Tiktaalik vs. Bacterial Flagellum

[USincognito]

That's silly of course.

Then why did you ask if wheels could evolve?

So back to the flagellum. How does it differ?

Because it's a part of a biological entity. And we have an evolutionary path for them.

 

[inquiring mind]

Because it's a part of a biological entity.

Wheels show evidence of intentional manufacture, therefore we know they were designed... but, a molecular machine (a biological entity) shows an elaborately constructed pattern (arguably manufactured intentionally, and more evidence for ID than the Tiktaalik shows for transition), and you refuse to even consider the possibility of design.

And we have an evolutionary path for them.

A path or not, it doesn't preclude creation.

 

[USincognito]

Wheels show evidence of intentional manufacture, therefore we know they were designed... but, a molecular machine (a biological entity) shows an elaborately constructed pattern (arguably manufactured intentionally, and more evidence for ID than the Tiktaalik shows for transition), and you refuse to even consider the possibility of design.

I'm not hypnotized by the refrain of, "it's too complex"! But again, wheels are not biological entities nor are they parts of biological entities so we don't even need to waste time navel gazing as to whether they evolve or not.

And why is the bacterial flagellum more magical than any other biological part? Does it appeal to incredulity more so than a bird wing or mollusks brain?

A path or not, it doesn't preclude creation.

Do we need to revisit what an ad hoc fallacy is?

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not hypnotized by the refrain of, "it's too complex"!

No, I think you're already in a hypnotic state (an evolutionary one).

But again, wheels are not biological entities nor are they parts of biological entities so we don't even need to waste time navel gazing as to whether they evolve or not.

I think the wheel thing went right over your head. It was actually to demonstrate that in the real world, as opposed to whatever evolutionary world you're in, things that show evidence of intentional manufacture... usually are.

And why is the bacterial flagellum more magical than any other biological part? Does it appeal to incredulity more so than a bird wing or mollusks brain?

Well, you don't belief God made a bird wing or a mullusk brain; I thought maybe something that looked like a Hemi motor would be more convincing to you.

 

[Speedwell]

I think the wheel thing went right over your head. It was actually to demonstrate that in the real world, as opposed to whatever evolutionary world you're in, things that show evidence of intentional manufacture... usually are.
.

Quite right. If they show things like mold lines, tool marks, highly refined or synthetic materials, etc, you can pretty much tell that there was intentional manufacturing, hence design.

 

[USincognito]

No, I think you're already in a hypnotic state (an evolutionary one).

Try spending more trying to actually understand evolution than trying to be clever.

I think the wheel thing went right over your head. {snip}

And for the third time (at least) non-biological items like wheels, automobiles, statues, etc. etc. etc. etc. are not analogous to biological parts of living beings. When you finally can grasp that, you'll understand why the wheel is a failed analogy for the flagellum.

{snip}

 

[inquiring mind]

Try spending more trying to actually understand evolution than trying to be clever.

You guys got the market cornered on 'clever' already, don't you?

And for the third time (at least) non-biological items like wheels, automobiles, statues, etc. etc. etc. etc. are not analogous to biological parts of living beings. When you finally can grasp that, you'll understand why the wheel is a failed analogy for the flagellum.

Yeah, we need to let it go... three times and you still think the wheel is the point. Exploring how to 'recognize design' when you see it is just too much to handle for evolutionary scientists, such as yourself, I guess.

 

[Speedwell]

You guys got the market cornered on 'clever' already, don't you?


Yeah, we need to let it go... three times and you still think the wheel is the point. Exploring how to 'recognize design' when you see it is just too much to handle for evolutionary scientists, such as yourself, I guess.

No exploration required. We know how design is recognized. Design is recognized through evidence of intentional manufacture. Isn't that what we have been talking about? The wheel shows evidence of intentional manufacture; the flagellum does not.

 

[inquiring mind]

No exploration required. We know how design is recognized. Design is recognized through evidence of intentional manufacture. Isn't that what we have been talking about? The wheel shows evidence of intentional manufacture; the flagellum does not.

I was wondering how long you'd wait for the opportunity to interject that? By intentional manufacturing, you said "things like mold lines, tool marks, highly refined or synthetic materials, etc." God tells us He made man in His own image... that's like molding isn't it? I don't think God really had to use tools. I don't know, the flagellum alone appears pretty highly refined to me.

 

[Speedwell]

I was wondering how long you'd wait for the opportunity to interject that? By intentional manufacturing, you said "things like mold lines, tool marks, highly refined or synthetic materials, etc." God tells us He made man in His own image... that's like molding isn't it? I don't think God really had to use tools.

No, He used natural processes for the most part.

I don't know, the flagellum alone appears pretty highly refined to me.

So it does. The question is, how was that functional complexity produced? IDists, of course, think that God (excuse me, "the Designer") had to step in and tinker with the genetics to make it work. For my part, I am satisfied that the information processing capacity represented by the interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere is sufficient for the task.

Let me remind you of what I said before: the presence of design in an object is unfalsifiable. It sometimes can be inferred from the presence of evidence of intentional manufacture--as we have been discussing, But because it is unfalsifiable, the presence of design cannot be ruled out empirically, even when no evidence is present from which it might be inferred.

You and I believe that God is author of the universe. In some sense we believe that the universe is "designed" by God. Nothing that science has concluded about it, nothing that science can conclude about it, can falsify our belief. The theory of evolution does not falsify it, does not even attempt to do so.

But likewise, you cannot "prove" the presence of design in natural objects by appealing to their functional complexity. Functional complexity is, in itself, not evidence of design.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was wondering how long you'd wait for the opportunity to interject that? By intentional manufacturing, you said "things like mold lines, tool marks, highly refined or synthetic materials, etc." God tells us He made man in His own image... that's like molding isn't it? I don't think God really had to use tools. I don't know, the flagellum alone appears pretty highly refined to me.

That's not really the same in the slightest. Molding and a book saying that God made man in His own image aren't the same thing at all.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, He used natural processes for the most part.

Yes, He did... the dust of the ground and the breath of life.

For my part, I am satisfied that the information processing capacity represented by the interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere is sufficient for the task.

Don't forget programming?

the presence of design cannot be ruled out empirically, even when no evidence is present from which it might be inferred.

Amen to that.

The theory of evolution does not falsify it, does not even attempt to do so.

Said the spider to the fly.

But likewise, you cannot "prove" the presence of design in natural objects by appealing to their functional complexity. Functional complexity is, in itself, not evidence of design.

Maybe not in science... sorry I'm just not going to let myself be hamstrung by all this unfalsifiable stuff, and there's no place for this or that in science, especially when God's visible creation and even common sense are shouting in your ear.

 

[Speedwell]

Said the spider to the fly.

We all realize that these discussions are not really about atheism v. theism. Nothing which science can discover will disprove the existence of God, or our gift of salvation in Christ, not even the theory of evolution. It always, in the end, comes down to the Bible and a particular interpretation of the Genesis stories.

Maybe not in science... sorry I'm just not going to let myself be hamstrung by all this unfalsifiable stuff, and there's no place for this or that in science, especially when God's visible creation and even common sense are shouting in your ear.

You don't have to convince me. But you can't prove it empirically, is the point.

 

[inquiring mind]

That's not really the same in the slightest. Molding and a book saying that God made man in His own image aren't the same thing at all.

Think I'll go with the 'Book.'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Think I'll go with the 'Book.'

Rather than what He has shown us in His creation and can be attested to by scientists?
... *shrug* All right then.

 

[USincognito]

You guys got the market cornered on 'clever' already, don't you?

Do goading rules not apply to Ambassadors?

Yeah, we need to let it go... three times and you still think the wheel is the point.

Again, it doesn't matter what the non-biological thing being pointed to is. It could be a wheel, a computer, Mount Rushmore, a nautilus shell... er, not that last one. The point is if it is a non-biological thing than it simply isn't analogous to biological things. Bird wings, mollusk brains and bacterial flagellum evolved. Wheels didn't.

Exploring how to 'recognize design' when you see it is just too much to handle for evolutionary scientists, such as yourself, I guess.

Confirmation bias is not a part of the scientific method.

 

[DogmaHunter]

E = mc² by God's design... how does that work out?

As any bare assertion, on par with E = mc² by extra-dimensional unicorns' design.
As indistinguishable from no design at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let’s talk about the flagellum, and all its intricate mechanical-like working parts. No, we’ll come back to that later, first let’s talk about the common wheel. Did the wheel sort of evolve or was it designed?

Mechanical devices don't evolve.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm sure there were on earlier ones, but the ones today are pretty smooth and adapted to present conditions... could that mean they have evolved?

No.

They don't reproduce with variation nore are they in competition with peers over limited resources. They are no subject to evolutionary processes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's silly of course.

I agree. Comparing objects that aren't biological, don't reproduce with variation and don't compete with peers over limited resources, with biological organisms that DO reproduce with variation and which ARE in competition with peers, to make silly points about biological evolution, is pretty silly.

So back to the flagellum. How does it differ?

falgellum's ARE subject to biological evolution.