Slashdot Mirror

Abiogenesis is definitely an unsolved problem - so far. So what? The question of how life got started is logically distinct from how it developed after that start. And evolution addresses that question comprehensively. (Even in the case of the putative examples of 'irreducible complexity' that ID'ers have advanced - e.g. the bacterial flagellum, the clotting cascade, or the vertebrate immune system.)

(Oh, and progress is actually being made on the abiogenesis front anyway.)

Take a look at the Bacteria flagellum. You'll see a full motor inside of it. 27 unique parts that none can have a purpose outside of it being an entire motor.

I'll see your Michael Behe and raise you some scientists who actually understand evolution.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#bactflag

I'm not here to do your homework for you. Read Kitzmiller v. Dover for starters (no doubt you have, and no doubt you disagree with it). Not a scientific document, to be sure, but the testimony showed ID for the charlatan it is - warmed-over creationism in sheep's clothing (or a bright white new lab coat, if you prefer).

And for the rest of you Slashdotters who aren't up to speed on ID, visit the TalkDesign Web site for an introduction.

OK, an example please. Should be easy to find.

Sure, examples abound: See e.g. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html , esp. e.g. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html and that's just for starters.

anss123, you still haven't explained how even one of these systems can evolve gradually. you keep referring to some vague articles you've read in the past. Try to explain this or have someone explain this without referring to some evolutionists' imagination/fantasy scenarios. ie some explanation based on observed phenomenon not imagination.

Start here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#how2eatpcp
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Have you ever tried "engaging" with an ID'er? I don't recommend it.

It's a complete waste of time, especially when you find out that they have practically no knowledge of their own religion and its history, (For eg: "The bible has never been edited!") not to mention absolutely no understanding of Evolution at all. So far, all I've heard from any of these people are the usual Dembski and/or Behe "talking points" like the ridiculous "bacterial flagella" argument they spout over and over again and of course the old favourite, "Irreducible complexity" -- both of which of course have been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

The best part is when you call them on their memorized rant and ask for clarification on a point or two, they often end up like the proverbial deer in headlights and have nothing to say. After all, they're just repeating Dogma and not actually thinking for themselves.

Just in case someone's interested:
Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum
Irreducible Complexity

They simply demonstrate that the world and universe contain much evidence of the presence of "design".

Mind sharing with us what this evidence is?

And please don't bring up that old Behe flagellum unless you want to bring some facts to the table.

Consider the flagellum. It's a complex form of locomotion with interdependant parts. It clearly can not have evolved, and therefore is inexplicable acording to Darwinism.

Bzzzzt. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

I read a book called Darwin's Black Box, which I found extremely compelling. He posts some very devastating evidence against gradualistic evolution, which I have never heard really answered.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough.

I read a book called Darwin's Black Box, which I found extremely compelling. He posts some very devastating evidence against gradualistic evolution, which I have never heard really answered.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough.

you try to classify "the eye" as an identical system that all forms of life are working to perfect

Only one major shift of function occurred at the system level, the transition from a pilus to a protoflagellum. All of the other changes in system function can be seen as minor modifications of a basic function; if these are enumerated (export --> secretion --> adhesion --> pilus, and dispersal --> taxis), then four minor shifts of function occurred. In all cases a "shift" in function is actually more accurately described as an addition of function at the system level, as previous functions are maintained.

You're very confused.

Darwinian evolution could certainly be falsified, and in a sense has been, in some details. This is the reason why we now speak of 'neo-darwinian evolution' as the theory has had to be changed quite a bit to conform with facts discovered since Darwins day. It's far from inconceivable that it could have been falsified in the larger sense as well, were the facts of the matter different. It's considered a solid scientific theory because it's been tested constantly for many years and that's never happened.

On the other hand, by the standard you suggest, we might well argue that ID *has* been falsified already, on several occasions. The irreduceable complexity argument is riddled with holes, both logical and factual. See http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.htm l for a decent review of the argument.

>He's talking about the many cases where no amount of selection pressure will get
>from organism A to organism B (or from squat to Organism A), just as two or more
>small hops won't get you across a chasm.

You're talking about irreductible complexity I belive. This is pretty well covered in the Talkdesigns.org website. Anyway, what you may consider a "big step" in species evolution may not amount to actually much of a step: chromosomal rearrangements and alterations of development genes, for example, can be very small chemistry-wise, but still yield rather big alterations of the final organism system. As we deepen our knowledge of genetics, we know a lot more about how these systems came in place.

I always wondered what they mean when they say, irreducibly complex. I decided to find out..
I knew ID was weak, but they could have at least put some effort into it.

"Intelligent Design is the idea that God manipulated and brought upon evolution. Creation theory is the litteral interpretation of Genesis."

First of all, creationism is not a theory. And second of all, you don't know what intelligent design is. You may want to check out TalkDesign to see what ID actually is, and then you might want to read The Wedge Document.

I think you're wondering about irreducible complexity. You need to click here.

As a part of Science, once it achieves even close to mainstream acceptance (or is even an adequate explanation). Once it progresses beyond a simple argument from ignorance, and offers a single falsifiable prediction.

Until then it's unsubstantiated opinion or kook pseudoscience, and as such has no place in schools at all, let alone Science as a discipline.

The fossil record claims are false and over simplified. See here, here, here, and here.

There are plausible evolutionary models for Flagellum. See here.

Abiogenesis statistics are bullshit and its not like an entire prokareotic cell needs to be be the first self-replicating molecule. See
here.

[Lots of blahblah about how Michael Behe's Irreducable Complexity theory proves evolution to be flawed]
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Behe's "Irreducable complexity" argument is flawed. I suggest you read up on it here and here

It's also worth noting that not one single biological system has ever been shown to actually be irreducably complex according to the criteria of Behe's argument.

Not bad for the length of the article. If you want to understand this all in more detail, I suggest visiting the talk.origins FAQ website. Here is their introduction to Evolutionary Biology. And here is the talkdesign.org (a daughter site devoted to ID) FAQ on refuting Intelligent Design.

You can also use Talk Origins, Talk Reason, Talk Design, EvoWiki and Panda's Thumb to find lots of info on why these people are wrong. If you want to donate money, donate it to the NCSE or Talk.Origins, or perhaps buy some of the books of creationism refuters - I'd reccomend Robert Pennock's book 'Tower of Babel' as quite a good introduction.

Even my lowly blog has a few things on the ID/creationism debacle.

As you imply ID != Literal [Christian|7-day] Creationism.

Also, many Christians believe evolution is the tool used by God. Similarly with the big bang and the creation of our universe.

I haven't seen sufficient evidence to weigh in with any one [particular] theory as yet, for either situation. But I do /believe/ in ID. I'd probably lean towards evolution from a running start.

My conviction comes partly from faith and _partly_ from analysis of things like arguments for irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella. Counter-arguments haven't yet convinced me as they tend to have statements such as "careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum" [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html ]. The implication being: just because an intelligent being can find a possible route then it must have been followed by evolution.

And then, as we both agree, evolution may be Gods mechanism.

Simply to discount intelligent design is not scientific as theism transcends scientific reasoning. You can show an extremely high probabilty that evolution will not be falsified, but however much you protest that doesn't deny the possibility of an intelligent creator.

Flame away!

Of course, Behe's arguments have been laughed out of court by the mainstream scientific community. He might be right... but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Only by an intelligent designer, i.e., God could much of this be plausibly explained.

That's not an explanation, that's a lack-of-explanation. Start explaining at a detailed biochemical level how God might have tailored those molecules and then you'll have an alternative theory.

ID has two challenges: to show that evolution cannot account for observations, and to provide an alternative theory with better explanatory power. So far they have failed on both counts.

Here is a lay summary of observed evolution of an irreducibly complex metabolic path in bacteria. By past experience I expect the ID-ers will say, "oh, that's not irreducibly complex after all.... but look, superman!"

Irreducible complexity, while typically parrotted by Intelligent Design proponents as Evolution's great failure, is actually mostly based on a flawed understanding the mechanics of evolution. Here's a pretty in-depth article on it: Irreducible Complexity Demystified.

It doesn't include the bit about the eye, but the eye isn't all that complex, actually (as evidenced by it being one of the only senses whose mechanics, at the chemical level, we completely understand.) This example of so-called irreducible complexity was actually first contemplated by Darwin (iirc) and has been treated pretty extensively. Nowadays, most ID proponents don't even bring it up, prefering more exotic and less easily refuted examples, like bacterial flagella.

Anyway, it's a good read.

Can anyone offer a plausible explanation for how any one of the pieces of a bacterial flagellum would offer that bacterium some sort of advantage?

Anyway, what was that about evolution not being able to cause a turbine to be created? I definitely agree with you on that point!

Keep in mind that the Creationists need only one counter example to prove Darwin wrong. They can't even do that! I very much appreciate this explanation of Intelligent Design.

You said: Can anyone offer a plausible explanation for how any one of the pieces of a bacterial flagellum would offer that bacterium some sort of advantage?

Why yes, I think we can!

A nice quote from the conclusion: ...the very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations might be required.

Nice try though...

Creationist claptrap doesn't need to get peer reviewed to get published (and then subsequently spouted off on internet message boards). But since creationists like to talk about bacterial flagellums people have gone to the trouble to write peer reviewed published articles refuting the claptrap.

Is there some conspiracy of bible thumpers that come along and comment on slashdot biology threads and then up-moderate their co-horts or are there really enough fucking stupid slashdot readers that really think arguments like "irreducible complexity" have interesting merit?

He doesn't expect they will listen, because there's more than just evidence involved in the person's conversion.

When it comes to science though, evidence is the *only* thing which matters. If you have some valid evidence and don't think they will listen, I'd be more than happy to hand it in for you, a Nobel prize would be way cool.

Would you say that you have more than "just evidence" involved in your 'conversion' to creationism?

"Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson.

Johnson is a lawyer, and argues like one. Science is not a courtroom, and even if it was, he still has no "Exhibit A" to submit to the jury, nor even an expert witness.

Please take the time to read this critique of "Darwin on Trial".

What in the world is your point?

Surely you can see that I was demonstrating the problem with your original question?

"Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?"

Wah...? Where did this come from?

1. There is no "darwinist model".
2. Assuming you mean the Theory of Evolution, there are no known fundamental problems.
3. If you are claiming to have some knowledge of one or more fundamental problems, I'd like to know what they are.

See, it's not a yes or no answer now is it?

Also, so that when darwinist posts are made, people realise that there are actually others, within the geek community, that have objections.

I'm not a Darwinist by the way. The term seems to imply a person dedicated to some cause, but the fact is just I happen to agree with current scientific thinking on the origins of life on earth, on the basis that they have actual evidence for it.

Implying that thousands of scientists are incompetent or part of a huge conspiracy to suppress evidence and stamp out opposing views is a far cry from just letting it be known that you disagree with a viewpoint.

> If these intelligent design people want to believe that God or whoever was behind natural selection and selected species for extinction using the rules [HhSs]e developed, etc., that's fine. It doesn't really matter as long as they accept the fact that the genesis of man happened in the same way as the genesis of every other species. Perhaps God gave us a soul, perhaps not. Does it matter when trying to understand the fossil record?

What the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement are slow to tell the churches they visit on their speaking tours (odd venue for scientists, but such is the nature of ID "science") is that most of them actually accept an ancient earth, the big bang, and even biological evolution. They just want to preserve some tiny niche for God to hide in, so they can get religion back in the public schools. Thus they pursue a "big tent" creationism in order to draw in enough voters to force the issue in state legislatures and state or local school board meetings.

They are also, for the most part, neocons who think "religion is the opiate of the masses, and that's a good thing" (as the cynics on talk.origins phrase it). The Discovery Institute is actually an arm of a neocon umbrella organization which formerly promoted "the renewal of science and culture" before that admission proved to be too damning for their goals of getting religion taught as science in the public schools, and they pulled their strategy off their Web site. For more information on this, google for ["intelligent design" "wedge document"] or ["Discovery Institute" "wedge document"], and you should be able to turn up lots of interesting reading. Or if you can't find anything apropos, visit talk.origins and delurk long enough to ask about Intelligent Design and political goals. People there can direct you to much better readings than I can. Or take a peek at talkdesign.org and see what a bit of browsing turns up.