• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

robin said:
Advocates of ID claim the thirty or so components of the rotary propulsion mechanism in flagellum exist only in these organisms & for that purpose thus indicating the presence of ID.
It's been shown however that these components do exist in organsims that are precursors to these flagellum

Yes, some of the mechanisms found in the bacterial flagellum are found in other organisms. But something like 60% of it's parts are brand new, and are not found in other organisms. Where did they come from?



& all that was needed for the propulsion mechanism to evolve was for the components to have become organised in the right locations.

I think you are underestimating how unlikely it is that such a thing can assemble itself in the right order. It's sort of like saying an airplane or a car could assemble themselves in the right order if given enough time.


Thus ID is false science based on a false premise in this case.
It should not be taught in schools.

You have shown a complete ignorance to "science" by not doing sufficient research into this subject.
 
oracle25 said:
Yes, some of the mechanisms found in the bacterial flagellum are found in other organisms. But something like 60% of it's parts are brand new, and are not found in other organisms. Where did they come from?
Simply not true. Even if it were, just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we won't find an origin, and it deffinetely is not proof at all of supernatural causes.


oracle25 said:
I think you are underestimating how unlikely it is that such a thing can assemble itself in the right order. It's sort of like saying an airplane or a car could assemble themselves in the right order if given enough time.
ACtually it's more like a set of magnets coming together. You clearly do not understand self assembly thus I suggest you stay off this relation.


oracle25 said:
You have shown a complete ignorance to "science" by not doing sufficient research into this subject.
:rofl Oh man, that really brought a tear to my eye and a pain to my stomach. How ironic.
 
Robodoon said:
Yes and Evolution thrown out.

Evolution was just introduced to destroy our Christian heritage, The rich have a new system for the world and plan to make us slaves.

How dioes teaching science make us slaves? In fact knowledge tends toi have the opposite effect. Ignorance is far more enslaving. Of course I can understand the threat science poses to the superstitious nonsense many beleive, but that is their problem.


Robodoon said:
SEE EARTH CHARTER and the ARK OF HOPE

Neither of these has anything at all to do with school cirruculum in my area, is it in any other area?

Robodoon said:
ITS SATANIC AND FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, VIA GORBY, ROCKEFELLER AND STRONG.

How does a scientific theory that predates these things come from these things? Do you hold The Pittsburg Steelers respnpinsible for the theory that the earth revolves around the sun?

Robodoon said:
Also SEE REECE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS on how the Rockefeller Foundation and others took control of our school systems so we could be dumbed down.


All this time I thought it was the CFR and the Bilderburgers that had done this, imagine my surprise.
 
jfuh said:
Simply not true.

Ummm, yes it is. What did your professors forget to inform you of that little detail?


Even if it were, just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we won't find an origin, and it deffinetely is not proof at all of supernatural causes.

Sort of like finding a watch on a beach, insisting nobody made it, and stubbornly waiting for some evidence to come along to vindicate your position.


ACtually it's more like a set of magnets coming together. You clearly do not understand self assembly thus I suggest you stay off this relation.

I assume your referring too biochemical predestination?

:rofl Oh man, that really brought a tear to my eye and a pain to my stomach. How ironic.

Hmm, perhaps you should see a doctor. Oh, that's right, you don't need intelligence to fix problems, silly me....
 
oracle25 said:
Ummm, yes it is. What did your professors forget to inform you of that little detail?
Un huh, yes it it, yeah it is. Seriously, grow up. There is no such detail.

oracle25 said:
Sort of like finding a watch on a beach, insisting nobody made it, and stubbornly waiting for some evidence to come along to vindicate your position.
Oh look, look at the volcano, it's exploding, the god's must be angry at us, quick toss in a virgin to quell their blood thirst. Again, ignorance.

oracle25 said:
I assume your referring too biochemical predestination?
Lol, nope, self-assembly. Plain and simple of various organic and inorganic compounds. Metal coordination, pi-pi stacking, amphiphillic interactions and so on.
Why does soap work? Same thing, self-assembly.


oracle25 said:
Hmm, perhaps you should see a doctor. Oh, that's right, you don't need intelligence to fix problems, silly me....
Not your type of intelligence, if it can be called that.
 
jfuh said:
Un huh, yes it it, yeah it is. Seriously, grow up. There is no such detail.

Look, learn to spell, and then tell me to grow up.

Oh look, look at the volcano, it's exploding, the god's must be angry at us, quick toss in a virgin to quell their blood thirst.

:lol: That's funny, though it is merely a ploy to get off topic. I'll give you points for style though...:applaud


Again, ignorance.

Something you know a great deal about.

Lol, nope, self-assembly. Plain and simple of various organic and inorganic compounds. Metal coordination, pi-pi stacking, amphiphillic interactions and so on.
Why does soap work? Same thing, self-assembly.

Seriously, do you hear yourself? The bacterial flagellum, assembled itself? It didn't evolve? How would such a thing occur? How would these "magnets" know how to assemble themselves? Especially if over half the parts were missing? Seriously, do some research, come back when you can argue intelligently.

Not your type of intelligence, if it can be called that.

How immature and so very typical....
 
steen said:
He is just a troll anyway, as nobody can be that ignorant and still know how to turn on the computer.

POST #1 – Mostly for STEEN

Reading your replies to your opponents including myself, I noticed that you always have the last word and you can demonstrate that you opponent – the one who does not completely on your side or does not completely surrender - is either lying or ignorant or does not know the subject, or just should not be talking. You are driven to win and party with flags on the grave of your opponent. Therefore, if you were in my team I would not be pleased at all. And I am relieved that you are not in my team.

You may be extremely educated, telling the truth and know the subject, but the public would feel so uncomfortable with you, that they would vote for your opponent in the end. It is said: one should not underappreciated common sense of the public.

If to take myself as an example, I had a number of replies to my post and fell uncomfortable ONLY with you and… with somebody who by self-definition was supposed to be in my team. I was slow to disclose my affiliation, but somebody from my affiliation was fast enough to attack me almost in the same way as you did:. “You are not my side, - I ‘all get you!”.

Normally, I do not spend time on Internet. This is the first time and the first blog I walked in by an accident. You made me feel… like a straight guy walking into gay bar or…like getting a pornosite pop out – with some kind of verbal masturbation.

I was not exactly prepared to write on the subject and later I myself could find even more flaws and awkwardness in my post, than my opponents did . And I took few decent hits from some decent people. They made me feel better in the bar. Because of them, not you, I am feeling like still having another drink. So, you now can proceed with your self-satisfaction, but I am not looking in your corner anymore.

For others I dare to offer POST #2.
 
POST # 2 Evolution and ID
Just walking by I stopped on this side to check out what are all this blogs about.
I found a fueled discussion flames of which now are reaching general public.
I really feel as a part of the public, and I would like to describe what I see.
Omitting insignificant variations, I defined for myself the arguing sides as:
1.Evolutionists – those who know and can prove scientifically that all life around including humans evolved from a single living cell and the cell formed itself out off no-life material by an accident.
2.People of Faith (those who personally know that God exists on the level of their reflexes – when they push the button they get the food, and it always works unless they don’t push enough.).
3.Creationists - who can prove scientifically that God exists and therefore should be a subject in schools.
4.Intelligent Design people – who originated in scientific community often splitting from Evolutionists and suggesting that life was designed and started by an Intelligent Being, but not God, as the Such is widely known.

The situation is:
Only Evolutionists teach in the system of education, and they do not want others in.
Since Evolutionism contradicts Faith, people of Faith have their feeling, but let me put them aside as a separate subject.
Creationists and ID people are attacking because Evolution must be wrong and they must have their better science in schools, or at least get one foot in the door.

Listening to all the sides I formed my personal opinion:

I do NOT send my kids to schools and colleges to learn science, Evolution, Faith or Intelligent Design. I have no clue about those things, or, at least, I am not sure about 3 out the 4. I send my kids to school to be happy, successful and have freedom to pursue their happiness. I established long time ago they must go to school and a college may desirable. As a parent I want them to be smarter then me, more successful than me and live in better country. This all I want them to learn. And they will be smarter. When I was a kid I did not have computers, cell phones, and many other things which now are like toys to them.
As a parent I want my kids to keep and live according to traditions, moral and values of my family. This is my nature in all generations; this is how Evolution, God, Creator or Designer made me.
I feel for educators – their task is to make their students more successful in their subject
than the educators are. I imagine: I teach physics and walk in a class to teach Newton’s laws to a future Albert Einstein
.
If you, guys, cannot resolve your problems – let the kids do.
This is my suggestion to Evolutionists – because you are the ones holding the door. My impression is you can stop the attacks only if you stop freedom. Kids already are talking on Internet and ID looks quite attractive to them. They will bring it to colleges and classes anyway. But if you hold them back for too long they may get angry. You know what happens when kids get angry – they will through you out with all your goods. I would be sad because many of your goods have great value. If you let them in it is not inconceivable they would be able prove your point better than you can. You cannot loose.

As to my affiliation, I love science, art, Led Zeppelin and life. I do not have a need to win on neither of the sides. I am a man of Faith on the level of my reflexes – if I need anything I just push the button.

""""A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.""""
Albert Einstein
 
justone said:
""""A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.""""
Albert Einstein
Oh, poor Einstein. Always having his quote taken out of context. How about you actually read where that quote comes from, eh?

Albert Einstein said:
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

Einstein is not talking about organized religion, he is talking about the spirit of discovery that scientists must have in order to be compelled to do great things. He goes on to denounce the idea of a personal, Judeo-Christian-Muslim God two paragraphs later as being for those of "undeveloped mind".
 
Engimo said:
Oh, poor Einstein. Always having his quote taken out of context. How about you actually read where that quote comes from, eh?



Einstein is not talking about organized religion, he is talking about the spirit of discovery that scientists must have in order to be compelled to do great things. He goes on to denounce the idea of a personal, Judeo-Christian-Muslim God two paragraphs later as being for those of "undeveloped mind".

You know, I assumed the Einstein signature was not in context, but I never looked it up. Your post was enlightening.
 
oracle25 said:
Look, learn to spell, and then tell me to grow up.
Lame evasionist argument towards nothing.

oracle25 said:
:lol: That's funny, though it is merely a ploy to get off topic. I'll give you points for style though...:applaud
Glad you find supernatural explanations so ammusing, perhaps you do have a chance to be taught science.

oracle25 said:
Something you know a great deal about.
I know it when I see it.

oracle25 said:
Seriously, do you hear yourself? The bacterial flagellum, assembled itself? It didn't evolve? How would such a thing occur? How would these "magnets" know how to assemble themselves? Especially if over half the parts were missing? Seriously, do some research, come back when you can argue intelligently.
Have I said that to be the mechnism? No. Once the basic protiens are made they self assemble.
Like I said, you do not appear to know anything about self assembly. So stay off what you don't know.


oracle25 said:
How immature and so very typical....
Have I struck a nerve?
You still have to proove any evidence of your creationist beliefs that are inarguable. STrange how everything you have presented has met a bombardment of criticism and credible rebuttals of your arguments.
All I ask is you provide one simple objective credible source to back up your creationist idea.

So creation of the world in 6 days, creation of woman by a spare rib so on and so forth. No pressure, take your time.
 
tryreading said:
You know, I assumed the Einstein signature was not in context, but I never looked it up. Your post was enlightening.

I am taking Einstain back, I just searched through Internet and I was cought myself by the phrase out of the contest. And in order to make everything more beatiful with a pink ribbon, I added it at the last moment.Honestly.
It was quite stupid in general, - to claim to be a part of general public - and to sign the paper as a scientst. I appreciate pointing that to me. On other hand accepting myself as ''undeveloped mind '' can quickly put me among very general public, - just where I am coming from.
And I also found -- it seems like colledge students -- digging thier truth about
ID in quite civilized and honest way -- who knows what they are going to dig out.

The rest stands so far.
 
Engimo said:
Oh, poor Einstein

I would appreciate if could link me to the whole speach. I feel guilty before Enstein.
 
justone,
Please provide a link to a *purely scientific* theory of any I.D. variant.
Please include as many links as possable to peer-reviewed critiques of said *purely scientific* theory.
 
And? You are uncomfortable that your arguments are turned upside down and inside out and found to be flawed?

The rest of us bother to double-check what we post and make sure that what we say is factual.
 
justone said:
Omitting insignificant variations, I defined for myself the arguing sides as:
1.Evolutionists – those who know and can prove scientifically that all life around including humans evolved from a single living cell
That is a minor, simplified view. Any change between generations is evolution.

and the cell formed itself out off no-life material by an accident.
Where life originated is NOT Evolution, it is Abiogenesis. And there is no evidence for it being by "accident."

2.People of Faith (those who personally know that God exists on the level of their reflexes – when they push the button they get the food, and it always works unless they don’t push enough.).
You might have missed that people can, Llike me, be both #1 and #2 (Kind off. Your definitioon is kind of weird).

3.Creationists - who can prove scientifically that God exists and therefore should be a subject in schools.
Except that they can't prove this.

4.Intelligent Design people – who originated in scientific community often splitting from Evolutionists and suggesting that life was designed and started by an Intelligent Being, but not God, as the Such is widely known.
The ID crowd did NOT split from "Evolutionists." they came from creationism.

The situation is:
Only Evolutionists teach in the system of education, and they do not want others in.
False. Any science should be taught in science class. If it is not science, it can be taught but not in science class. Please don't mis-represent us.

Since Evolutionism contradicts Faith,
False. Evolution does not contradict faith. It contradicts literal interpretation of Genesis. It does NOT preclude faith.

people of Faith have their feeling, but let me put them aside as a separate subject.
Creationists and ID people are attacking because Evolution must be wrong and they must have their better science in schools, or at least get one foot in the door.
Actually, the Creationists and IDers have yet to show that they are about science.

If you, guys, cannot resolve your problems – let the kids do.
This is my suggestion to Evolutionists – because you are the ones holding the door. My impression is you can stop the attacks only if you stop freedom.
We don't object to anything being taught in school. But we object to anythiong being taught in science class that is not science. If it is not derived through the Scientific Method, it has no business in Science Class.

Kids already are talking on Internet and ID looks quite attractive to them. They will bring it to colleges and classes anyway. But if you hold them back for too long they may get angry.
Teaching facts and evidence is not "holding back."

You know what happens when kids get angry – they will through you out with all your goods. I would be sad because many of your goods have great value. If you let them in it is not inconceivable they would be able prove your point better than you can. You cannot loose.
If anybody has scientific evidence they want to share, they are very encouraged to do wo.

As to my affiliation, I love science, art, Led Zeppelin and life. I do not have a need to win on neither of the sides. I am a man of Faith on the level of my reflexes – if I need anything I just push the button.

""""A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.""""
Albert Einstein
Hmm, Einstein quote-mined?
 
dear oracle,

since you seem very fond of quoting any old IDist "argument" that has long been falsified (1996!), please take your time to read the following quotes from talkorigins.org:

[ID] Claim CB200.1:
Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.
Response:
This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND:

...But what are the chances
>of such a self - assembling molecule happening in the primordial
>seas, not to mention surviving.

Quite good actually. There are 1.6 x 10^60 possible 100 nucleotide sequences. In a primordial ocean of 10^24 litres with a nucleotide concentration of 10^-6M (reasonably dilute), assembling a 100 nucleotides sequences on clay al la Ferris [3] and assuming it takes a week to make a full sequence, then you can have produced roughly 1 x 10^50 sequences in a year! As it has been estimated that one in every 1 x 10^17 random RNA sequences is a high efficiency ligase [4], the chances of getting at least one self-replicating polymerase (or small self replicating assembly) is quite high.
 
The last pragraph is referring to abiogenesis.

Since creationists and IDists like to point to improbability of certain bio-chemical events occurring over a given time frame, please provide your calculations of these probabilities.

Before you start quoting "Borel's Law" or Hoyle, see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
 
Last edited:
oracle and justone:

oracle, you quoted the penn state professor. i read the article. Very interesting. I'll point out first of all that the article was opinion. But, he has some valid arguments. You make sweeping generalizations from this article. He argues that evolution is not the corner stone of modern biology. But he never argues that it is false. All he said is that there are viable opportunities and holes in biology to find new theories that may supplant and replace evolution in the future. He argues that we shouldn't take evolution for granted. I totally agree with him. As for his research on evolution's importance, that is very iffy, and should be hardly taken as scientific data.....One of my p.a's at UT southwestern was a nobel prize winner. He talked to me about his research and even went into evolution and how it guided certain aspects of his research.
So' who's word do I take. Accomplished penn state professor, or accomplished ut southwestern researcher. I don't know. Its merely opinion. But the fact remains that none of the research has contradicted evolutionary premise.

Does that mean creationism is true? hell no. Go find a new SCIENTIFIC theory that can challenge evolution, win yourself the nobel prize. Otherwise, evolution remains the main explanation. Find some flaws in the theory and try to find a scientific explanation why. Im sorry, "GOD" doesn't count...
 
black wolf said:
dear oracle,

since you seem very fond of quoting any old IDist "argument" that has long been falsified (1996!), please take your time to read the following quotes from talkorigins.org:

[ID] Claim CB200.1:
Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.
Response:
This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND:

...But what are the chances
>of such a self - assembling molecule happening in the primordial
>seas, not to mention surviving.

Quite good actually. There are 1.6 x 10^60 possible 100 nucleotide sequences. In a primordial ocean of 10^24 litres with a nucleotide concentration of 10^-6M (reasonably dilute), assembling a 100 nucleotides sequences on clay al la Ferris [3] and assuming it takes a week to make a full sequence, then you can have produced roughly 1 x 10^50 sequences in a year! As it has been estimated that one in every 1 x 10^17 random RNA sequences is a high efficiency ligase [4], the chances of getting at least one self-replicating polymerase (or small self replicating assembly) is quite high.
why even bother? Oracle's a troll.
 
jfuh said:
why even bother? Oracle's a troll.


Havent you ever watched trolls dance....its freakin' hilarious, tripping over their own feet, falling all the time....priceless. They are very clumsy creatures, but extremely entertaining.
 
I would like to see Historical accounts on the origins of life taught in schools, whether they be from mystery religions, ancient civilisations with advanced astrological knowledge or even from occultists, only like this can we purvey to our children the sheer diversity of explanations given for life on earth, we should not be teaching children anything as fact when we ourselves do not know the facts, i think ID should be taught as one perspective on the subject of life and it's beginnings but also other religious explanations on the origins of life, along with Evolution, Genetic modification and various other differant aspects.

I feel i would have a more rounded view of the world and it's people if i had been taught about the whole spectrum of ideas on origins of life, i certainly do not think we should have our childrens religious needs surpressed by denying to teach or educate about the ID and other religious explanations for life.

Maybe all explanations hold a little truth, it is up to us to give our children as many differing even conflicting explanations so they may make up their minds themselves and not just become biggots aligning with a view just because of it's popularity.
 
black wolf said:
dear oracle,

since you seem very fond of quoting any old IDist "argument" that has long been falsified (1996!), please take your time to read the following quotes from talkorigins.org:

Ahh yes, talk origins. Perhaps the most ridiculous excuse for a scientific website on the internet. Do they even have real scientists on that website?


This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally.

Oh really? I suppose they have seen this happen.

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

Dr. Scot Minnich, one of the worlds leading experts on the bacterial flagellum has pointed out that many of the organisms which have similar mechanisms to the flagellum actually came after it, and so could not have possibly evolved into it. But what about those that are not?:

"Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex" [video Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, Illustra Media, 2002]

So who am I going to want to believe? The worlds leading expert on the flagellum, or someone who won't even give his name on the article (at least not that I could find).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is full of conjecture and inaccurate information (as show partially above), and is not even worth addressing.

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

I would have to study these experiments to comment on them. Although, considering talk origins habit of inaccurate quotes and bad information, I would be very cautious about these tests.

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

Again, I cannot really comment on this. I would like to state, however, that they are referring too (i believe) Dr. Kenneth Millers book, which is known to be full of inaccurate, and some times downright deceptive, information.

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

This is a rather unintelligent statement. It doesn't make sense that a designer would give an organism the parts it needs for a specific function?:confused:
 
They have a links page where you could do further research on hundreds of scientific sources.
Paraphrasing another microbiologist (from Creation versus Evolution): How has Dr. Minnich proven that these molecular machines could not have arisen through other mechanisms, namely evolution through mutation and natural selection? It usually comes down to a tautology: IC is proven by IC. No physical mechanisms, other than mutation and natural selection, has ever been observed that would indicate design.

Intel Design and IC have so far fallen short of refuting the Theory of Evolution (ToE). The mechanisms for ToE can be and have been observed. The mechanisms are:

1. Heritability: genetic traits must be passed on to subsequent generations.

2. Mutation: Imperfections in copying the DNA code or alteration by a genetic event such as horizontal gene transfer.

3. Natural selection: Ecological pressures that cause a differentiation in allele frequency.

The hearings in the Dover case (where Minnich was heard as witness) have shown that ID does not stand up to standard criteria for scientific research. There are no tests for ID. Instead of testing their own ideas, IDists ridiculously demand that evolution scientists repeat the entire process of evolutionary development (3.8 Billion years!) in their own labs.

It boils down to this (Dr. Minnich (A) in the Dover court case):

Q. And in order for intelligent design to be considered science, the definition of science has to be broadened to consider supernatural causes, true?

A. I want to qualify it. Can I qualify it? Again, if you go back to the basic question, we see design in nature. Is it real or apparent? If you are only going to accept natural causes, then you've just removed half the equation, so you're not going to see it, even if it's staring you in the face. So in that aspect, that's a definitional fiat.

Q. Well, the answer to my question, and I understand you had a qualification, was true. For intelligent design to be considered science, the definition of science or the rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural causes can be considered, correct?

A. Correct, if intelligent causes can be considered. I won't necessarily -- you know, you're extrapolating to the supernatural. And that is one possibility.

Q. I only have 45 seconds left, Dr. Minnich.

A. Okay.

Q. Would you agree that the theory of intelligent design takes us only as far as needed to prove or to infer the existence of an intelligent designer and then it stops there and that's where theology takes over? Would you agree with that?

A. Philosophy or theology.
 
Back
Top Bottom