Question 4: Molecular Machines

[Simon]

Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

[ST88]

That's my point.

I don't see where this follows from your original question.

Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans? Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how? Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

Firstly, the structures in cells do not resemble highly intricate machines that were designed by humans, nor has anyone to my knowledge ever made this claim. If they had, they were incorrect or possibly drunk. These highly intricate "machines" are biological in origin and had millions of years to form into what they are now.

If your standard for these structures is whether or not a human could have designed them, then the answer is of course not. Why would they need to be?

Secondly, if these structures did evolve, then the answer to your third question is necessarily "no," it would not be beyond the reach of evolution.

I don't believe you have sufficiently stated your point or even your question. Could you please elaborate on what you are trying to ask?

[Jose]

If there is an absence of structures in the cell that resemble highly intricate machines (that is, there are none) then how could they have happened by mutation???

Quite telling.

Very interesting, indeed. Quite telling. You ask whether there are structures in cells that resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans. We say, "no," because the cellular structures look nothing like machines designed by humans. We describe the cellular "machines," and remind you of data that demonstrate their evolution, and you come back with the above-quoted question, in which you leave out the critical phrase, "designed by humans." I applaud your creativity in devising ways to make us look like dolts, but it's really not a very useful strategy. It doesn't trick me into believing I'm a dolt (there are much better ways to do that!), but it does make me wonder whether you have any interest at all in the answers to the questions you've posted. It's one thing to make debating-type noises that are off-topic, and quite another to think about the debate and offer useful information.

[Simon]

You make yourselves look like dolts. I just observe and point it out to those who may not be paying attention (such as yourselves). That you would say, "no, these things don't exist" and then say, "but they happened by mutation" shows that no matter if the thing appears to be designed or if they resemble highly intricate machines or not, you'd say that it happened by mutation. That is quite telling of your position. It shows that you don't really look at the evidence, but instead draw your conclusions from philosophical presuppositions - in this case, methodological naturalism.

[ENIGMA]

You make yourselves look like dolts. I just observe and point it out to those who may not be paying attention (such as yourselves). That you would say, "no, these things don't exist" and then say, "but they happened by mutation" shows that no matter if the thing appears to be designed or if they resemble highly intricate machines or not, you'd say that it happened by mutation. That is quite telling of your position. It shows that you don't really look at the evidence, but instead draw your conclusions from philosophical presuppositions - in this case, methodological naturalism.

Except for the fact that whether or not something "looks like" something else is purely a subjective judgement. Such as:

Person A:"Those clouds look like the top of a tree"
Person B:"No they don't, they look like a mushroom"
Person C:"Will you two shut up already, they're just clouds!"

Granted there is some limit to how much perception can vary on the matter, but there is still no objective specification for consistantly determining whether something looks like something else.

Also, whether or not something "looks like" something else is fundamentally irrelevant to whether something can be designed by evolutionary processes. What is relevant is whether something can be designed by taking a simpler structure and modifying it in such a manner that it continually either improves or stays the same (i.e. No taking 2 steps back to move 1 step forward), with the end result being the current structure. If something "looks like" a designed mechanism, then all that means is.........

There are designed mechanisms, that resemble this particular structure in some way. Whoop-de-friggin-do. Next.....

[Nyril]

Also, whether or not something "looks like" something else is fundamentally irrelevant to whether something can be designed by evolutionary processes. What is relevant is whether something can be designed by taking a simpler structure and modifying it in such a manner that it continually either improves or stays the same (i.e. No taking 2 steps back to move 1 step forward), with the end result being the current structure. If something "looks like" a designed mechanism, then all that means is.........

I would also like to add that not all steps seem to be a step forward. Sickle cell anemia, although exceedingly useful in allowing one to live long enough to breed (by avoiding a nasty malaria death), isn't specifically useful in extending your life much past that, indeed, quite the opposite is true.

[Jose]

You make yourselves look like dolts. I just observe and point it out to those who may not be paying attention (such as yourselves). That you would say, "no, these things don't exist" and then say, "but they happened by mutation" shows that no matter if the thing appears to be designed or if they resemble highly intricate machines or not, you'd say that it happened by mutation. That is quite telling of your position. It shows that you don't really look at the evidence, but instead draw your conclusions from philosophical presuppositions - in this case, methodological naturalism.

A very interesting comeback. What I have said, and continue to say, is that enzymes exist and are subject to mutation and evolution. Enzymes are analogous to micro-machines that cells use to do things. What does not exist is things that resemble things designed by Man. Our designs are different. So, if you want to address the issue of whether enzymes evolve by mutation, we can do that. If you want to address the issue of whether enzymes look like they are designed, we can do that. If you want to banter about supposed philosophical presuppositions, well, I suppose you can...but it doesn't get us anywhere, since the thread is about molecular machines, not about philosophy.

You suggest that I don't look at the evidence. Perhaps you should tell us what the real evidence is concerning enzymes, their genes, and the mutations that they undergo. Then we can figure out what the evidence indicates.

I suspect, however, that you will choose the bantering-about-philosophy approach, rather than the look-at-the-data approach, since that is the traditional ID way. The reason that The Five Questions are ones that evolutionists don't like to hear is because they've been answered many, many times. It's unfortunate that so many people don't listen to the answers.