Not only has IC not been debunked, it hasn't even been addressed. That is, virtually everything argument against IC is an attack against the strawman that ID doesn't allow for parts of IC systems to have different functions. This is the Ken Miller objection and it simply leaves IC untouched. So what if part of a flagellum is (like) a toxin syringe - this is like throwing an engine at a bicycle and getting a motorbike. Behe dealt with this possibly when he first introduced IC in DarwinBB (p.65/6)
So this intelligent designer designed the flagellum on bacteria whic enables them to infect their host better? I asked a similar question about native americans and their lack of resistance to smallpox that allowed them to get wiped out to an IDer. Why would a designer be so cruel??
Best article I can find on the pili (Type III Secretory) is from "w w w (dot) sciencemag (dot) org/cgi/content/abstract/280/5363/602" Remember to change the (dot) to a "." and remove all spaces to make the link work.
Irriducible complexity is a method of falsifying a claim, specifically evolution. So far, I haven't seen anything that can be definitively irriducible complex (including the flagellum), but that doesn't mean that it isn't a valid argument as a means of falsification. Methods of falsification must exist for a theory to be a valid one. Irreducible complexity is one of them.
I'm not sure how. Maybe I'm missing something. If someone gives me a receipe for scrambled eggs and I show that the mechanism for making scrambled eggs could not possibly work by only placing them in a freezer for 2 hours does not show that "therefore they must be mixed and heated on a stove at 220 degrees for 2 minutes". It simply shows that freezing eggs doesn't make scrambled eggs. It falsified it but does not present a positive argument.
the discovery of ever increacing complexity within the cell only strengthens the case for intelligent design and at the same time presents more and more problems for an evolutionary path way to explain each complex change.Its irriducibly complex because it was designed. That is a positive argument for design.
If alien scientists studied the faces on mt rushmore they could rule out natural forces if they are unable to account for the mathmatical correctness of the spacing of the eyes the proportion of the face,relationship of the nose,face,eyes ect by wind,gravity or other natural forces.Not only does this rule out natural forces,it also points strongly toward intelligent design. There conclusion would be someone made this structure.
You are assuming binary opposition and using law of contradiction. With the mount rushmore example it still doesn't work. We are not discussing a binary opposition. Even the existance or non existance of god isn't a binary when one factors in the 4th dimension of time.
Irreducable complexity only makes a statement on biological evolution, not of any other mechanism. IR makes no positive assertions, only a negative assertion on a very specific point in the theory of evolution. (cont)
(cont) other hypothesis can exist or could be introduced. Such as space gnomes accidentally modified strand of existing bacteria from their rocket thrusters that modified bacteria flagellium into the form that we see to day but they modified no other form of life anywhere else and they themselves were a product of evolution. That in itself would agree with both ID or AD (accidental design) and evolution. Silly example but it does show that this is not a binary argument.
There are only two options with any merit creation and evolution - cosmic,chemical and biological.
If the gnome theory had at least some support amongst the scientific community it may be a 3rd option but it doesnt and in any case it only shifts the question back a step ie where did the gnomes come from and where did the existing bacteria come from.
That was my point. (existing bacteria came from existing bacteria, we are talking evolution not abiogenesis). Same with origin of gnomes. Both could be products of abiogensis and evolution, where as the flagellum is a modified product of ID. The point I'm trying to make is that IR only falsifies because it makes no positive claim. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does nothing to explain HOW something occured and can not be a postive claim for ID, just a negative on evo.
The argument from irreducible complexity is a descendant of the teleological argument for God (the argument from design or from complexity). This states that because certain things in nature are very complicated, they must have been designed. William Paley famously argued, in his 1802 watchmaker analogy, that complexity in nature implies a God for the same reason that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.WICKAPEDIA
The conclusion drawn from the study of the bacterial flaggelum is that the system can not be accounted for via evolutionary path ways and is best explained by intelligent design.
Who's conclusion? Bacterial flaggelum can be shown to be accounted for via the evolutionary path. It has not been shown to be irreducibly complex. It certainly has not been show that intelligent design is it's best explaination. IR does nothing of the sort even if it showed evolution incorrect for the flagellum.
When has the evolution of the bacterial flagellum been tested predicted or observed?
its not enough to speculate as to what may have happened one needs to provide examples of it happening.
Who,s conclusion ? that is exactly the point i make in the video.Nothing has been debunked so long as there are conflicting hypothesis by men and women qualified in there respective fields.
IR is a method of falsifying by stating that evolution "can not" occur due to irreducable complexity. If a method can show that evolution "could" happen then that is enough to counter an argument that it "could not". It does not need to show that it "did" occur. However, if no method could show that it "could" occur then IR has a falsifiable claim. This is not the case. Examples have been presented to show that it is "possible". (cont)
(cont) It is also untrue that something is not debunked if 'any' conflict exists. If that was the case, a spherical earth, the holocaust, gravity, and even existance would still be 'in debate'. IR is not debunked because it's a method, not a theory. It's valid. It just doesn't hold up with the flagellum. What ID needs is a theory that can be used if IR is shown to exists in life.
RE If a method can show that evolution "could" happen then that is enough to counter an argument that it "could not". It does not need to show that it "did" occur.
counter the argument with a conflicting argument yes i would agree but
debunked ? No !
Debunked - expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas
the freedictionary
To do that one would need to show that it did occur.
We are in agreement here. I don't think I ever said that IR was debunked. I said that it just hasn't been successful in falsifying evolution. I even explicity said that IR is not debunked. The only thing I'm saying is that IR can not be used as evidence of a creator but it can be used to weaken or destroy the theory of evolution.
Uhm.. a better anology is the auto windshield wiper, but, anyway: Each component of the bacterial flagellum has been shown to have arisen fom other older and simpler systems. Each and every molecule. This has, indeed, been observed in reverse. As each molecule is looked at, an identical molecule has been seen in other systems. In fact, as molecules are removed from the flagellum by disabling the gene, the flagellum still works. (1 of 2)
(2 of 2) In fact, in one experiment where a critical gene (it coded for a critical component of the flagellum) was disabled, the only effect observed was that the flagellum switched from a purely spiral motion to a back-and forth waving motion. Less efficient. This, it turned out, was because of one of the older systems that coded for a proton pump, still in use by the cell, replaced the knocked out version. The difference? The old pump worked in bursts and the newer replacement continuosuly.
Sure. That was also seen. The same parts were seen forming such a "syringe" and even a DNA exchange bridge. All the parts have other uses in the same species, other species and even foul up several cell mechanisms with one unfavorable genetic mutation. The reason scientists don't trumpet this information around to make Creationists look foolish is... they don't think it's worth the effort or would serve any useful purpose. Instead, other YouTube users are doing that *for* them.
Wikipedia search for "flagellum" and check the links in the "External Links" section. There are several covering bacterial pili (the "syringe" mentioned) and explaining the use by the cells to feed either toxins, digestive enymes or DNA into another cell. The pili are used for all 3 activities and are also how drug resistance is traded between species. New information shared on the bacterial internet.
Yes, ID advocates argue that IR systems must be deliberately engineered by a form of intelligence. I agree with this statement. But what ID argue for and what IR 'is' are different things. IR is a good argument for aiding the debunking of the theory of evolution. But IR itself can make no statement of a designer. To make a positive statement it must show a HOW. If not then it's just a hollow assertion.
Not only has IC not been debunked, it hasn't even been addressed. That is, virtually everything argument against IC is an attack against the strawman that ID doesn't allow for parts of IC systems to have different functions. This is the Ken Miller objection and it simply leaves IC untouched. So what if part of a flagellum is (like) a toxin syringe - this is like throwing an engine at a bicycle and getting a motorbike. Behe dealt with this possibly when he first introduced IC in DarwinBB (p.65/6)
kkkaldav 1 year ago
So this intelligent designer designed the flagellum on bacteria whic enables them to infect their host better? I asked a similar question about native americans and their lack of resistance to smallpox that allowed them to get wiped out to an IDer. Why would a designer be so cruel??
Ramshobraja 1 year ago
@Ramshobraja thats a good question but i says nothin for or against the logical conclusion that the flagellum appears to be designed.
pestmanpat 1 year ago
Best article I can find on the pili (Type III Secretory) is from "w w w (dot) sciencemag (dot) org/cgi/content/abstract/280/5363/602" Remember to change the (dot) to a "." and remove all spaces to make the link work.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
i cant get that link to work can you cut and paste a relevant section.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
its like saying a tv is not irreducibly complex if you remove a component or there is no plug because you can use it as a footstool instead LOL
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Its also great for resting my coffee cup on
pestmanpat 2 years ago
I'm going to chime in here for a second.
Irriducible complexity is a method of falsifying a claim, specifically evolution. So far, I haven't seen anything that can be definitively irriducible complex (including the flagellum), but that doesn't mean that it isn't a valid argument as a means of falsification. Methods of falsification must exist for a theory to be a valid one. Irreducible complexity is one of them.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
hi rosie
This is true ,It is a means of falsification of evolutionary theory however it is also a positive argument for apparent design.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
I'm not sure how. Maybe I'm missing something. If someone gives me a receipe for scrambled eggs and I show that the mechanism for making scrambled eggs could not possibly work by only placing them in a freezer for 2 hours does not show that "therefore they must be mixed and heated on a stove at 220 degrees for 2 minutes". It simply shows that freezing eggs doesn't make scrambled eggs. It falsified it but does not present a positive argument.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
Behe,s hypothesis makes the claim that
the discovery of ever increacing complexity within the cell only strengthens the case for intelligent design and at the same time presents more and more problems for an evolutionary path way to explain each complex change.Its irriducibly complex because it was designed. That is a positive argument for design.
cont-
pestmanpat 2 years ago
If alien scientists studied the faces on mt rushmore they could rule out natural forces if they are unable to account for the mathmatical correctness of the spacing of the eyes the proportion of the face,relationship of the nose,face,eyes ect by wind,gravity or other natural forces.Not only does this rule out natural forces,it also points strongly toward intelligent design. There conclusion would be someone made this structure.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
the scrambeled egg analogy doesnt really
fit .
there may be more than one way to do it.
with the case of the design of a cell there apears only to be two options.intelligence or natural forces.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
You are assuming binary opposition and using law of contradiction. With the mount rushmore example it still doesn't work. We are not discussing a binary opposition. Even the existance or non existance of god isn't a binary when one factors in the 4th dimension of time.
Irreducable complexity only makes a statement on biological evolution, not of any other mechanism. IR makes no positive assertions, only a negative assertion on a very specific point in the theory of evolution. (cont)
RosieDesire 2 years ago
(cont) other hypothesis can exist or could be introduced. Such as space gnomes accidentally modified strand of existing bacteria from their rocket thrusters that modified bacteria flagellium into the form that we see to day but they modified no other form of life anywhere else and they themselves were a product of evolution. That in itself would agree with both ID or AD (accidental design) and evolution. Silly example but it does show that this is not a binary argument.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
There are only two options with any merit creation and evolution - cosmic,chemical and biological.
If the gnome theory had at least some support amongst the scientific community it may be a 3rd option but it doesnt and in any case it only shifts the question back a step ie where did the gnomes come from and where did the existing bacteria come from.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
That was my point. (existing bacteria came from existing bacteria, we are talking evolution not abiogenesis). Same with origin of gnomes. Both could be products of abiogensis and evolution, where as the flagellum is a modified product of ID. The point I'm trying to make is that IR only falsifies because it makes no positive claim. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does nothing to explain HOW something occured and can not be a postive claim for ID, just a negative on evo.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
The argument from irreducible complexity is a descendant of the teleological argument for God (the argument from design or from complexity). This states that because certain things in nature are very complicated, they must have been designed. William Paley famously argued, in his 1802 watchmaker analogy, that complexity in nature implies a God for the same reason that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.WICKAPEDIA
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Intelligent design advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems must have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence.
WICKAPEDIA
pestmanpat 2 years ago
The conclusion drawn from the study of the bacterial flaggelum is that the system can not be accounted for via evolutionary path ways and is best explained by intelligent design.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Who's conclusion? Bacterial flaggelum can be shown to be accounted for via the evolutionary path. It has not been shown to be irreducibly complex. It certainly has not been show that intelligent design is it's best explaination. IR does nothing of the sort even if it showed evolution incorrect for the flagellum.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
When has the evolution of the bacterial flagellum been tested predicted or observed?
its not enough to speculate as to what may have happened one needs to provide examples of it happening.
Who,s conclusion ? that is exactly the point i make in the video.Nothing has been debunked so long as there are conflicting hypothesis by men and women qualified in there respective fields.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
IR is a method of falsifying by stating that evolution "can not" occur due to irreducable complexity. If a method can show that evolution "could" happen then that is enough to counter an argument that it "could not". It does not need to show that it "did" occur. However, if no method could show that it "could" occur then IR has a falsifiable claim. This is not the case. Examples have been presented to show that it is "possible". (cont)
RosieDesire 2 years ago
(cont) It is also untrue that something is not debunked if 'any' conflict exists. If that was the case, a spherical earth, the holocaust, gravity, and even existance would still be 'in debate'. IR is not debunked because it's a method, not a theory. It's valid. It just doesn't hold up with the flagellum. What ID needs is a theory that can be used if IR is shown to exists in life.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
RE If a method can show that evolution "could" happen then that is enough to counter an argument that it "could not". It does not need to show that it "did" occur.
counter the argument with a conflicting argument yes i would agree but
debunked ? No !
Debunked - expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas
the freedictionary
To do that one would need to show that it did occur.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
We are in agreement here. I don't think I ever said that IR was debunked. I said that it just hasn't been successful in falsifying evolution. I even explicity said that IR is not debunked. The only thing I'm saying is that IR can not be used as evidence of a creator but it can be used to weaken or destroy the theory of evolution.
RosieDesire 2 years ago
Uhm.. a better anology is the auto windshield wiper, but, anyway: Each component of the bacterial flagellum has been shown to have arisen fom other older and simpler systems. Each and every molecule. This has, indeed, been observed in reverse. As each molecule is looked at, an identical molecule has been seen in other systems. In fact, as molecules are removed from the flagellum by disabling the gene, the flagellum still works. (1 of 2)
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
(2 of 2) In fact, in one experiment where a critical gene (it coded for a critical component of the flagellum) was disabled, the only effect observed was that the flagellum switched from a purely spiral motion to a back-and forth waving motion. Less efficient. This, it turned out, was because of one of the older systems that coded for a proton pump, still in use by the cell, replaced the knocked out version. The difference? The old pump worked in bursts and the newer replacement continuosuly.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
if you can show how parts of the flagelum have been removed to form a toxin syringe let me know.
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Sure. That was also seen. The same parts were seen forming such a "syringe" and even a DNA exchange bridge. All the parts have other uses in the same species, other species and even foul up several cell mechanisms with one unfavorable genetic mutation. The reason scientists don't trumpet this information around to make Creationists look foolish is... they don't think it's worth the effort or would serve any useful purpose. Instead, other YouTube users are doing that *for* them.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Sure you say
May i have a link to this information
I like to see this toxin syringe in action
pestmanpat 2 years ago
Wikipedia search for "flagellum" and check the links in the "External Links" section. There are several covering bacterial pili (the "syringe" mentioned) and explaining the use by the cells to feed either toxins, digestive enymes or DNA into another cell. The pili are used for all 3 activities and are also how drug resistance is traded between species. New information shared on the bacterial internet.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Yes, ID advocates argue that IR systems must be deliberately engineered by a form of intelligence. I agree with this statement. But what ID argue for and what IR 'is' are different things. IR is a good argument for aiding the debunking of the theory of evolution. But IR itself can make no statement of a designer. To make a positive statement it must show a HOW. If not then it's just a hollow assertion.
RosieDesire 2 years ago