Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I assume you are talking about a flagellum ("spinning motor" is a bit of an exaggeration) and yes, humans make similar devices which turn on bearings, but so what? That "spinning" motion is not in itself evidence of design. If the device gives evidence of being manufactured by humans then it may be possible to conclude that it was designed. Otherwise it may not be possible to come to a conclusion. One can't conclude design merely from complexity and functional organization.
When are you going to get it? When are you going to learn how design is detected in an object?
Ah yes...I see now...you confused God with a "thing" (which by nature is part of the creation). Are you a materialist? I ask because it usually only they who make this category error.
God is not a thing, He is the maker of all that is. It was all His idea. He is the source.
Just the presence of definite immutable laws and principles being in place that govern matter/energy that the materiality must follow and conform to implicates the necessity for intelligence. Simply put governing laws do not create or develop themselves.
Or is it because this was first observed by ID scientists, like re-discovering the functionality of alleged Junk DNA (another observation they were first to point out) so they must not be allowed to receive proper credit?
Same with alleged "Junk DNA" being full of function and purpose (they were not "re-discovering" anything), they being Ph.D.s and University and Research professors were laughed at...everyone knew the Junk was a nearly purposeless thowback...but NOW they are discovering the truth of those claims (see the ENCODE project for one which is a consortium of 450 world class Biologists,Geneticists, and Biochemists).
Tanj allow me to present one example of the effect of selective exclusion on the career of a legitimate scientist.
Biologist/Geneticist Dr. Richard Sternberg who has a Ph.D. in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University, and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University, presently a research scientist at the Biologic Institute, and a Research Collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian in D.C.).
2001-2007, staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information
2001-2007 Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History while from 2001-2004, he also served as Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and served on the Editorial Board of the International Journal of General Systems.
1999, Visiting Associate Professor of Biology at Northern Michigan University, while from 1999-2001 he was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History.
He has previously been published in many Peer Reviewd Journals such as Genetica, Evolutionary Theory, Journal of Comparative Biology, Crustacean Research, Journal of Natural History, Journal of Morphology, Journal of Biological Systems, as well as the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
As soon as he started reporting genetic findings that appear to agree with and/or support the perspectives of some IDers he was blackballed (McCarthyism in pedagoguery) and cannot get any of his research published in any of these.
"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"The ToE is not a fraud, but as it turns out about 80% of the alleged Junk has purpose, and a great deal (more being discovered day by day) is considered functional (though not in coding for proteins).
The ENCODE Project Consortium, “An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome,” Nature 489 (September 6, 2012): 57–74.
ENCODE Project Consortium. The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements) Project.Science 306, 636–640 (2004)
"If ENCODE is right then Evolution is wrong"
Birney admitted - in a blog post, of all places, in which he was pretending to interview himself - that the 80% was basically used to impress the rubes
ENCODE: My own thoughts - Ewan's Blog: Bioinformatician at large
Q. Ok, fair enough. But are you most comfortable with the 10% to 20% figure for the hard-core functional bases? Why emphasize the 80% figure in the abstract and press release?
A. (Sigh.) Indeed. Originally I pushed for using an “80% overall” figure and a “20% conservative floor” figure, since the 20% was extrapolated from the sampling. But putting two percentage-based numbers in the same breath/paragraph is asking a lot of your listener/reader – they need to understand why there is such a big difference between the two numbers, and that takes perhaps more explaining than most people have the patience for. We had to decide on a percentage, because that is easier to visualize, and we choose 80% because (a) it is inclusive of all the ENCODE experiments (and we did not want to leave any of the sub-projects out) and (b) 80% best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity. We refer also to “4 million switches”, and that represents the bound motifs and footprints.
We use the bigger number because it brings home the impact of this work to a much wider audience. But we are in fact using an accurate, well-defined figure when we say that 80% of the genome has specific biological activity.
Another ENCODE researcher also indicated that the real, evidence-based number is much lower:
Max Libbrecht on ENCODE’s results regarding junk DNA. « Genomicron
"In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy....
I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. ..."
Get up to speed, pshun. This information was also available when you made this post.
many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it have those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch (or a robot) that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a naturall process (because as far as we know a watch (with springs and a motion system and so on) need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day.
Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U
No, the watchmaker argument is not valid. It starts out by saying that we can recognize a designed watch by contrasting it with nature, strongly implying that nature is not designed. But then it attempts to conclude that nature actually is designed by God. The argument is thoroughly incoherent.
are you saying that a self replicating watch doesnt need a designer?No, the watchmaker argument is not valid. It starts out by saying that we can recognize a designed watch by contrasting it with nature, strongly implying that nature is not designed. But then it attempts to conclude that nature actually is designed by God. The argument is thoroughly incoherent.
are you saying that a self replicating watch doesnt need a designer?
1.) Self-replicating watches don't exist
how actually?2.) I have refuted the Watchmaker Argument
so if they were existed you will conclude design or not?
how actually?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?