here is a more recent quote from Philip Johnson. This is the guy that
supposedly got the ID scam rolling in the early 1990s. The other ID
perps referred to him as the godfather of the ID scam. He doesn't
appologize for running the scam for over a decade, he just points the
finger of failure at the "science" guys (such as Behe and Denton)
involved in the ID scam for never coming up with any ID science worth
teaching.
QUOTE:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design
at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the
Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully
worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s
comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific
people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are
quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No
product is ready for competition in the educational world.
END QUOTE:
http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
If you are still stupid enough to think that there is anything worth
supporting in the ID claptrap just get your local school board to
teach the wonderful science of intelligent design and watch how fast
the bait and switch scam comes in. Look up the switch scam and find
out that it doesn't even mention ID nor creationism as part of any
scientific controversy. It is just an obfuscation scam. So where is
the ID science? Why did the ID perps start running the bait and
switch years before they lost in court?
This is just another bogus creationist web link that you got suckered
with. Why can't you find any honest and valid creationist arguments?
Ron Okimoto
All-seeing-I
>
> If you are still stupid enough to think that there is anything worth
> supporting in the ID claptrap just get your local school board to
> teach the wonderful science of intelligent design and watch how fast
> the bait and switch scam comes in. Look up the switch scam and find
> out that it doesn't even mention ID nor creationism as part of any
> scientific controversy. It is just an obfuscation scam. So where is
> the ID science? Why did the ID perps start running the bait and
> switch years before they lost in court?
>
> This is just another bogus creationist web link that you got suckered
> with. Why can't you find any honest and valid creationist arguments?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well. You have never given an outline for what you consider an "honest
and valid creationist argument" Ron.
It seems you ask for something that can never be provided.
Why is that?
Boikat
Something testable and verifiable would be nice.
>
> It seems you ask for something that can never be provided.
Because there aren't any?
>
> Why is that?
It's hard to discribe something nobody has ever seen. You should be
familiar with that concept.
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<6e4fca65-7e99-45ef...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>On Nov 22, 5:37�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <f23a92ef-1d8e-4aee-a2d0-2e8bbcb61...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>>
>> >When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
>> >to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
>> >the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial
>> >flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
>> >not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
>> >their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
>> >joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
>> >recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
>> >expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
>> >flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
>> >Motors are the product of intelligent design.
>>
>> >Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
>> >evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an
>> >"irreducibly complex" system.
>>
>> No it isn't. �For a start parts of the flagellum are the same as the
>> type III secretion system, so it is not "irreducibly complex".
>
>Common design parts of irreducibly complex" system
By definition the phrase "irreducibly complex" means that no parts can
be removed without destroying function. That fact that if all the parts
that are not a type III secretory system are removed from the flagellum
left with a functioning unit proves that the flagellum is not
"irreducibly complex".
In addition evolution *can* build IC systems:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evolve_irreducible.html
>> Here's a rebuttal, it's an animation showing how the flagellum could
>> have evolved in steps - each of which are functional:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
>
>How utterly childish. A video claiming "my story is better then your
>story" while playing ancient "Boston" tunes.
Your "story" is that it isn't possible to evolve IC systems.
The video and the two science pages (that you snipped) show how it is
possible, therefore they refute your "story" *unless* you provide
evidence that the video and other pages are wrong somehow. Go for it.
Here are the web sites again:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116.full.pdf+html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
Provide a metric for "complexity" in the biosphere,
shit-for-brains.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> Well. You have never given an outline for what you consider an "honest
> and valid creationist argument" Ron.
There aren't any, shit-for-brains.
Desertphile
> Well. You have never given an outline for what you consider an "honest
> and valid Creationist argument" Xxx.
Free Lunch
There are no honest and valid creationist arguments.
hersheyh
> When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
We can stop this boring repeat of IDiocy right here. The specified
part of the above amounts to an individual drawing a bull's eye around
an already existing bullet hole and declaring it was the intended goal
and we do not have to look any further about how the bullet hole godt
there.
Sapient Fridge
<6662648e-e7ef-4541...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
<snip>
>Well. You have never given an outline for what you consider an "honest
>and valid creationist argument" Ron.
An "honest and valid creationist argument" would be one that *supported*
creation (rather than just attacking evolution) and which was testable
in some way.
All the creationist arguments I've seen so far are either untestable, or
are attacks on evolution that prove to be invalid as soon as one does
any research into the matter. Look at your own posts and the replies
for evidence of that.
>It seems you ask for something that can never be provided.
Have a hard think about why it might be impossible to supply an "honest
and valid creationist argument".
We could give you thousands of testable statements about evolution, why
can't creationists find even one to support their side of the issue?
raven1
One that isn't based entirely on demonstrable lies, logical fallacies,
or complete ignorance of science would be an example. Got any to
present?
>It seems you ask for something that can never be provided.
That appears to be correct.
>Why is that?
Because unless they're being withheld from the public at large, there
apparently *aren't* any creationist arguments that aren't based on a
combination of demonstrable lies, logical fallacies, and complete
ignorance of science.
Ye Old One
But was completely blown apart during the Dover trial.
>
>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ron O
Because only a dishonest blowhard would claim to not know what I mean
by honest and valid.
Does the argument really mean what you think that it does? Have you
ever found an argument that was really an anti-evolution argument
worth spit? When you find out that the argument was just a bogus
outright lie like the "moon dust" argument or a misdirection ploy like
the "no transitional fossil" argument, then you know that it is not an
honest argument. No one should have to explain something like that to
you. Either the argument is what it claims to be or it isn't. If it
isn't what it claims it isn't honest. That is why you have to tell us
what the argument means to you, so we can determine if the argument
actually means what you think that it does.
You have just put up a lot of the ID scam arguments. These were never
valid arguments and it turns out that most of the ID perps were
dishonest and knew that they came up short years before they lost in
court and actually began running a bogus bait and switch scam on their
own creationist supporters. That you would put up the scam arguments
7 years after the bait and switch started going down and almost 4
years since they had to admit their bogousity in Dover is tragically
stupid.
I can claim that if you put enough plastic flamingos all over your
yard they will turn into real live flamingos, but what is the value in
my claim if I admit that I have never tried to validate the claim?
That is what the two ID "science" experts admitted under oath. Both
Minnich and Behe admitted that they hadn't bothered to validate their
ID claims. Behe even claimed that he didn't have to validate the
junk. He just had to write it up and sell the bogus books to the
rubes. The two experts admitted under oath that not only were they
basket cases that had never bothered to validate the junk, but that
they knew of no one that had validated any of the ID junk.
You are putting up arguments that are not valid because they were
never validated, by the admission of the guys that made up the
claims. Would the ID scam artists be running a bogus bait and switch
on rubes like yourself if they had valid arguments? Just check it out
for yourself. Get your local school board to teach the science of
intelligent design and watch how fast the switch scam comes in. Look
up who is perpetrating the switch scam and that the scam doesn't
mention intelligent design ever existed. What should that tell you?
These scam artists began running the bait and switch years before they
lost in court and had to admit that ID was bogus. These guys didn't
lie to just the science side, they made their own creationist support
base bend over and take the bogus switch scam instead of giving them
the ID science they claimed to have.
What don't you understand?
Ron Okimoto
raven1
Steven L.
> When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
> to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
> the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial
> flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
> not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
> their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
> joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
> recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
> expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
> flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
> Motors are the product of intelligent design.
This is Paley's argument all over again.
When I took Philosophy 101 in college, we deconstructed it. You don't
have to know anything about evolutionary biology to understand the flaws
in Paley's argument--they are flaws of logic.
We recognize drive-shafts, U-joints, propellers, that are made out of
iron, steel or plastic, as designed--because those forms don't exist
naturally in iron ore and we've seen humans forge them.
The fact that similar forms exist in protoplasm does NOT mean that they
likewise were designed--because we have no prior experience with
designing forms in protoplasm.
Snowflakes exhibit elegant six-sided symmetry which is evocative of
jewels, or maybe of tatting or origami. Does that mean that snowflakes
were designed too?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And it is better - because it works.
>while playing ancient "Boston" tunes.
Turn off the sound.
>
>Enough said
By you, yes.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Correct.
>
>Why is that?
Because there is no "honest and valid creationist argument".
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Mark Isaak
> When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
> to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
> the presence intelligent design.
Specified complexity was never meant to indicate design. Design is an
iterative process, but the process for detecting specified complexity
assumes it was created all in one go. Specified complexity was invented
to detect creation of the magical poofing sort. It is also quite prone
to a huge variety of false positives. To date, it has never functioned
as intended.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
>to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
>the presence intelligent design.
why? i prefer the laws of nature. we KNOW those exist.
intelligent design? it wasnt a factor until creationsts got their
asses handed to them by the SCOTUS in 1987. creationism is driven not
by science, but by lawyers
Take, for example, the bacterial
>flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
>not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
>their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
>joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
>recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
>expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
>flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
>Motors are the product of intelligent design.
uh...no. we know we can make machines. we know how those are produced.
and we can see evolution taking a system like that certain bacteria
use for injecting toxins, and adapting those for locomotion. the
systems are remarkably similar
so science explains what creationism can not.
creationists didn't know about bacteria.
>
>Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
>evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an
>"irreducibly complex" system.
actually it's not. see my comment above
An irreducibly complex system is one
>composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system
>to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail
>to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no
>naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial
>flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)
behe admitted, on the stand in 'kitzmiller', that he was unfamiliar
with the work on how IC systems can evolve. he said he simply had not
read about their evolution.
and i've talked to behe. he's a prof at my graduate alma mater. he's
paranoid
>
>The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex
>molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just
>one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic
>biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although
>the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than
>10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory
>containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate
>molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand
>million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man
>and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael
>Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)
>
>That sums it up nicely.
>
>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
by the way...you're aware that the author of your primary
reference...michael denton...has renounced creationism and now accepts
evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
it's always bad to quote from a guy who thinks his own argument was
wrong
John Stockwell
On Nov 22, 1:56 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
> to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
> the presence intelligent design.
There is no "general principle of detecting specified complexity".
>Take, for example, the bacterial
> flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
> not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly
> their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
> joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
> recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
> expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
> flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
> Motors are the product of intelligent design.
Actually, we do not detect design. We model manufacture.
At most the motor analogy to a flagellum is just that, an analogy
based on an oversimplification. So, Denton's convoluted reasoning
is:
"X looks superficially like a machine made by people
therefore X *is* a machine, but because it really is not at
all like machines made by people, the conclusion is that it
is a machine.
In reality, we do not identify design. We model the processes of
orgin of objects. Those objects that we conclude are manufactured
are concluded as such because we understand the process by
which the objects were manufactured.
According to creationists, flagella are unique items that are
genetically
isolated from all of all other biological structures. It is in that
shadow
of ignorance that "intelligent design" is asserted. Yet, subsequent
scientific investigations have shown that flagella are members
of a family of structures called "secretory structures".
>
> Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
> evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an
> "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one
> composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system
> to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail
> to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no
> naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial
> flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)
The second problem that creationists have with their thinking
is that they assume that "function" is a fixed attribute of biological
structures. It is not.
Flagella do have variability in the number of parts, and when
we recognize that flagella are part of a greater family of secretory
structures, we find that removing parts from a flagellum can made
one of these other structures, that has its own "function".
>
> The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex
> molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just
> one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic
> biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although
> the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than
> 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory
> containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate
> molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand
> million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man
> and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael
> Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)
Of course science progressed since this little bit of bad reasoning
was proposed, leaving Denton and the other creationists in the
dust.
-John
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity
Bullshit. No such thing.
>to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer
>the presence intelligent design.
Bullshit. When you do something reasonable, I'll let you know.
Your employment of the royal plural verges on imbecility.
> Take, for example, the bacterial
>flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is
>not convenient that we've given these parts these names
How inconvenient. Call Al Gore, he might actually give a shit.
> - that's truly
>their function.
An incoherency, even before it was parsed.
>If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-
>joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would
>recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would
>expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the
>flagellar motor --
Schmuck, the "motor" for the flagellum isn't outboard. It is within
the cell's membrane.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
> to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts.
Prove it.
>Motors are the product of intelligent design.
>
As opposed to unintelligent design?
>Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have
>evolved gradually over time.
Yet, it actually did.
Deal with it.
> The bacterial flagellum is an
>"irreducibly complex" system.
No, it is not.
>An irreducibly complex system is one
>composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system
>to function.
So Behe would like to think.
> If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail
>to function.
Which part did you have removed?
You fail at everything.
>Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no
>naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial
>flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)
There is. See the Dover transcripts, where Behe has his ass handed to
him on a silver platter, borne by irreducibly complex e. coli
flagella. Putz.
>
>The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex
>molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just
>one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic
>biological world.
Bullshit.
> Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although
>the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than
>10-12 grams,
Your uneducated ignorant ass managed to fuck that up, too. they don't
weigh less than 10-12 grams, they weight less than 10 raised to the
minus 12th power gram, or less than 0.000000000001 gram.
Why did you think that the -12 was superscripted in the article?
> each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory
>containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate
>molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand
>million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man
>and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael
>Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)
>
>That sums it up nicely.
>
>http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
Bullshit.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Filed under "And where's your invisible pink
> unicorn?!"
>> Well. You have never given an outline for what
>> you consider an "honest and valid Creationist
>> argument" Xxx.
Umm, how about "something convincing to someone with
over a room temperature IQ"?
xanthian.
[And we're talking Celsius here.]