Which is falsifiable?

[Wall-dog]

Bacterial flagellum, which are little tiny motor-driven propellors in bacteria capable of spinning at 10,000 RPM, are often called irreducibly complex systems. I contend that there is no unintelligent process that could have possibly brought this system about.

Darwinists have no answer for how the flagellum developed but they say linking it to intelligence is an argument from ignorance and unfalsifiable.

Isn't saying 'evolution did it but we can't explain how yet' also an argument from ignorance?

What is more falsifiable? All a darwinist has to do to disprove this contention is find one unintelligent process and get it to produce flagellum. To disprove the darwinist you would have to prove that none of a potentially infinite number of natural processes could do it.

If Intelligent Design is not falsifiable and evolution is, please explain this.

For more information on flagellum, you can read Dr. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

[sandy_mcd]

What is more falsifiable? All a darwinist has to do to disprove this contention is find one unintelligent process and get it to produce a flagellum. To disprove the darwinist you would have to prove that none of a potentially infinite number of natural processes could do it.

1) An ID'er only has to find one item which can be shown to not have formed through natural processes. The scientist has to prove a viable mechanism for every single thing the ID'er brings up. Prove one is possible (not an easy task) and the ID'er just brings up another one.
2) The scientist only has to find one possible way for a suspect item to have formed through natural processes. The ID'er has to prove every single natural mechanism is impossible. Proving one (e.g. chance) is not sufficient.

In both cases, a Herculean task.

[Zenith]

Bacterial flagellum, which are little tiny motor-driven propellors in bacteria capable of spinning at 10,000 RPM, are often called irreducibly complex systems. I contend that there is no unintelligent process that could have possibly brought this system about.

Darwinists have no answer for how the flagellum developed but they say linking it to intelligence is an argument from ignorance and unfalsifiable.

Isn't saying 'evolution did it but we can't explain how yet' also an argument from ignorance?

the reason why evolutionists say that it is arguing from ignorance is because it is not a true explanation. saying that god did it explains just as much as saying that it occured 'naturally'. neither of those says anything about how it was developed. the reason why so many people believe in evolution is because we know a lot about how these things [supposedly] developed. these kinds of people do not like ID theory because ID does not show how things were developed. it just lumps all creation into one effect. to scientists its like swallowing a horse pill.

scientists have no answer to how the flagellum developed just like christians have no answer to why god developed the flagellum. to me, its the same thing only said with different words.

What is more falsifiable? All a darwinist has to do to disprove this contention is find one unintelligent process and get it to produce a flagellum. To disprove the darwinist you would have to prove that none of a potentially infinite number of natural processes could do it.

if a scientist successfully carried out an experiment in which an unintelligent process developed a flagellum, there would be many who would see this as proof of undirected creation. but there would be many others who would say that the initial origin of life required god, and not necessarily any life thereafter. or that the scientist conducting the experiment was the intelligent designer, setting up the conditions consciously so that life would form.

the same kind of thing goes for darwinists. there will always be a way for people to reason their logic out so that they seem right, at least in their own minds. every belief takes a certain amount of faith, but that faith may be in different things.

If Intelligent Design is not falsifiable and evolution is, please explain this.

they're both falsifiable, though it might take us millenia to find out for sure. that doesn't mean we should stop trying though.

For more information on flagellum, you can read Dr. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

but you shouldn't limit your reading to only anti-evolutionist ideals if you want to learn about evolution (no matter what your intention is).

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Stop making stuff up people. It's rather annoying.

scientists have no answer to how the flagellum developed just like christians have no answer to why god developed the flagellum. to me, its the same thing only said with different words.

Appealing to intellgence is an inference to the best explanation. Machinery is not reducible to chemistry and physics that man makes, so why would miniature machines be any different? And we do know that machinery is produced by intelligence. So I don't want to hear "oh they're the same thing (saying evolution or God did it)-no, it's not. Because we've not witnessed natural processes constructing machinery and information-but we know intelligence does. So one explanation makes more sense.

they're both falsifiable, though it might take us millenia to find out for sure. that doesn't mean we should stop trying though.

How is evolution falsifiable

1) An ID'er only has to find one item which can be shown to not have formed through natural processes. The scientist has to prove a viable mechanism for every single thing the ID'er brings up. Prove one is possible (not an easy task) and the ID'er just brings up another one.

But there are only a finite number of things that Darwinist must refute.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Discovering a specific pathway to a specific case is more like forensic investigation.

Identifying a mechanism for change allows one to speculate how the mechanism could have lead to specific examples.

Proteins self assemble according to the charges found on the various amino acids.
http://www.friedli.com/herbs/phytochem/proteins.html
The interactions of these proteins form structures within the cell.
Such as the cell membrane.
http://sun.menloschool.org/~cweaver/cel ... _membrane/
Does the cell membrane require directions for formation?
Not at all the phospholipids have a polar and non polar end. The polar end is attracted to water which is also a polar molecule and the nonpolar is water aversive. Thus leading to the self assembly of a double layered membrane.
http://www.jdaross.mcmail.com/cell2.htm

Changes in amino acid sequence lead to changes in protein shape.
Once this mechanism is identified one can see how new funtionalities can arise. Thus leading to speculation of how specific functionalities could have been originated.
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/181/ ... d=10572114
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/ ... 01.02195.x

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Biological predestination again? Oh we can have such great fun. So you're trying to say everything is reducible to chemistry.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Biological predestination again? Oh we can have such great fun. So you're trying to say everything is reducible to chemistry.

No, what I am saying is that proteins behave in specific ways, due to their chemical makeup.

They fold in very specific ways due to the interactions of the various charges in the amino acid chain.

Heres a neat article about gene's in general.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=106

[sandy_mcd]

Biological predestination again? Oh we can have such great fun. So you're trying to say everything is reducible to chemistry.

No, no, no. Biology is reducible to chemistry. Chemistry is reducible to physics. Physics is reducible to math. Math isn't even a science. So everything is based on a construct.

[sandy_mcd]

we've not witnessed natural processes constructing machinery and information

Please define machinery and information; especially the latter.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I meant everything BGood was talking about.

And you're making much grander claims, so why should I define two words while I let you assert.

[Byblos]

Biology is reducible to chemistry. Chemistry is reducible to physics. Physics is reducible to math. Math isn't even a science. So everything is based on a construct.

LOL! Sandy, I really can't tell if you were joking (if not, please forgive me) but I found this hilarious. Permit me to take it one step further and say everything is based on the perception of a construct, in which case perception is the lowest common denominator (i.e. irreducibly complex) and as such, you've just proven the existence of God. Congratulations!

[sandy_mcd]

I meant everything BGood was talking about.

[A lot of times people tie information into entropy.] I would like to give an example of a biologic system which generated information. Finding a simple system which only generates a small amount of information would probably be the easiest to look for. But I need to know what you mean by information in order to pick an example.

[Wall-dog]

How are the proteins assembled? Does that process require DNA?

I'll buy that neither theory is entirely falsifiable. But I think if you prove enough of either to be incorrect you can start making it look pretty silly. I mean if you proved that one IC machine could self-assemble and all I do is say "Oh yeah? Well how about this one?" I supposed ID proponents could do that but at some point it would start to look kind of silly. I mean, you'd have to have something about the 'this one' IC machine that separates it from the ones that formed through natural processes. So while the concept of IC may not be perfectly falsifiable it is practically falsifiable.

I also think it worth mentioning that ID does not speculate as to where the intelligence comes from - just that it must have been a part of the process.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

[quote="Wall-dog"]How are the proteins assembled? Does that process require DNA?[quote]

In Nature RNA is required to fashion amino acid chains.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/G ... hesis.html

In the lab there is an alternative
Synthetic Chemistry
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0102

[Wall-dog]

BeGood,

Your source seems to say that RNA is necessary for the actual assembly of the proteins. It kind of looks like when transcription occurs, a molecular machine unwinds a section of the DNA helix to get the specific instructions needed for the protein being built. Then another machine copies those instructions to form a messenger RNA. At the end of transcription the RNA strand takes the genetic information from the DNA out of the nucleus and goes to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome. The ribosome then takes the data from the DNA (delivered by the RNA) and then the amino acids are assembled inside the ribosome into the right sequence or chain, often hundreds of units long. This sequence - which again is determined by the section of DNA being used - determines the type of protein manufactured. Once the chain is finished it is moved from the ribosome to anotehr machine that helps fold it into the precise shape needed for its function. At that point it is a protein, and another molecular machine takes it to the exact location where it is needed.

Does that sound about right?

I ask because you make it sound like you just pour random amino acids into a vat and you get proteins. Your source doesn't make it sound anywhere near that simple.