Response to Hairy reasoners video "From One Eukaryote to Another"

[pestmanpat]

thanks proud

[pestmanpat]

VarialProductions said

In fact, your whole ***** is scientifically retarded because you don't even have a mechanism for ID. Its just "god did it!"... So tell ya what.. from now on.. I don't debate with creationists unless they have a mechanism!

[athlete117]

Well, I should say, that's not so much a mechanism, that's the agency. mechanism refers to a material process and the mind isn't a strictly material process. So we have a valid agency that we know can make these systems from repeated experiences. You have no experience of a car assembling itself so you're the one who's outside of science. I am firmly within science.

[athlete117]

The mechanism for ID is mind. We use ours to do really neat stuff all the time. Like build these incredibly complex information networks, which we're currently using to communicate with one another, called computers.

[athlete117]

The bacterial flagellum - I don't know the exact figure for this - but is somewhere in the region of 8-12000, now if you think that's going to be co-opted or assmebled by some blind mutative process, you're dreaming.

[athlete117]

There are many systems within the cell that are irreducibly complex. Some can evolve and others certainly cannot. It is possible, for instance, to get anti-freeze proteins by random mutation and so it is possible to get new instruction sets by random mutation and natural selection but the mathetmatical limits become more and more obvious when you go beyond a functionally intergrated system with say 750 amino acid residues that are all required for function. Evolution is dead beyond that point.

[noelplum99]

I'm really quite enjoying your exchanges with Hairyreasoner.

Could I just say with regard to the flagellum that even reading Behe post-Miller it seems that he simply refuses to consider exaptation and just keeps stating 'it would be no good for propulsion' which noone is disputing.

A question though: How much behe do you accept?

I would suggest Behe is actually far closer to earl and I than to you.

[pestmanpat]

I dont accept his views on common decent of man from apes.when we get into the flagellum motor debate i need to use caution because my knowledge is limited.I do think that there does not appear to be a rational explanation for the evolution of such an intricate system so i think its a good argument cont -

[VarialProductions]

That is exactly not the point. You are fully capable of understanding the flagellum argument. The brute fact is Behe claimed it is irreducibly complex as a form of evidence for intelligent design. It has beee REDUCED. That is a fact and you can look it up. Now Behe refuses to accept that he was wrong.

I think that creationists are Irreducibly dishonest.

[pestmanpat]

It has been reduced ?

what do you mean by that? If you are telling me that the bacterial flagellum with its outboard motor design has been geneticly reduced to create something like a toxin syringe "in real life" a population on bacteria with fewer parts that perform this entirely different function please send me the link.

[VarialProductions]

its doesn't have to be in real life.. it just has to be proposed and be logically consistent. it isn't irreducibly complex if it "could" have been less complex and still functional. thats the point.

[pestmanpat]

Would you say abiogenesis has been confirmed even though they have not physically created life ?

your evidence is worth considering but you cant state that it has been reduced when it is only on paper.

[athlete117]

You're incorrect, and you're incorrect because you don't understand what irreducible complexity is. Irreducible complexity simply means that if you removed an ysingle part then, in the case of the flagellum, it wouldn't work as a rotary motor. Irreducible complexity doesn'tt say you can't backwards engineer something like a TTSS. That isn't the point. The point of irreducible complexity is that beyond a certain minimal functional threshold for a specific molecular machine, evolution stalls out.

[athlete117]

Now, will you apologise for mistaking the idea for something it isn't? Or are you irreducibly dishonest?

[athlete117]

Neither you, nor Kenneth Miller, have shown that the bacterial flagellum can evolve. Not even close. In fact, you're about as close to demonstrating that as I am to winning the powerball a hundred times in a row.

[athlete117]

Here's how ridiculous your idea really is. If I removed the drive shaft from my car, removed the wheels and ripped off the doors, front and back, and said to you, not to worry, the lights are still on, you wouldn't say my car was still operational as a car now would you?

[athlete117]

Hahaha. I just love it. This is what must go in the heads of evolutionists such as yourself and Kenneth Miller. I tell you what, let's go to a car manufacturer and ask them if they're prepared to mix all the parts up, mix all the machines up on the assembly line, rewire the on and off switches for each of the machines so that you don't know which one is for which in order to produce the next ferrari.

[VarialProductions]

the common descent thing can be proved fairly extensively with genetics. If you compare our genomes the numbers scream common descent. If you don't agree with that than your simply special pleading. however, i think you would admit it has to be evidence for something. and you would say common design..

so.. the common designer for which we have no evidence for and the common design process for which we have no mechanism would be what?

[pestmanpat]

just a quick note.you are free to state whatever opinion you have but please refrain from bad language as it will be instantly deleted.i have deleted two comments of yours and edited and re posted one of them so your argument is heard.

[pestmanpat]

.Im not sure if the bibles definition of kinds applies to bacteria but i also believe that created systems were designed with adaptability through natural selection not to change morphology but to preserve it long term and if the flagellum were to lose genetic information and function in a reduced way as be he suggests is possible this would still fit the ID model.

Really the problem is where did the information come from in the first place.

As a humble theist i dont have all the answers