Is There Any Real Difference Between ID and God of the Gaps?

[rookiebatman]

I've been watching debates about origins, and the more I hear creationists argue against evolution, the more I feel like there is no meaningful difference between Intelligent Design and God of the Gaps. When creationists say they have evidence in favor of creationism, what they really mean is things that evolution can't explain. Their arguments are basically just, "this, this and this does conflict with evolution, but does not conflict with creation." They're really just saying that evolution doesn't have answers for everything, and offering that as positive evidence for creationism. But just because we don't have the answers now doesn't mean we never will. I was watching a debate from 1994 where the creationist pointed out that there weren't any examples of mutations causing information to be gained, but there are properly-cited examples of that on TalkOrigins.org from the years and decades after he said that. But if everybody had just been satisfied that God was the final answer, they never would have looked for any other answers, and thus never would've found that real data which was observable and knowable.

The way I interpret the oft-repeated quote that "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" (often quoted as proof that evolutionists are closed-minded and dogmatic) is that science can't be "solved" by just saying "God did it," because once we accept that as the answer, we will stop looking for answers, even though the real answers might very well be out there for the finding. We'll never be able to observe the moment that life began, but there are a lot of other things that can be observed and tested, which we can only do if we humbly accept that we don't have all the answers (and excusing everything we don't know by saying "God did it" is claiming to know all the answers). I submit that the only "evidence" in favor of creation is really just offering examples of the widely-accepted fact that evolution doesn't have all the answers yet. And that's just God of the Gaps.

So, to put that into question/debate form, can creationists (or proponents of Intelligent Design, if you prefer) explain how supposed evidence in favor of creation/ID is anything more than just pointing out something that evolutionary theory does not have an explanation for yet?

If you can't draw any distinction, then why do you think, with all the things we've learned over the years in science, that now is a good time to just stop trying to get a constantly better understanding of things and just accept that God is the only possible answer for every single thing that we don't satisfactorily understand at this moment right now?

[FarWanderer]

Only in apologetics will you find people who seem to think that we've discovered all there is to know about the rules that govern the natural world.

Everyone knows Prima Facie that we don't know everything; but that very fact doesn't preclude knowing some things. Do you have something "Specific" that you take issue with....?

If you want to base an argument on induction from observation (scientific laws being an example of such) and claim it as knowledge, that'd be eminantly normal of you, and you'll get no argument from me. However, then your conclusions are subject to those same premises as well; and since God violates them at least as flagrantly as abiogenisis does, God is no better an answer.

However, then your conclusions are subject to those same premises as well; and since God violates them at least as flagrantly as abiogenisis does, God is no better an answer.

If I pick up a book off the table and raise it above my head... Is the Law of Gravity Violated?

Nope.

Are you trying to say that your God hypothesis could account for the existence of life without violating the Law of Gravity?

I never thought any hypothesis for the origin of life required violating the Law of Gravity in the first place, so pardon me if I'm not impressed.

[Danmark]

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific theory promoted by advocates of intelligent design and evolution denial. IC postulates that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]
....
Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[5][6] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

As with most wikipedia articles, this is just a summary. It's the footnotes that count.

Court cases may serve as good models for proper argument on this forum because the trier of fact is in the same position as most forum members in that the judge or jury is likely not a qualified expert in the sciences that may be at issue. Courts rely on the scientific testimony of others. Behe testified in the Dover case. From a footnote in that case, from Judge John E. Jones III* in his ruling:
"We therefore find that Professor Behes claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

_____________________
*'Then, with the strong endorsement of both Ridge and Rick Santorum, the Christian rights favored presidential candidate last time around, Jones was appointed to be a U.S. District Judge by President George W. Bush in 2002.'
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... vania.html

"... U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican church-goer...."
http://www.consciousnesswork.com/strange_grinch.htm

[Enoch2021]

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). . . . .
Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

Determinism.
Example 1.
A rock sits on a gravelly hillside, in a land where it rains sometimes.
Eventually the rock will move downhill.
Supernatural Design? Unnecessary.
Random Chance? Not really. (Ask yourself whether there was an equal chance that it could have moved uphill? Or even if there was a reasonable chance it could have just stayed in the same spot forever?) Given gravity, unstable substrate, likely rainfall, passing sheep or hikers, lots of other possible factors, further down the hill is where the rock is very likely to end up.
Example 2.
Given that the most common elements of life (Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, etc) are also the most common elements produced in stars, and there are trillions of stars just in the universe we can observe, what we have is a set of starting conditions from which some sort of self-replicating 'organism' is quite probable, within a few billion years.
The 'Design or random chance' dichotomy is based either on deep ignorance of science, or deep dishonesty about it.

Both of you examples fall under "Nature" Category (1. Rocks; 2. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Stars, ect)

And you're "Common Elements produced in stars" and the whole "Standard Model"...is Hogwash (because it's based on Pseudo-Science "big bang"). But it's OT, and I don't feel like getting into the subject right now.

A rock sits on a gravelly hillside, in a land where it rains sometimes.
Eventually the rock will move downhill. Supernatural Design? Unnecessary.

Where'd you get the rock...and stars?

regards

[Enoch2021]

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

You're not only continuing to mine quotes in a way that misrepresents, you are now recycling your mined quotes, including those that have been revealed as such, for example on March 3 on this subforum:

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

More quote mining, and well known, plagiarized quote mining:

'"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

The poster (or whoever he cribbed it from - one of the dangers of plagiarism is that someone else's mistakes transform into your mistakes without warning) got the reference wrong. If he had photocopies of the paper, that would not have happened. The correct citation is:

Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.
[there is some confusion between the 1958 ref. and the 1954, but the essence of both quotes is completely different from what Enoch posted, and from what the YEC'r referred to on talkorigins posted. Both misrepresented what Wald wrote. You may note there is even a discrepancy in the way the 1954 article was referenced. ]
I went to the library and found the [September 1958] article. The quote is a complete fabrication. What the article does say is:

The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation does not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.

Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.

I think that this extended quote shows that the "quote" is not even correct as a paraphrase. The quote reflects neither the words or the spirit of what Dr. Wald wrote.'

_ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-4.html
[emphasis applied]

1. It's not "Quote Mined"....you have shown ZERO to support your Baseless Claim. and Talk Origins, eh?? (lol)

2. You don't need George Wald or Weorge Gald to tell you that there are just 2 Choices: "Nature" (Unguided) or GOD (Guided) it's Prima facie... self evident.

regards

[Danmark]

'The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong " the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum " the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" " has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

The Type -III Secretory Apparatus

In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" " tiny microscopic bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and many are beneficial " even essential " to human life. Nonetheless, there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Bttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact " the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

Figure 2: There are extensive homologies between type III secretory proteins and proteins involved in export in the basal region of the bacterial flagellum. These homologies demonstrate that the bacterial flagellum is not "irreducibly complex." In this diagram (redrawn from Heuck 1998), the shaded portions of the basal region indicate proteins in the E. coli flagellum homologous to the Type III secretory structure of Yersinia. . OM, outer membrane; PP, periplasmic space; CM, cytoplasmic membrane.

Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.

The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.'
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html
[Emphasis applied. Figures 1 and 2 are included at the citation above.]

From:
The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Kenneth R. Miller
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912 USA


This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in "Debating Design from Darwin to DNA," edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski. Debating Design is available from Amazon.com.

[Enoch2021]

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific theory promoted by advocates of intelligent design and evolution denial. IC postulates that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]
....
Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[5][6] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

As with most wikipedia articles, this is just a summary. It's the footnotes that count.

Court cases may serve as good models for proper argument on this forum because the trier of fact is in the same position as most forum members in that the judge or jury is likely not a qualified expert in the sciences that may be at issue. Courts rely on the scientific testimony of others. Behe testified in the Dover case. From a footnote in that case, from Judge John E. Jones III* in his ruling:
"We therefore find that Professor Behes claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

_____________________
*'Then, with the strong endorsement of both Ridge and Rick Santorum, the Christian rights favored presidential candidate last time around, Jones was appointed to be a U.S. District Judge by President George W. Bush in 2002.'
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... vania.html

"... U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican church-goer...."
http://www.consciousnesswork.com/strange_grinch.htm

Yes, we don't really care for Pronouncements of Refutations from sitting Judges with no "SCIENCE" Background (The case that I sent to the bottom of the Atlantic Here.... in a response to you: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 830#700830 )

We want to see the beef; that is,

SPECIFICALLY, refute it. (See Previous Post)

regards

[Wyvern]

All you need to do to turn "Blind" Faith into "Biblical" Faith is have substance and evidence....

(Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You can say that all you want but it is not what your quote is saying at all and it is quite surprising how you fail to see this. Your quote specifically states that faith is the substance of things hoped for, that faith is the evidence of things not seen. The very quote of yours states that faith is both substance and evidence. As we all know if you have evidence of something you don't need faith in that particular subject.

You even highlighted it for me, faith is substance, faith is evidence.

Faith RESULTS from.....substance and evidence. Substance is Substance, Faith is Faith, Evidence is Evidence. Faith isn't "substance"....mainly because they're two different words.

Your explanation flies in the face of what faith is and as it is defined in the quote you are using. Faith does not need evidence nor does it require substance in fact many things are believed in with faith regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Your quote specifically states that faith is in fact substance and it is also evidence regardless of your simplistic semantic argument.

Yes I have and so far your argument amounts to the fallacious argument from incredulity i.e. I can not believe x so god.

Actually, as I said previously, it's not....

You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

Considering your claim of a lifelong career in biochemistry I find your claims of chemistry being random more than a bit surprising.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

Do you have any more options? Please list: 3rd, 4th, 5th....?

Good thing noone is talking about spontaneous generation, would you care to find a relevant quote from someone from after the discovery of DNA? Even better could you attempt to elucidate your position yourself since your quotes are not exactly uniform to your position.

You used the quote so it can be surmised you are in agreement with what it states which is why I am asking you. If you do not agree with the quote you used then why use it other than to muddy the water.

Quibbling (Fallacy). Yes, I used the Quote to show evolution is a Religion....and Voila. If you wish to get into secular vs. non-secular, Mr. Gish, or any of the other color commentary within said quote, go ask Professor Ruse.

So you agree with the quote you chose to use, as such stop referring me to the original author of the quote and provide your own take on this position you have decided on.

If you have then you know that one of the primary goals of peer review is to ensure proper methods have been used, strange that you come out against it.

My disdain comes from the Abuse/Neglect I've seen with it...not from the "Concept" of it. It can be corrupted to become more like "Peer Pressure" than "Peer Review".

Anything can and usually does end up getting corrupted, just look at christianity.

So your answer to the query is: "Are you a YEC?" ? Yes I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I also enjoy jogging in the rain; a "Rain Jogger", as it were.

I asked that in order to cut through the obfuscation you might otherwise put up to defend and otherwise unstated position. As a YEC you have to have faith that the Earth has been virtually unchanged from its inception 6000 years ago regardless of the evidence against your position. I am unaware how your jogging preferences have any effect on the conversation.

Please show where atoms have any capability for thought in the first place.

ahhh, Shouldn't you be answering that, since you said: "Atoms are not stupid...." ??

Atoms are not stupid because they have not the least amount of sentience. You have to be able to think before you can be stupid. Now care to explain why you think atoms in fact are stupid?

Your insistence on claiming atoms are stupid is plain silly, is water a moron as well?

In our "Context", Yepper.

What context is this that you refer to?

Then why continue with this silliness of yours?

Well, ya see sir....DNA, The Genetic CODE----Software, displays Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and De-CODING Schemes. It's chalk full of "INFORMATION", the sine qua non of life.
INFORMATION when traced back to it's source, only ever ever ever reveals INTELLIGENT AGENCY, without Exception.

So if you are a "GOD Denier"....."Methodological Naturalist", to Justify and cogently Support your "World View", MUST explain HOW this is the Case. Savvy?

So are you saying all chemical bonds create this information of yours or is it only the chemical bonds within DNA that do so and if so what is special about these specific bonds which make them different?

[Bust Nak]

You don't need George Wald or Weorge Gald to tell you that there are just 2 Choices: "Nature" (Unguided) or GOD (Guided) it's Prima facie... self evident.

Unguided vs guided is a true dichotomy, but nature vs God is a false dichotomy - options have been provided. What's in the bracket doesn't match what is on the outside. This have been pointed out to you by various people in multiple ways, yet you still persist.

[Enoch2021]

'The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong " the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum " the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" " has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

The Type -III Secretory Apparatus

In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" " tiny microscopic bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and many are beneficial " even essential " to human life. Nonetheless, there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Bttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact " the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

Figure 2: There are extensive homologies between type III secretory proteins and proteins involved in export in the basal region of the bacterial flagellum. These homologies demonstrate that the bacterial flagellum is not "irreducibly complex." In this diagram (redrawn from Heuck 1998), the shaded portions of the basal region indicate proteins in the E. coli flagellum homologous to the Type III secretory structure of Yersinia. . OM, outer membrane; PP, periplasmic space; CM, cytoplasmic membrane.

Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.

The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed.'
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... ticle.html
[Emphasis applied. Figures 1 and 2 are included at the citation above.]

From:
The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

Kenneth R. Miller
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912 USA


This is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared in "Debating Design from Darwin to DNA," edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski. Debating Design is available from Amazon.com.

Bacterial Flagellum and Type III Secretory System:

A simpler system that has some of the same parts as another system doesn't suggest that the more complex system isn't irreducibly complex. If a system minus one part can perform a similar function, that would be evidence. But if you see another system that looks similar to the more complex but has 10 parts missing and performs a "different function", then at best, it shows that some things are made using a similar pattern and materials. A Unicycle and a Bike are made from similar materials...but it takes Intelligence to re-engineer the Unicycle into a Bike... or vice versa, for that matter.
(SEE: Bike, Roulette Wheel for ground squirrels. Shish Kabobs, Kenneth Miller, ....and Strawman Fallacy in previous post)

The Type III system is missing the Entire "MOTOR" Assembly, lol. And, it's not a Flagellum.

And if you remove one part of the MOTOR, it doesn't work.

Can "YOU" speak to any of this?

And think about this for a second, you MUST BE postulating.... the need to inject toxins into Hosts "came about" BEFORE the need and ability to swim?
I don't think so, and neither do these...

It seems plausible that the original type III secretion system for virulence factors evolved from those for flagellar assembly.
Mecsas, J., and Strauss, E.J., Molecular Mechanisms of Bacterial Virulence: Type III Secretion and Pathogenicity Islands, Emerging Infectious Diseases 2(4), October"December 1996

We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems.
Nguyen L. et al., Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems, J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2(2):125"44, April 2000.

Flagellum....Then Type III!! Not the other way around.

Dr Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho, a world expert on the flagellar motor points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can possibly be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new.
His research shows that the flagellum wont form above 37C; instead, some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacteriums drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum. Minnich says that although it is more complex, the motor came first, so it couldnt have been derived from them.
Van Nostrands Scientific Encyclopedia, 8th ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, p. 2014, 1995.

Thanks for posting. Maybe try the Clotting Cascade...


regards

[Enoch2021]

You don't need George Wald or Weorge Gald to tell you that there are just 2 Choices: "Nature" (Unguided) or GOD (Guided) it's Prima facie... self evident.

Unguided vs guided is a true dichotomy, but nature vs God is a false dichotomy - options have been provided. What's in the bracket doesn't match what is on the outside. This have been pointed out to you by various people in multiple ways, yet you still persist.

They are both True Dichotomies. They've been pointed out to me, eh? Yes, I'm sorry.... for "Nature" (Randomness) to be guided it would need to Prescient and Intelligent and have "Intent". I'm not signing up for that....no matter "the number" that have pointed it out.

Randomness is the Antithesis of Design....just as "Unguided" is the Antithesis of "Guided".


regards