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?

[Jose]

Do any structures in the cell resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans?

Not that I know of. They all operate by much different principles. People are beginning to mimic some of them by molecular methods, creating ribozymes, etc. But that's just people trying to recreate what evolution did.

Evolutionists claim that these structures evolved. But if so, how?

By the usual mechanisms. You know--mutation, selection, etc.

Could such machines have features that place them beyond the reach of evolution?

Not that I know of. What kinds of features would these be? Everything I know of is just proteins and RNAs. They're wholly evolutionary. Can you think of any features that would fit this description?

[Simon]

It's interesting that you would answer the first question in the negative, then take alleged absence of structures in the cell that resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans and say they happened by mutation. Your blind and unfounded dedication to the great myth of evolution is betrayed with this contradiction.

Michael Behe, for one, has shown conclusively that some structures of the cell do, in fact, resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans.

As Dembski says, "The great fallacy of evolution is that it claims all the benefits of design without the need for actual design. In particular, evolution attributes intelligence, the power of choice, to a fundamentally irrational process, namely, natural selection. But nature has no power to choose. Real choices involve deliberation, that is, some consideration of future possibilities and consequences. But natural selection is incapable of looking to the future. Instead, it acts on the spur of the moment, based solely on what the environment right now deems fit. It cannot plan for the future. It is incapable of deferring success or gratification. And yet, so limited a process is supposed to produce marvels of biological complexity and diversity that far exceed the capacities of the best human designers. There's no evidence that natural selection is up to the task. Natural selection is fine for explaining certain small-scale changes in organisms, like the beaks of birds adapting to environmental changes. It can take existing structures and hone them. But it can't explain how you get complex structures in the first place. That's why cell biologist Franklin Harold writes, "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.""

[2 and 92]

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?

Some of the protiens and such are machine like, but not like anything we have designed.

Natural selection is a type of design, just not intelligent design as implied by Behe and the like.

[Lotan]

Please be aware that the argument put forth on this thread belongs to William Dembski.

[Jose]

It's interesting that you would answer the first question in the negative, then take alleged absence of structures in the cell that resemble highly intricate machines designed by humans and say they happened by mutation. Your blind and unfounded dedication to the great myth of evolution is betrayed with this contradiction.

It is interesting that you imagine I have a "blind and unfounded dedication to the great myth of evolution." Is it not just as possible that you have a blind and unfounded dedication to the great myth of creationism? Name-calling isn't going to get us very far. The real question is that of evidence. We have observed mutations that alter the functions of enzymes, so we know that the "machines" in cells are the result of evolution. The fact that Behe and Dembski can put together words that say otherwise doesn't eliminate the fact that we know this. Even so, I don't think I understand what you are saying here. Of course I answer the first question in the negative. The cellular "machines" are unlike anything designed by humans. I don't take the absence of designed machines as reasoning to say that machines happened by evolution. I take the "machines" that exist, our knowledge about them, and our knowledge of how mutations affect them, and draw the logical conclusion that their current properties result from years of mutations.

But, perhaps you have a different definition of "mutation" than do the rest of us. Can you, perhaps, clarify what you mean?

[Simon]

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.

[ST88]

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???

I don't understand this question. Why would something that does not exist have any properties at all?

[Simon]

That's my point.

[jwu]

Then your point is that some evolutionists claimed that these complicated structures which do not exist in reality to have evolved. If we assume that they indeed said so, then this just shows that they were wrong about this.
This however has no bearing on the question if the theory of evolution is correct at all.

jwu