-
The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.
How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function.
ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design.
The integration of these two systems is indeed lacking accidentalist explanations, as is every other aspect of life, without exception.
ReplyDeleteEven more solidly proving intelligent agency is the uncanny timing and directionality of the enrgy output of the ATP cycle.
By any logic, energy produced by any method should be random bursts accomplishing nothing particularly complex and functional. Yet without fail, energy produced by the ATP cycle is:
A. Located exactly where needed.
B. Always retained until needed.
C. Released in the amount needed, no more, no less.
D. Always and without fail, pushing its force in the direction needed by the organism for a specific function.
You know... "standard chemistry".
What is the "criteria of design" Joe?
ReplyDeleteOM:
ReplyDeleteWhat is the "criteria of design" Joe?
The same as it has always been- even for foensics and archaeology.
So perhap yo need an education asyou appear to be very ignorant.
Joe
ReplyDeleteThe same as it has always been- even for foensics and archaeology.
Sure, but what *is* it? Don't you know?
The same as it has always been- even for foensics and archaeology.
ReplyDeleteOM:
Sure, but what *is* it?
Don't YOU know? I have blogged about it enough. And if you don't what the fuck are you even doing here?
If "it" is the same as "it" is for archaeology and forensics can you supply a reference to "it's" definition as used in those two fields?
ReplyDeleteThat should be trivial, if what you are saying is true.
If "it" is the same as "it" is for archaeology and forensics can you supply a reference to "it's" definition as used in those two fields?
ReplyDeleteLook it up for yourself. I have provided it for archaeology already. I have provided it for ID also- several times. As for forensics that just follows from the others.
That should be trivial, if what you are saying is true.
If you can't look it up for yourself then when you show up for that fight I will show you if you ever recover.
OM, are you just playing dumb or are you really just not very bright? I'm not trying to be mean, but Im trying to figure out if you seriously still dont get this simple concept or are you just being doggedly intransigent?
ReplyDeleteI guess I will indulge yet again just in case you really are lost.
If an observation is both specific and complex, it can reach a point where the probability of it occurring by random accident is so miniscule that it can be determined to be statistically impossible. We can use Borel's standard of impossibility or most just use common sense.
Since not everyone has commn sense, we still have the math to lock it down as a certainty.
If it is impossible for this observation to have happened by random acident, then intelligent cause is the scientifically plausible explanation.
See our comments on ATP for starters. Any thoughts? Any attempt at science? Or still just playing dumb?
IA
ReplyDeleteIf it is impossible for this observation to have happened by random acident, then intelligent cause is the scientifically plausible explanation.
Nobody is claiming the flagellum arose via "random accident".
Nobody except those intent on making a straw man of evolution to knock down.
Can you tell me how it was determined that the flagellum was intelligent designed?
Joe
ReplyDeleteAs for forensics that just follows from the others.
Sure it does Joe, sure it does.
Link or paste.
IA
ReplyDeleteSince not everyone has commn sense, we still have the math to lock it down as a certainty.
Do we? Can you pick an example, say the flagellum, and show the math?
OM, Joe G and I clearly pointed one of an endless list of serious problems with random chaos as an explanation for complex functional order. What is your *scientific* explanation for the uncanny ability of ATP to produce energy in such functional ways? Luck? Genetic codes? Denial?
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that we would drop dead as a stone if it ever stopped happening so efficiently and purposefully for a moment. We need ATP to be precise with both timing and placement. We each rely on intelligent energy output in thousands of multi-faceted ways, trillions of times per day.
Good thing we keep on getting so "lucky", eh Darwinist?
Isn't it amazing that a cat's skin has holes exactly where it's eyes are and its legs a *just* long enough to reach the ground?
ReplyDelete"Not your's therefore mine" isn't science, boys.
ReplyDeleteRichTard:
ReplyDelete"Not your's therefore mine" isn't science, boys.
Yet it appears that is all YOU have.
As for forensics that just follows from the others.
ReplyDeleteOM:
Sure it does Joe, sure it does.
It does and I have already linked.
Now you can do your own research or continue to wallow in your ignorance.
OM:
ReplyDeleteNobody is claiming the flagellum arose via "random accident".
Your position doesn't have anything else.
It is all just accumulations of genetic accidents. And I have prvided the references that supports that.
OM:
ReplyDeleteCan you tell me how it was determined that the flagellum was intelligent designed?
That has been done by many people.
You need to come to a discussion prepared. Your ignorance is not a refutation.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIt is all just accumulations of genetic accidents.
you forgot the part about the filter of selection.
Joe
ReplyDeleteYour position doesn't have anything else.
Can you provide a citation of a biologist who claims that the flagellum arose solely "by chance"?
If you cannot then your claim is dishonest and should, if you had any integrity, be retraced.
It is all just accumulations of genetic accidents.
ReplyDeleteOM:
you forgot the part about the filter of selection.
No, I didn't. Ya see the genetic accidents accumulate via a number of processes.
Your position doesn't have anything else.
ReplyDeleteOM:
Can you provide a citation of a biologist who claims that the flagellum arose solely "by chance"?
What else is there? Be specific.
OM:
ReplyDeleteCan you provide a citation of a biologist who claims that the flagellum arose solely "by chance"?
There isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct useful, functional multi-part systems.
IOW there isn't any biologist who can claim the flagellum arose via anything but design.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhat else is there? Be specific.
That'll be a "no" then, you can't provide such a citation. Your ducking of the issue has been noted.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteYa see the genetic accidents accumulate via a number of processes.
And are they filtered? If so, how? And what does the filter do?
What else is there? Be specific.
ReplyDeleteOM:
That'll be a "no" then, you can't provide such a citation.
What else is there? Geez read Matr's "What Evolution Is" if you want a citation- chance is the main factor, if not the only one.
Ya see the genetic accidents accumulate via a number of processes.
ReplyDeleteOM:
And are they filtered?
Not really. Whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce. And this happens for a number of reasons.
OM makes the statement: "Nobody is claiming the flagellum arose via 'random accident'".
ReplyDeleteGreat, then either youve finally evolved a brain or you are too stupid to realize you have nothing more than a luck theory.
Later you ask what selection does. In short, it does nothing. Selection is the passive state of not being dead yet. It is a circular tautological fallacy to claim a result as its own cause. Survival causes surviving.
For information on the flagellum being caused by intelligent agency, I recommend the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, which devotes a full chapter to it.
Most mathematical calculations on genomic leaps also tend to take up many pages of information, not a couple paragraphs in a blog, because of the enormous odds against you being correct.
Read up on the subject. You cant just name a trait and expect calculations for it overnight in a blog. I highly doubt that you, the one who is claiming luck, will ever provide any math to back up your claims.
Still, many hundreds of mathematicians have done the work, and you should start learning. I recommend "Not by Chance" by Spetner, "Deniable Darwin" by Berlinski and "Mathematical Challenges to Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" by Moorehead (Wistar).
Rich disappoints again when he says: "'Not your's therefore mine'" isn't science, boys"
ReplyDeleteI have to say this first: Its a helluva lot better than "We observe yours, therefore mine." or "Not mine, therefore mine."
One of the most tried and true indispensible tools of the scientific method is the process of elimination. Especially when two competing theories are mutually exclusive, proving the other claims are invalid goes a long way toward validating one's own theory, and it absolutely IS a scientific process.
The word "therefore" implies certainty, but "proof" is not a stand-alone goal of science. Our job is to find the most plausible explanation, with an open mind for further exploration. Given that your theory has been debunked, intelligent cause is the most plausible explanation for a world of functional beings.
And intelligent evolution is not dependent merely upon default validation. We have overwhelming positive evidence as well. The failure of materialism to explain anything at all only further solidifies our findings.
OM, that last publication I read to you is a compilation of a gathering of some of the greatest mathematical minds in history including the reknowned Murray Eden. Hundreds of mathematicians and physicists debated against hundreds of Darwinists in a series of conferences beginning in the 1960's in Wistar, PA.
ReplyDeleteSorry, dude, Darwinism is a dud.
OM, I can see you are getting confused about selection, but you seem to realize it is merely a filter. Bear in mind that a filter can only subtract. It cannot create anything that isnt already there. Something has to cause a desirable trait BEFORE selection can simply not kill it.
ReplyDeleteGiving credit to selection is a bit like praising your neighborhood arsonist for the fact that you have a beautiful building that he didnt burn down.
The Darwinian Fallacy can confuse those who dont give it much thought.
Why do we have long-necked giraffes? Because the short-necked ones died says the childhood joke, but to Darwinists this joke is real. It would be logical, but false, to credit selection for the absence of short-necked giraffes, because a filter can eliminate. But absolutely no credit at all for long-neck giraffes can logically be given to selection.
You have nothing but rank luck to attempt to explain everything.
Selection: "We live because we didnt die."
Brilliant.
IA wrote: OM, that last publication I read to you is a compilation of a gathering of some of the greatest mathematical minds in history including the reknowned Murray Eden. Hundreds of mathematicians and physicists debated against hundreds of Darwinists in a series of conferences beginning in the 1960's in Wistar, PA.
ReplyDeleteThat's a wild exaggeration. In fact, there was only one evolution symposium at the Wistar Institute. It happened in 1966 and had just two mathematicians, Eden and Schützenberger, who were asking inept questions. There were a couple of physicists attending, Ulam and Weisskopf, but Ulam said quite sensible things and Weisskopf did not present anything so far as I know.
You can find an account of the symposium here.
IA,
ReplyDeleteBooks are one thing, peer reviewed papers in the relevant journals are another.
Do you have any papers you can cite rather then popular science books aimed at the lay reader?
IA
ReplyDeleteStill, many hundreds of mathematicians have done the work, and you should start learning.
Yes, and the work does not support ID.
Unless you can name, say, 50 of those hundreds of mathematicians whose work you claim supports ID?
Great, then either youve finally evolved a brain or you are too stupid to realize you have nothing more than a luck theory.
You don't need luck when you have cumulative selection. And that's what you don't understand.
And if I'm too stupid to understand it then I'm in good company as 99.999% of all working biologists also agree with me.
OM:
ReplyDeleteDo you have any papers you can cite rather then popular science books aimed at the lay reader?
Do you have any papers you can cite that demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct useful, functional multi-part systems?
If not then you need to get busy.
Joe
ReplyDeleteDo you have any papers you can cite that demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct useful, functional multi-part systems?
Do you have any papers that you can cite that show that the lack of what you claim would validate evolution is actually a problem for the theory of evolution?
If not, then so what?
oleg, although only two of the conferences were held in Wistar, they all were known by the name.
ReplyDeleteThere were hundreds of signatories, and a heated battle. The ineptitude was clearly on the part of the Darwinists who still believed they had a perpetual improvement machine. Not one physicist or mathematician at the conference agreed with the Darwinists, although many of the biologists slammed Darwinism.
This is where Collin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History made the famous quote that Datwinism is "positively anti-knowledge". He was being too kind.
Darwinism pertains to Biology, but it is a mathematical fallacy. When the math is your enemy, it is time to admit failure.
OM, where did you get this idea?
ReplyDelete"And if I'm too stupid to understand it then I'm in good company as 99.999% of all working biologists also agree with me."
This is among the most hotly contested scientific battles of all time, with PhD's and Nobel winners on both sides. You may be thinking of the percentage that support evolution, although you exaggerate even there, but the debate is intelligent evolution versus random mess evolution. I doubt you have the majority there.
Even among those who only take a materialist approach, I know of very few who believe they have any answers. Most admit that life exhibits nothing but evidence of intelligent agency, but they believe they must try to find another answer somehow.
Read "What Darwin Got Wrong", by Fodor and Palmarini. They admit Darwinism cant cause evolution, but they refuse to accept ID because they are "card-carrying atheists". Even outspoken Atheist and reformed Darwinist Will Provine finally admitted that selection cant even "nudge" evolution along and called Darwinism "empty rhetoric".
Despite misinformed court rulings and hard core exclusionary tactics against intelligent evolution in schools, a recent study shows that over 70% of biology teachers refuse to teach accidentalism.
Where did you get your "99.999%" statistic? Lol. Scientific method is not settled by vote, but I dont think you have a majority anyway.
OM says: "You don't need luck when you have cumulative selection."
ReplyDeletePlease try to understand your own flawed theory. No Darwinist has ever claimed they dont rely on luck. They prefer the words "random accident" or "chance" and they never bother to calculate the odds, but it is 100% a luck theory.
The selection filter is for subtraction only. It is the Darwinists lame and false excuse for the lack of evidence for anything non-functional. The vast majority of possible phenotypes were de-selected they say, and this is why we never see evidence of randomness.
This is pure crap, as we should still see thousands of useless but non-life threatening irregularities. But the selection filter can only be used to eliminate undesirable traits, never to create desirable ones.
You are relying 100% on luck for the creation of everything you see.
Rich, what did you mean by your comment about a cat's eye holes? Remember that you are the one claiming that eye holes, sockets, tear ducts, lids, muscles, blood supply and optic nerves all are found only exactly where needed exactly where the eyes are because of amazing lucky strokes.
ReplyDeleteA cat would not die if a few optic nerves were found in the paws. Why is it that all optic nerves begin and end where needed, Rich? Eye sockets formed across many species about 240 million years ago. Do you believe the eye holes, eyes and other soft tissue arrived at the same time or separately? Do you envision animals with empty eye sockets?
We wouldnt die if we had an eye without an eye hole, so where are such things? Selection cant take away anything that doesnt kill us. Where are the optic nerves that arent precisely placed?
Do you have any papers you can cite that demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct useful, functional multi-part systems?
ReplyDeleteOM:
Do you have any papers that you can cite that show that the lack of what you claim would validate evolution is actually a problem for the theory of evolution?
So you don't have any evidece to support your position. Thanks for confirming your position is shit.
IA wrote: oleg, although only two of the conferences were held in Wistar, they all were known by the name.
ReplyDeleteThere were hundreds of signatories, and a heated battle. The ineptitude was clearly on the part of the Darwinists who still believed they had a perpetual improvement machine. Not one physicist or mathematician at the conference agreed with the Darwinists, although many of the biologists slammed Darwinism.
Still wrong. There was only one Wistar symposium on the subject. The second event you are referring to was held elsewhere and was "Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei: Wistar Retrospective Symposium." This was organized by ID people and held in Boston.
And if there were "hundreds of signatories," can we see the list? What are you even talking about?
Joe
ReplyDeleteSo you don't have any evidece to support your position.
The theory of evolution has quite enough evidence supporting it.
I thought this blog was about ID and the evidence for that?
Again, do you have any evidence that what you claim is a problem for evolution is actually considered a problem for evolution? Other the your claim itself, of course.
So you don't have any evidece to support your position.
ReplyDeleteOM:
The theory of evolution has quite enough evidence supporting it.
All evidence o the contrary of course. Heck you don't have any evidence for the construction of useful, fuctional multi-part systems.
OM:
I thought this blog was about ID and the evidence for that?
Again the way to the design inference is THROUGH yor sorry-ass position. Are you that fucking stupid? I have only covered that a thousand times.
OM:
Again, do you have any evidence that what you claim is a problem for evolution is actually considered a problem for evolution?
Again the complete lack of evidence is a problem. If you cannot demonstrate that known evolutionary processes can construct useful, functional multi-part systems then you have nothing as living organisms are full of them.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteAgain the complete lack of evidence is a problem. If you cannot demonstrate that known evolutionary processes can construct useful, functional multi-part systems then you have nothing as living organisms are full of them.
Whereas you of course can demonstrate that an unknown designer did something at some point some how but we're not quite sure about any of that.
If the complete lack of evidence is a problem for evolution then it's somewhat more of a problem for Intelligent Design don't you think? There's far less evidence for ID then there is for evolution. I can point to dozens of textbooks, thousands of papers and that's from this year alone. What does ID have? A few copies of "pandas and people" hanging about in the garage.
Like the organisms in your quote, you are full of something. And it's not air.
OM:
ReplyDeleteWhereas you of course can demonstrate that an unknown designer did something at some point some how but we're not quite sure about any of that.
It is all about cause and effect relationships you dumbass.
OM:
If the complete lack of evidence is a problem for evolution then it's somewhat more of a problem for Intelligent Design don't you think?
It would be if that ere tru. However I and others have presented plenty of evidence for ID and all you and your ilk can do is choke on it.
OM:
There's far less evidence for ID then there is for evolution.
What "evolution" are you talking about you equivocating coward?
OM:
I can point to dozens of textbooks, thousands of papers and that's from this year alone.
Yet NOT ONE can demonstrate that known evolutionary processes cn construct useful, functional multi-part systems.
IOW with all of what you have you don't have anything.
You are a poice of shit coward who couldn't support its positioif is life depended on it.
Joe
ReplyDeleteIt is all about cause and effect relationships you dumbass.
Then what caused the eye?
However I and others have presented plenty of evidence for ID and all you and your ilk can do is choke on it.
When you and these others get round to publishing in the peer reviewed literature your claims of Intelligent Design then perhaps I'll choke on it then. Until then I'll just laugh as the ID camp writes another childrens book or another "scientific paper" that attempts to pick holes in evolution but does not dare to even mention any idea of a "designer" anywhere in the text.
What "evolution" are you talking about you equivocating coward?
There's only one evolution Joe, and it's "all types of evolution that do not require or need telic involvement". That's the sort I am talking about. What sort are you talking about?
Yet NOT ONE can demonstrate that known evolutionary processes cn construct useful, functional multi-part systems.
Where did HIV come from Joe? Did it design itself? Did those "useful functional" parts of HIV that did not exist 100 years ago but are so very useful for infecting healthy cells get designed in then?
You are a poice of shit coward who couldn't support its positioif is life depended on it.
What, the position that evolution does not require telic involvement? That's an easy position to hold as we've never observed any telic involvement in evolution by non-humans.
What telic involvement have you noticed Joe? Was HIV designed?