IC falls apart

[razeontherock]

Hmmm... First post.

No, not even close. Notice I'm not saying this is conclusive either way; it's merely a 10 minute stint, dumbed down for the masses. If that's all ya got then the gaping holes are too obvious for words ...

 

[CabVet]

No, not even close. Notice I'm not saying this is conclusive either way; it's merely a 10 minute stint, dumbed down for the masses. If that's all ya got then the gaping holes are too obvious for words ...

You could have just said that you wanted a more scientific text with references and I could have provided one. Here, try this:

The Flagellum Unspun

 

[idscience]

You could have just said that you wanted a more scientific text with references and I could have provided one. Here, try this:

The Flagellum Unspun

More like the scientific method unspun. Empirical evidence unspun and best guessing spun.

Miller Unspun
THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM: STILL SPINNING JUST FINE

An answer to Matzke

 

[razeontherock]

@ post #22: Hey, cool, thanks! When was this written / released?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

You could have just said that you wanted a more scientific text with references and I could have provided one. Here, try this:

The Flagellum Unspun

From the link:

"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."

 

[idscience]

From the link:

"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."

And the myth continues. We will keep it all alive because we want to. Not because there is any actual science involved. This could have don that which maybe produced the other. There, your defeated.

The evolutionist is so entangled with the ideology that a mere idea holds as much weight as scientific evidence, as long as it agrees with your ideology you will agree to anything said.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

And the myth continues. We will keep it all alive because we want to. Not because there is any actual science involved. This could have don that which maybe produced the other. There, your defeated.

The evolutionist is so entangled with the ideology that a mere idea holds as much weight as scientific evidence, as long as it agrees with your ideology you will agree to anything said.

So, have you figured out yet how ID/IC has helped the scientific process?

Until you can provide us with some evidence of id/ic somehow improving our scientific understanding, you are hereby banished to sit in the corner until you have a basic understanding of the SM.

 

[CabVet]

More like the scientific method unspun. Empirical evidence unspun and best guessing spun.

Miller Unspun
THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM: STILL SPINNING JUST FINE

An answer to Matzke

That too old for you? Try this:

The evolution of eukaryotic cilia and flage... [Adv Exp Med Biol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Trogool]

That too old for you? Try this:

The evolution of eukaryotic cilia and flage... [Adv Exp Med Biol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]

I was starting to worry that science wasn't discussed in here. All I've seen up until this are silly popular science junk.

 

[CabVet]

Also, your claim that it could evolve, through periods where it's not functional, is doubly asinine. ToE needs a driver, which is survival advantage.

I am trying really hard to not follow your lead and start calling you names, and this time I will take the high road.

Anyhow, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is. Evolution does not need a driver. New structures (and function) will remain if they are neutral (without advantage), they are just fixed in populations faster (and more often) if they provide an advantage. Some reading would do you good:

Neutral theory of molecular evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) | LiveScience

 

[razeontherock]

I am trying really hard to not follow your lead and start calling you names, and this time I will take the high road.

I have not called anyone names. I am pointing out that the ideas being advanced are not built on solid rock, but are assumption, with agenda.

That proves neither IC nor ID.

 

[CabVet]

I have not called anyone names. I am pointing out that the ideas being advanced are not built on solid rock, but are assumption, with agenda.

That proves neither IC nor ID.

If you think I am trying to "prove" ID or IC you should read my posts (and links) again. You didn't say the ideas "were not built on solid rock", you said that my claim was "asinine", and if this is not name calling I don't know what is:

Also, your claim that it could evolve, through periods where it's not functional, is doubly asinine.

Now, enlighten me and please do tell which creationist idea is "built on solid rock".

 

[razeontherock]

If you think I am trying to "prove" ID or IC

There is no reasonable way to think I have suggested such

You didn't say the ideas "were not built on solid rock", you said that my claim was "asinine", and if this is not name calling I don't know what is:

It is not. It is pointing out that what is being pushed as science in this instance, is foolish, unintelligent, and silly; aka, asinine.

Now, enlighten me and please do tell which creationist idea is "built on solid rock".

I have already explicitly stated that none of this proves IC or ID, but you are right; I didn't specifically include creationism in that. (Sorta thought that went w/o say)

 

[nhoj]

Has anyone demonstrated in this thread how the flagellum could actually be designed? (Reasonably, I mean)

What a great idea for a smartphone app

 

[Elendur]

What a great idea for a smartphone app

What isn't nowadays?