Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gray wolf

Some thoughts about the Creator

19 posts in this topic

I'd like to bring up a couple of aspects of nature that I think point to a Designer.  One of these is long term memory as described in the following scenario:  my wife informs me that a classmate I went to university with over 30 years ago has received a scientific prize for her groundbreaking work.  Faster than a super computer,  I comment, yes Mary was her mother.  I'm sure you can think of many similar examples. This characteristic surely has no evolutionary benefit.  Doesn't it surely seem a gift from the Creator?

A second example is in biology/chemistry.  I have for a long time been interested in the citric acid cycle.  It would seem to be a system of "irreducible complexity", although I avoid that term.  I have seen some theories of its development posted by evolutionists, but I am not really satisfied. Either it works or it doesn't. Maybe someone here has read in the literature a better theory of its origins.

Of course these examples do not tell us about the nature of the Designer, but we can fill in the blanks.  I am interested if any nonbelievers (and believers) care to shed some light on these instances.

 

Daniel

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to bring up a couple of aspects of nature that I think point to a Designer.  One of these is long term memory as described in the following scenario:  my wife informs me that a classmate I went to university with over 30 years ago has received a scientific prize for her groundbreaking work.  Faster than a super computer,  I comment, yes Mary was her mother.  I'm sure you can think of many similar examples. This characteristic surely has no evolutionary benefit.  Doesn't it surely seem a gift from the Creator?

A second example is in biology/chemistry.  I have for a long time been interested in the citric acid cycle.  It would seem to be a system of "irreducible complexity", although I avoid that term.  I have seen some theories of its development posted by evolutionists, but I am not really satisfied. Either it works or it doesn't. Maybe someone here has read in the literature a better theory of its origins.

Of course these examples do not tell us about the nature of the Designer, but we can fill in the blanks.  I am interested if any nonbelievers (and believers) care to shed some light on these instances.

 

Daniel

 

 

=============================================================================

 

 

"It would seem to be a system of "irreducible complexity", although I avoid that term"

 

Why? Irreducible Complexity is everywhere. 

 

Irreducible Complexity: a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes "THAT" system to effectively cease functioning.

 

Take a bicycle it has many parts: wheels, handle bars, seat, reflectors et al.  Irreducible Complexity says if you remove a wheel.... the bike won't function; it's Irreducibly Complex in that respect.  Now if you take that wheel and make a Unicycle that doesn't Ipso Facto make the One Wheeled Bicycle "not" Irreducibly Complex...it still ain't working.

 

As for the reflectors, seat (Ouch), and other non-essential parts.... it can still work or be a bike but there are certain parts (Chain, Wheels et al) @ the Core that makes it Irreducibly Complex.

 

When you're building a House what is the Rate Limiting Set to finish the House? ......The Roof.  What has to be in place to put the Roof On?....the Walls/Support Decks.  A house is Irreducibly Complex.

 

Or do folks in your neck of the woods, after laying the Foundation; say, "Forget the walls who needs them....lets go ahead and put the Roof on"??

 

Behe was all over this...and let me add, Nobody has refuted Irreducible Complexity.  All they refuted were Strawmen (Fallacies), they conjured.  And I can very well Validate that very fact.

 

 

ps.  Behe wasn't the first, it was Identified Officially just before Woodstock:  Polanyi, M., Life’s irreducible structure, Science 160:1308–1312, 1968.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects.  We can observe their manufacture and know they are created.  It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins.  The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.  While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does.  Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects.  We can observe their manufacture and know they are created.  It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins.  The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.  While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does.  Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.

 

 

The analogy is spot on...it makes no difference, those points are irrelevant.

 

@ The Dover Trial,  which was a Kangaroo court, they got bamboozled by a Strawmen (Fallacy).  As I said, I can summarily refute their Strawmen of either the Blood Coagulation Cascade or the Flagellar Motor.

 

Say when?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think the blood coagulation process is irreducible?  A cursory look at the process in another animal will confirm that this is not the case.  Same with the flagellar motor. I'm not saying these systems were not designed, but I think the concept cannot be applied in these  examples.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects.  We can observe their manufacture and know they are created.  It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins.  The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.  While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does.  Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.

 

=================================================================================================

 

I failed to support my claim of "Kangaroo Court".....

 

@ the end of a Trail, a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down:  Both Sides File with the Judge:  "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.

Eric Rothschild (ACLU) The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:

 

ER (ACLU): "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."

JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".

 

So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".

 

ER (ACLU): "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."

JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."

 

So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence.  It's exactly the same sentence in TOTO.

 

ER (ACLU): "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions.  If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.

JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.

 

So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon".  Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".

 

If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is Eric Rothschild's (aka: ACLU) Complete Document cut and pasted for Judge Jones to Render!!

 

Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that:  "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".

Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or

Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)

 

 

The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.

 

The whole point, or inference as you stated, from Behe's point of view was that these "Specifically Complex" Machines (Flagellar Motor) in this case couldn't have been built or "evolve" one step @ a Time over millennia or any other time frame.  They had to be Complete and working in TOTO.  Unless, you ascribe Sentience/Intelligence/ Prescience to stupid atoms.

 

The big problem was, Irreducible Complexity Falsified (Again...SEE: Punctuated Equilibrium and Convergent evolution) this little number....

 

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species":  "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

 

 

The Flagellar Motor/Apparatus is used for swimming.....so, what the opposition was postulating??... that Prokaryotes sat around for fill in the blank______ time frame while Stupid Atoms got together and constructed a Motor...so then it could swim?  Nope that's ludicrous, they went this route....  "Co-Opted" parts of a less "Specifically Complex" apparatus (The Type III Secretory System).....This is a Clumsy Strawman Argument (Fallacy) and Non-Sequitur (If you wish for me to elaborate, just say the word). 

It doesn't Work or is "Not Functional" until the Core Parts of the "Motor" are in Place.  If one piece of the 50 piece motor is missing....you don't get 49/50ths of swimming: you get Bupkis/Nada....a Football Bat.  Tracking?

 

By proxy, they're saying the need for the Bacteria to inject hosts with Toxins "came about" before the need to Swim. :huh:  Preposterous!  And that's not even dealing with their collective Strawman.

 

The Flagellar Motor....

 

Eight million of them would fit in the cross-sectional area of an average human hair.

 

Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane.

A bacterial flagellar motor has the amazing quality of combining speed with efficiency. These extremely efficient motors can quickly stop, start, change speeds, and reach a top speed of about 100,000 rpm (revolutions per minute)! The cell is propelled up to 15 body-lengths per second at top speed. If this could be scaled up, it would be like a person of height 1.8 m (6 ft) swimming at 100 km/h (60 mph).

Also it is very versatile, as it has forward and reverse gears, enabling the germ to reverse

direction within a quarter of a turn. In contrast most man-made electric motors are up to

75–95% efficient at larger sizes, but lose efficiency as they get smaller.The bacterial motor is almost 100% efficient at cruising speed. The bacterium uses only 2% of its total energy for swimming.

Harikrishnan.J:  In-Vivo NanoBot Aided Cancerous Tissue Targeting and Therapy

 

 

Furthermore, What is a Judge with Zero Scientific Background doing adjudicating on "Science"?  Who's next MADD?

 

Also, the decision has "NO" jurisdiction outside Dover.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think the blood coagulation process is irreducible? 

 

I don't "think", I know it is.

 

 

A cursory look at the process in another animal will confirm that this is not the case.

 

A cursory look, eh?  Here comes the Strawman...another animal will confirm it's not the case, eh?  Nothing like comparing Apples to Orangutans.

 

Well lets take a "cursory" look....

 

The Clotting Cascade, (most land-dwelling vertebrates) has TWO Pathways (Intrinsic and Extrinsic).  They both arrive @ The Fork in the "Y" with Factor Xa then the (The Final Common Pathway).  Since there are "TWO Pathways" that can reach this point, The "System" before the Fork is not Irreducibly Complex by the simple fact that there are TWO Pathways.  What is Irreducibly Complex is everything after this FORK from Factor Xa which converts Prothrombin to Thrombin!!  aka...The 4 STEPS of Final Pathway: The Actual Blood Clotting!!

 

The Argument that "Purportedly" refuted Behe was that: whales and dolphins lack Factor XII (Intrinsic Pathway), puffer fish lack factors XI, XII, and XIIa (Intrinsic Pathway) and jawed fish lack the Intrinsic Pathway altogether.... and their Blood still Clots.  Well, so what? :24:  Give me utter irrelevancy for $500 Alex.

 

They "ALL" still have the Extrinsic Pathway that leads to Factor Xa.....The Entire Point!!  So the argument in TOTO is a Strawman (Logical Fallacy) and Non-Sequitur (Logical Fallacy).

 

This Argument is Tantamount to saying....that a bike doesn't need both its wheels because unicycles function with one wheel.

 

We can solve this....take all these and Knockout Factor Xa or any single--- (Prothrombin, Thrombin, Fibrinogen, Fibrin, or Factor XIIIa---{which is activated by Thrombin}) and lets see what we get!!

 

Moreover, Lets Knockout Vit K (Co-Enzyme) and see what you get!

 

TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious.

 

 

Same with the flagellar motor.

 

Baloney.

 

A simpler system that has some of the same parts (The Type III Secretory System)  as another system doesn't suggest that the more complex system isn't irreducibly complex. If a system minus one part can perform a similar function, that would be evidence. But if you see another system that looks similar to the more complex but has 10 parts missing and performs a "different function", then AT BEST, it shows that some things are made using a similar pattern and materials. A Cessna has many things in common with a Flying Fortress, but the design differences require an intelligent agent to bring them about.

 

The Type III System is missing the ENTIRE "MOTOR" assembly!  It's another Strawman (Fallacy) in TOTO.

 

So, You're saying that if we took the Battery out of a car...(Ergo, the car doesn't start); but we can use the Car Battery for a Paper Weight, that means, the Football Bat Battery-less Car (That's still not working) is not Irreducibly Complex because we still have the Paper Weight?  :help:

 

The argument against it is Nonsensical (I'm being Kind)

 

The literature on the matter is also in agreement...

 

‘It seems plausible that the original type III secretion system for virulence factors evolved from those for flagellar assembly.’

Mecsas, J., and Strauss, E.J., Molecular Mechanisms of Bacterial Virulence: Type III Secretion and Pathogenicity Islands, Emerging Infectious Diseases 2(4), October–December 1996

 

‘We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems.’

Nguyen L. et al., Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems, J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2(2):125–44, April 2000.

 

They're saying Flagellar "First"....then Type III, not the other way around.  Of course, they're assuming evolution; Ergo...both are Begging The Question (Fallacy)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of straw man is quite rarified, lol

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another Irreducibly Complex Process....

 

Transcription (Abbreviated version): To make ONE "Functional Protein": DNA (Blue-Print/Instructions/SOFTWARE) needs to be Unzipped, Read and Copied (Transcription). RNA Polymerase (RNAP- "Functional Proteins" + RNA) A mind boggling Complex Molecular Rotary Motor, Tape Reader, and Copy Machine (not including roughly 70 other Co-Regulators that have to work in Concert with RNAP that if not working properly, gives you BUPKIS!)....that means the process is Irreducibly Complex!

 

If RNAP is missing or 1 of the 70 Co-Regulators ("Functional Proteins").... do you get 70/71st of a "Functional Protein" or No "Functional Protein"? Ya get ZERO!.... The "process" is Irreducibly Complex.

 

 

Translation is another Irreducibly Complex Process (about 30 Steps would qualify with just a cursory review)....I haven't teased the specifics out yet; too many players  :)  If I get about a week of free time, I'll attempt to itemize it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your definition of straw man is quite rarified, lol

 

 

This is my definition, Straw Man Fallacy:  is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

The exact same technique employed (as I illustrated) to "Purportedly" refute Behe. 

 

Anything else?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0