Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Amazing Flagellum is even more amazing!

-
The more we know-

Scientists have discovered that the bacterial flagellum replaces parts- while it is operating!

See Signal-dependent turnover of the bacterial flagellar switch protein FliM

and

"Dynamic motors for bacterial flagella" also in PNAS

37 Comments:

  • At 6:26 PM, Blogger godfrey941 said…

    Good Find Joe -the flagellum as an example of IC still remains a valid model as far as I can see.

     
  • At 11:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am surprised more ID blogs haven't picked up on this.

    Yes the flagellum is IC through and through- from its assembly to its operation...

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Since it's been repeatedly demonstrated that biological IC systems can and do evolve by purely natural mechanisms, what's your point?

    Your body is an IC system Joe. Were you assembled all at once?

    Take away your heart, you die.

    Take away your lungs, you die.

    Take away your kidneys, you die.

    Take away your brain, no one can tell the difference.

     
  • At 12:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    diasper boy:
    Since it's been repeatedly demonstrated that biological IC systems can and do evolve by purely natural mechanisms, what's your point?

    There isn't any evidence that blind, undirected chemical processes can produce irreducibly complex systems.

    IOW you are a liar.

    Not only are you a liar but it has been proven that you don't even understand your own position.

     
  • At 12:08 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, answer the question. Were you assembled all at once? Why do avoid answering questions you are uncomfortable with?

     
  • At 8:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Were you assembled all at once?

    I wasn't put together one piece at a time, that's for sure.

    Everything that went into making me was present in those two germ cells- one from my dad and one from my mom.

    Why do avoid answering questions you are uncomfortable with?

    Why do you avoid answering questions?

     
  • At 12:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    diaper boy:
    Were you assembled all at once?

    Yes.

    Were you pieced together like Frankenstein?

     
  • At 6:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You were assembled all at once? Really? Physically? All your parts came into being at the same time? Just as they are now?

    If I were you, I'd publish; that's freaking amazing!

     
  • At 7:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You were assembled all at once?

    Were you put together one piece at a time?

    But yes once momma's egg was fertilized all the instructions to make me were in place.

    All your parts came into being at the same time?

    All the information for the parts did.

    Then they developed.

     
  • At 12:56 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hmm. That kind of destroys the notion of IC systems all by itself then, doesn't it?

    An IC system can't function unless it is all present at the same instant. You are an IC system. You were not physically assembled at one time.

    Oops.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That kind of destroys the notion of IC systems all by itself then, doesn't it?

    No.

    An IC system can't function unless it is all present at the same instant.

    All the information is present at the same time.

    You are an IC system. You were not physically assembled at one time.

    The information was assembled at one time.

    IC is all about the information required to bring about any irreducibly complex system.

    IOW thank you for continuing to expose your ignorance.

    However your ignorance is not a refutation...

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    ah, so all the mousetrap examples are pure shit?

    Then, all the physical examples of IC systems tat are supposed to destroy ToE are pure shit.

    Fine. You should have just said so. How is it again that you measure the information present?

     
  • At 10:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ah, so all the mousetrap examples are pure shit?

    No, your brains are pure shit.

    The point about the mousetrap is it takes specified information and agency involvement to bring one into existence

    Then, all the physical examples of IC systems tat are supposed to destroy ToE are pure shit.

    No, your brains are pure shit.

    Again the point is that it takes specified information and agency involvement- blind, undirected processes have never been shown to create any.

    Do you really think your ignorance refutes ID?

     
  • At 11:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    no, Joe. That is decidedly not the point of the mousetrap example. The point is that the mousetrap won't work without all its parts. That's always been the point of the mousetrap example.

    Now, according to you, it's about the idea of making the mousetrap. You're hilarious.

    “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” — Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 39

    Hmmmm. Nothing about ideas. There seems to be a lot about the PHYSICAL PARTS of the system....

    Try to read your own literature, Joe.

     
  • At 11:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The point is that the mousetrap won't work without all its parts. That's always been the point of the mousetrap example.

    Yes and the more parts the less likely blind, undirected processes can account for it.

    Dr Behe's mousetrap example had a 5 part IC core- 5 parts that could have only been properly manufactured and assembled by an intelligent agency.

    That has always been the point.

    In order to get an IC core of 5 or more parts you need specified information and agency involvement.

    On the other side we have your position whichs sez that only after a system is functioning can natural selection have any say.

    That is why all the parts have to be created and properly assembled "in one fell swoop" because before it is a functioning system it is wasteful garbage doomed to extinction.

    Now if you were to watch "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" you would hear Jonathon Wells talking about what I posted.

    Ya see ID is more than what your narrow mind can quote-mine...

     
  • At 11:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And the following proves you are an imbecile:

    Now, according to you, it's about the idea of making the mousetrap.

    No you moron.

    In order to make the mousetrap Dr Behe wrote about you need information- assembly instructions, bill of materials- information, specified information.

    That plus agency involvement.

    And with me it was the same- the information- assembly instructions and materials- were all there ready to develop as designed.

    It is IC through and through starting with the coupling of the two germ cells, the assembly instructions and final functionality...

     
  • At 5:41 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, read Behe's statement. There is nothing about making the trap. There is only the statement that "without all parts" the mousetrap ceases functioning. There is nothing about making or designing or anything else.

    Behe was making the argument purely on a physical basis. There is no other way to interpret Darwin's Black Box.

    Now, since the writing, the argument has mysteriously morphed, but IC was introduced as a purely physical example and argument.

     
  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    You must be a freakin' mental midget.

    Dr Behe states in "Darwin's Black Box" that humans can and do create irreducibly complex systems and structures.

    Read the top of page 44.

    That is the whole point- intelligent agencies can do it and blind, undirected processes cannot.

    Ya see when we design things they don't have to be working all at once.

    We can manufacture something one piece at a time.

    That is the advantage of planning and foresight.

    If a car is unfinished one day we come back the next and work on it until it is finished.

    Blind, undirected processes can't do that.

    He goes over that on pages 46-48.

    But all that is moot because you don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about.

    Joe, read Behe's statement. There is nothing about making the trap.

    You have to keep reading.

    The quote you mined does not exist in isolation.

    Now, since the writing, the argument has mysteriously morphed, but IC was introduced as a purely physical example and argument.

    You don't understand the argument.

    The argument is as I have told you- IC is a serious roadblock for blind, undirected processes but not for intelligent agencies utilizing specified information.

    As for "mysteriously morphing" LoL! Just look at your position which changes every year or so...

     
  • At 6:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum up-

    IC is about physical parts functioning as one unit.

    That is the removal of any of its core components causes the unit to stop functioning.

    Now the only known cause of IC systems and structures is intelligent agencies utilizing specied information.

    Blind, undirected processes have never been observed doing so.

    So if we ever observe blind, undirected processes creating a 5-part IC core system/ structure then we will know it doesn't take agency involvement nor specified information to do so.

     
  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, IC is completely useless then? IC systems can and do arise. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't; we have no way of telling. Wow. That's useful.

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, IC is completely useless then?

    Only to complete dolts like you.

    IC systems can and do arise.

    How do they arise is the question.

    And it appears that blind, undirected processes have an issue with anything with more than two IC core components.

    That is pathetic.

    Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't; we have no way of telling.

    When you say "we" you must mean you and your mental midget friends. Because I and most educated people, certainly have a way of making such a determination.

    Ya see moron, your position cannot account for anything beyond a few amino acids and maybe some nucleotides- big maybe.

    That is why you have an evotardgasm every time IC gets mentioned.

    It is all you can do.

    You really believe if your evotardgasm is powerful enough it will refute ID.

    You cannot refute ID with evotardgasms.

    What you really need to do is produce positive evidence for your position.

     
  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What Dr Behe says:

    "In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1)

    How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design." (bold added)

     
  • At 1:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That exact sort of thing has been done, Joe. Nature comes up with some amazing shit, even a flagellum.

    As an example, please tell us how to tell if two different rock formations where designed. You can pick the formations. Run us through the process that determines which is designed and which is not.

    So, here's the test, Joe.

    1. JoeTard will pick (without any input from others) two rock formations--one designed and one not designed.

    2. JoeTard will then run us through the process of determining which is designed and which is not.

    3. This example will be the benchmark for all ID arguments in the future and JoeTard will be a hero.

    If this can't be done, then ID is crap. If we can't determine whether or not a bunch of rocks is designed (even in principle), how can we go about determining the design of the universe?

    Let's have it, Joe. Time to put up or shut up. This experiment is at the very heart of ID, why has no one even attempted it? Why will you now avoid it?

     
  • At 2:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That exact sort of thing has been done, Joe. Nature comes up with some amazing shit, even a flagellum.

    That is an evidence-free/ bald assertion.

    Ya see if you had some supporting scientific data you would have presented it.

    As an example, please tell us how to tell if two different rock formations where designed.

    1- Stonehenge- designed

    2- Old man on the Mountain (NH)- not designed:

    1- Stonehenge design determined due to the presence of counterflow, namely, but not limited to, mortise and tenon joints

    2- Old man on the Mountain determined to be produced by nature operating freely because of the absence of counterflow

    Is clownie really questioning if archaeology can or cannot determine an artifact from nature, operating freely?

    Is clownie questioning the fact that people cannot differentiate between artifacts and nature, operating freely?

    Will clownie ever produce any positive evidence for its position or tell us the methodology used to determine that blind, undirected chemical processes can produce a bacterial flagellum?

    Does clownie also think that archaeology and forensic science are nonsense?

     
  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But anyway clownie thank you for your latest evotardgasm.

    You do have some enteratinment value even if it is just to get people to laugh at you...

     
  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Counterflow: Joe thinks it looks designed.

    Please be more specific, Joe. Otherwise, it's just you saying something looks designed.

    Please go through the steps of determining the design of stonehenge that do not involve looking at things we know humans did. Thanks.

     
  • At 12:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Counterflow: Joe thinks it looks designed.

    That is false.

    Counterflow is based on our knowledge and experience.

    And that is how archaeology and forensics- SETI too- makes the determination.

    Please go through the steps of determining the design of stonehenge that do not involve looking at things we know humans did.

    Please provide the data that says we determined Stonehenge was designed because of what we know humans do.

    IOW Erik all you are doing is saying that your ignorance is meaningful discourse.

    Just because you don't know how scientists go about dtermining design from nature, operating freely, you make up a strawman- we know it was designed because we see people designing such things- is laughable at best.

    You are a clueless dolt.

    Ya see moron, if it is ever demonstrated that nature, operating freely can produce such a structure as Stonehenge, then we would have to re-think our "conclusion" on Stonehenge.

    So the step-by-step process would be to figure out what could cause the event- make the structure- in question.

    We call on all of our experience and knowledge.

    Ya see dillweed people can make lightning, does that mean all lightning is man-made?

    According to your "logic" it does.

    So we always choose the line of least resistence- parsimony.

    And blind. undirected processes- by observation and experience- are very limited in what they can create.

    It's not my fault that you cannot provide positive evidence for your position.

    It's not my fault your position is nothing more than "anything but design"...

    But please do keep the evotardgasms flowing.

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How do they go about it, Joe. You type a lot of words about how we determine that Stonehenge is designed, but never get around to actually going through the steps that show that it is. Why is that?

    Just take a couple minutes and give us the rundown on how we determine that Stonehenge is designed. I'll get you started:

    1. We ___________________.

    2. Then ___________________.

    3. After seeing _________________, we calculate _______________________.

    4. ______________________________.


    Whatever they are, give them to us.

     
  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wow another evotardgasm- go figure...

    clowntard- start telling us how scientists determined that the universe and living organisms are the result of blind, undirected processes and you will be the first to do so.

    That way I will know if you have any understanding of science.

    And once you demonstrate such an understanding by actually poroviding positive evidence or a testable hypothesis for your position I will believe I will not be wasting my time continuing to explain ID to you.

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And clowntard- if we cannot tell the difference between design and non-design then your position is bullshit also...

     
  • At 9:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    And please, use Stonehenge. It's something that you are familiar with. It's something that your audience is familiar with. This should be the ID / IC example; it's easy.

     
  • At 9:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great. Now what are the steps in determining whether or not Stonehenge was designed?

     
  • At 9:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now what are the steps in determining whether or not Stonehenge was designed?

    How blipey investigates:

    1- pull's head out of ass so that he can observe the structure

    2- yawn, scratch his ass and put his head back up your rectum

    How educated people do it:

    1- observe the structure.

    2- See what the stones are- what type of stones

    3- check their densities

    4- estimate their weight

    5- find location of stone origin

    6- Determine what force was required to move the stones to their present location

    7- Determine what forces could have placed the stones in that formation

    IOW the explanatory filter or some reasonable fascimile would be used.

    So we would go down the list- glaciers can move big rocks.

    Floods can move big rocks.

    Wind? It would be a wind like one never observed, so we would rule that out.

    Meteorites? We would check for evidence of that.

    So we would go about eliminating competing forces.

    And once mother nature was eliminated, because mother nature just isn't up to the task, giants and magic entered.

    Today we have solidified the reasoning that mother nature wasn't up to it but we haven't quite figured out who built it and why.

    Not that a clown would understand any of that...

     
  • At 12:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you have no idea? Is that the reason you did not determine whether or not Stonehenge was designed?

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you have no idea?

    I have no idea why you are such an ignorant asshole nor why you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse.

    Is that the reason you did not determine whether or not Stonehenge was designed?

    I have made that determination- mother nature is incapable and only intelligent agencies are capable.

    But thank you for continuing to fulfill my predictions.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, it's a one-step process?

    Is Stonehenge designed?

    Step 1. Mother nature is incapable of doing it.

    No need to break that step down any further!

    Other things to apply this methodology to:

    1. Invest in Stock A or Stock B?

    Method: Stock A is cool.

    2. Hire Candidate A or Candidate B?

    Method: Candidate A has a name I can pronounce.

    This is easy!

     
  • At 6:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, it's a one-step process?

    Yet I posted multiple steps.

    Step 1. Mother nature is incapable of doing it.

    This is what I posted:

    1- observe the structure.

    2- See what the stones are- what type of stones

    3- check their densities

    4- estimate their weight

    5- find location of stone origin

    6- Determine what force was required to move the stones to their present location

    7- Determine what forces could have placed the stones in that formation


    Also it isn't enough to eliminate mother nature.

    There has to be some specification- some counterflow or indication of work.

    And BTW that is how it is done in archaeology and forensics...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home