What is ID?

[sandy_mcd]

As maybe I told you I'm collecting informations for a project which was assigned to me. ... I already saw this definition around. I do not understand it. What does it mean specified? What is the relation between CSI and Kolmogorov complexity? They seem extremely closed though I know Kolmogorov complexity cannot be computed.

If this is a project assigned to you (eg, homework), you really should do most of the work yourself and only ask about particular issues which seem unclear. If you are advanced enough to write "Kolmogorov complexity", you can search the Internet or elsewhere to answer most of your basic questions or at least get information to ask more specific questions. It reads as though English is not your first language (although it is quite good). The meaning ID'ists assign to "specified" is not one I would use, but it is easy enough to find examples of their usage.

[sandy_mcd]

It feels to me like arguing for example, that if you threw a deck of 52 cards into the air, the chances of say, the 3 of hearts, landing on top of the 6 of clubs both face up, with no other cards touching them is 52 to the 51st power fruther multiplied by some astronomical figure and then arguing retrospectively that the chances of that happening are so astronimically slim that you have to accept a circular hypothosis. The point to make at some point is that even in occurances of vast potentially divergent outcomes, something has to happen brings it down to earth.

A better example might be: You are flying your plane across the Pacific. The area of your plane is small compared to the area of ocean you are flying over. Say the something which happens to bring it down to earth is that you had Bgood Aviation Mechanics prepare your plane for flight. The engine conks out and you are going down. The chance that you will land somewhere in the ocean is 100%. The chance that you will land on any particular section of ocean is small, just as in your card example. The chance that you will land on a Polynesian Island is just the same as landing in a section of the ocean of the same area. But if you land on the island you will think, wow, fantastic, what are the odds of this happening. Whereas if you land in open water you will not think, wow, what are the odds of landing in this particular patch of water, they will be more likely, wow, are those sharks, or just glub, glub, glub.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

It feels to me like arguing for example, that if you threw a deck of 52 cards into the air, the chances of say, the 3 of hearts, landing on top of the 6 of clubs both face up, with no other cards touching them is 52 to the 51st power fruther multiplied by some astronomical figure and then arguing retrospectively that the chances of that happening are so astronimically slim that you have to accept a circular hypothosis. The point to make at some point is that even in occurances of vast potentially divergent outcomes, something has to happen brings it down to earth.

A better example might be: You are flying your plane across the Pacific. The area of your plane is small compared to the area of ocean you are flying over. Say the something which happens to bring it down to earth is that you had Bgood Aviation Mechanics prepare your plane for flight. The engine conks out and you are going down. The chance that you will land somewhere in the ocean is 100%. The chance that you will land on any particular section of ocean is small, just as in your card example. The chance that you will land on a Polynesian Island is just the same as landing in a section of the ocean of the same area. But if you land on the island you will think, wow, fantastic, what are the odds of this happening. Whereas if you land in open water you will not think, wow, what are the odds of landing in this particular patch of water, they will be more likely, wow, are those sharks, or just glub, glub, glub.

Lol

If you survive I'll be happy to give you a refund on the services my company rendered.
=)

[Kurieuo]

Hi Canuckster,

I decided to take up your last response here, as I'd like to run some things past you.

My opinion follows and I suspect it will not be popular with all supporters of Intelligent Design as a movement. What Intelligent Design is attempting to do is a response to recent social, legal and educational developments within the United States.

ID while primarily a development amongst Christian thinkers, I disagree it is necessarily a response to recent (is 1920's recent??) social, legal and education developments, which I understand you to mean, against religion.

What I find each of the founders (e.g., Meyers, Dembski, Behe, Wells) are vocal about and share in common is that they find Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't explain adequately all that exists in the world today. Instead they suggest an approach of following the evidence to wear it leads. If something exhibits IC and CSI, and IDists would believe one is entirely justified to believe that something is a) purposeful, and b) designed.

Now the ramifications are Christian apologists like to snap ID up and use it to push their theology. RTB for example, was very appreciative of ID (and still largely is), but like you they question it for they dislike how it does not put up a model about who the intelligent designer is. Infact Jonathan Wells was clear in one of RTB's Creation Update broadcasts that their (ID's) intention is not to put forward models or exclude YECs, OECs, Muslims, and so forth from under the ID umbrella (to the displeasure particularly I think of Hugh Ross though I think Rana is more forgiving). Rather such a task is left to people such as the philosophers, and the theologians including Christian evangelical organisations like RTB. Now if ID was motivated purely to get religion back, while this not only has no impact upon the reasoning and truth of ID, I would also expect main ID organisations such as the Discovery Institute jumping at the opportunity to have ID taught in classrooms. Yet, instead they seem very concerned that people who are religiously motivated will hijack ID for their own purposes.

Now what I believe we do have is an age-old clash of two major opposing forms of philosophy which became heightened at the Enlightenment—Theism versus Atheism. Theists have largely been on the backburner, but now what we are seeing is an increase in theological thinkers responding to the secularism which has largely dominated the sciences. Now in relation to ID challenging current theories and philosophies underpinning much of modern science one can choose two options:

1) Dismiss the arguments put forward by IDists because the majority are Theists (known as the genetic fallacy); or
2) Tackle the science and arguments head on rather than the person's religious affiliation.

People such as philosopher of biology Michael Ruse are admirable in that he adopts option number two, or at least realises it is important. Ruse respects and understands those behind ID aren't fanatical Christians, and that the ideas are very reasonable and convincing if properly heard. It is also something he is extremely concerned about. So concerned that he has publicly written to those who go with number 1. For example, Ruse wrote to Daniel Dannett:

“I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design — we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms — what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues — neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas — it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims — more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.”

Therefore, some smart and clever lawyers and scientists have determined that it might be an effective strategy to revert to the other school of apologetics, make the creator generic and not applicable to any one creed or world religion and build the argument in such a manner that the courts would have to allow it back in this form.

You are making it sound like a religious plot—those behind ID really have a religious agenda, it is all religiously motivated, they don't really consider their methods science or viable. It is all an agenda to get religion back into the classroom, and the science classroom at that. If this were the case, then I'd expect to see ID proponents jumping at the opportunity to have their ideas taught, but what do we really have?

At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively.

"Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what we recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory."

Discovery Institute's Position on Dover, PA "Intelligent Design" Case

It seems quite strange that if the agenda of these thinkers behind ID is to push religion into the science classroom, that they would oppose what the Dover board did. Infact this appeared to cause much agitation to YECs. IDs beliefs do not go far enough for YECs (or many evangelical Christians for that matter), for they won't mention the God of the Bible nor want it taught. They only wish to teach evidence and criticisms against Darwinian evolution, and leave it up to students to decide where the evidence leads. Now this seems like a much more balanced approach to science which true IDists wish to take.

I also think it important to reflect about what was it was pushed out of the science classroom in the early 20th century. It was Young-Earth Creationism and I am sure you will agree with me as it is predominantly theological it does not belong in the science classroom. Yet, what replaced it? Was it really "science"?

The biological and earth sciences may have once been held captive by a particular religious thought (namely YEC), but once it was overthrown the pendulum swang entirely to the opposite extreme. These sciences now are no longer in the hand of a particular strand of Christianity (YECs), but science now became firmly planted in the hands of Materialists. Infact Ruse comments in his email to Dennett, "It is true that I condemn or at least want to point to evolutionism, which I do think functions as a secular religion." He is aware that many who don't believe in God have their own religion they are passately advocating themselves.

Now I see that ID is attempting to bring science to a median. The thinkers have seen the mistakes of the opposing philosophies dominating science, and really do wish to avoid this same mistake. They simply wish to make science religiously neutral as it should be. Deal with facts, and let people decide for themselves (rather then be told) where the evidence leads. This is the purist kind of science I can think of.

The problem, again in my opinion, is that while I think this is a good and well-intentioned approach, reasonable even, they are trying to do it in the realm of applied hard science rather than where it naturally (and properly)belongs which is in the realm of Philosophy.

The arguments of Intelligent Design, again in my opinion, in terms of the popular movement that is growing up around, are in effect, much more sophisticated, but in the end they equate to what is commonly known as the "God of the Gaps" argument, which effectively attempts to draw from inference the need for a creator, because no explanation otherwise exists. The problem of course, is that when you do this, and another explanation is found (if one is, and many time such explanations do come as science and knowledge expands) then you in effect create grounds in the minds of others for a rejection of the claimed need for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

God of the gaps? There is equally a no God of the gaps. It depends on the philosophy one assumes as default, and Atheism is certainly not a default stance in my opinion. As I hope to have provoked thought upon, there is an age-old fight between two different philosophies—Materialism versus Theism. Each wants to win over the other. The question which still arises is which philosophy is the correct one to undergird our beliefs. This should be left up to the person.

Further, ID does not stop once design is detected. They want to work out "why" it is designed as it is... such an assumption leads to very productive science. Junk DNA afterall was dismissed as useless and non-funcational since junky bits of DNA is what we would expect from evolutionary processes. Thus, it never occurred to naturalist scientists that it mattered. That is, until a purpose in one pseudogene was stumbled upon by Japanese scientists (see http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/health/Pseudogenes.htm). There seems to be a silly thought that once a person believes something is designed they will walk away. If anything, I see this is far from true. It isn't even true one will stop looking for an explanation, for one may want to know how the "designer" chose to design. The designer could have done so via natural processes, and so assuming design in no way precludes looking for a natural explanation as many assume.

Unfortunately, what is happening now with Intelligent Design (again in my opinion) is that the same groups that have campaigned to see creationism incorporated into education are now jumping onto the band wagon and seeing ID as a means to an end, or a "gimmick" to try and accomplish that.

That is what happened in Dover if you followed that court case. That is why the Discovery Institute is now back-pedalling and trying to disassociate itself with the case because they see it now as a media relations problem with attempting to move forward with their carefully crafted strategy.

Back-peddling? They never supported the actions of the board. The Discovery Institute were deeply opposed to what happened there, and even requested the board policy be revoked. As John West (a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute) said in New York Times (Nov. 4, 2005): "The [Dover] school district never consulted us and did the exact opposite of what we suggested... Frankly I don't even know if school board members know what intelligent design is. They and their supporters are trying to hijack intelligent design for their own purposes. They think they're sending signals in the culture wars." (http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/more.html)

What ever gave you such an idea? As an avid ID supporter, I posted on this board from the beginning about that case that it was not supported by ID. I stated long before the decision was reached

As for Dover, PA board of education introducing ID into the science curriculum..., this is not a move by mainstream ID advocates. For example, the Discovery Institute were deeply opposed to what happened there, and even requested the board policy be revoked. They do not want ID introduced into the science education curriculum because it has not matured significantly as a science. They have only been pushing to teach the problems both for and against Darwinian evolution. And they currently only want ID discussed in the higher levels of academia, not within education until it has been more developed.

Yet, it seems obvious you have some trying to use ID as a tool to push their own Creationism motives within Science. Such people are going to do a great deal of damage to ID, and such people are completely outside the mainstream ID movement. Right now ID isn't an alternative to evolution, for as you say no proper scientific theory has been proposed. It is more of a tool, and ID needs to mature first before one ever thinks about it being an option to Darwinian evolution. Creationism is however an alternative, and thus if anyone says ID is an alternative it would seem to me they are confusing ID for Creationism. Clearly Creationism is based more on religious Scripture than Science, and so as such belongs in Theology. ID on the otherhand is not Creationism, and currently cannot be considered an alternative since no scientific models have been put forward. (http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1273)

I'm sure there is more I could say, but I will leave it here at least for now as I've presented quite a bit I think to chew on. I hope you will consider what I have written.

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Junk DNA afterall was dismissed as useless and non-funcational since junky bits of DNA is what we would expect from evolutionary processes. Thus, it never occurred to naturalist scientists that it mattered.

Actually this is not quite right. When it was discovered that DNA encodes for proteins many were surprised to find that the vast majority of DNA did not serve this purpose. The term "Junk DNA" was coined to describe these non-encoding sections of DNA. It was not intented to imply that this DNA served absolutely no purpose. Those in the know, knew that there was much more to learn. (Popular announcements of scientific findings either in newspapers or magazines tend to leave out the parts where the scientist admits that they do not have an answer. Probably because people don't like to hear when someone says "I don't know", or the findings are tentative etc.)

Only at this time science did not know what the purpose of these strings of DNA were for. And in fact much of it was empirically shown to be nonsence.

Continued study has shown that some of this DNA does indeed have a function. Although much of this functionality does not serve the host organism in any way. And those sections that do were found to function for either regulation or co-opted for other purposes. Of course we are still learning.
=)

[Canuckster1127]

Kurieuo,

Glad to interact on this issue. My mind is not set in stone. I am seeking to understand and grasp better that is going on in this realm.

ID while primarily a development amongst Christian thinkers, I disagree it is necessarily a response to recent (is 1920's recent??) social, legal and education developments, which I understand you to mean, against religion.

I can see immediately that some of the problem here will be in using the term Intelligent Design. It is being used in two differing contexts.

First, Intelligent Design as a philosophy is hardly new. It may not have been called this historically, but effectively what it is is grassroots Theism relying upon natural arguments that go back to greco-roman times and, were I better familiar with, probably back further.

Second, Intelligent design as a formal movement is equated today primarily around the Discovery Institute and its specific legal, educational and social agenda.

As such, Intelligent Design as a current movement as represented by the Discovery Institute, is a subset of Integent design as an overall philosophy.

Therefore, it is possible to embrace the overall philosophy while either rejecting or, as it is in my case, expressing reservations or disagreement with the specific manner in which the Discovery Instituts is managing their specific goals and methods.

I think it will clear up a lot of confusion if both of us keep that distinction in mind.

Specifically, I believe Intelligent Design as a movement, as embodied by DI is a response designed to work within the current social and legal environment which has more and more been solidifying in its judgement that creationism cannot be included within school curicullum as it represents an improper entanglement between Church and State. ID as a movement, in effect, represents a moving away from presuppositional apologetics, which in this environment are recognized as counter-productive. It moves into the realm of philosophy and picks up the naturalistic elements for deity, and tailors its vocabulary to a neutral Intelligent Designer. I have no problem with this, by the way. It is utilitarian in one sense but it is legitimate in my opinion.

In making this move, there is indeed a broadening base and allowance for theists of all persuasions to come under the big tent. Again, something I am fine with.

As you rightly point out, the problem is that in order for this strategy to be successful, there needs to be at some level, some restraint exercised in the context of the legal and social battle to not incorporate the leap from Theism in general to a specific deity and obviously the most likely candidate based upon a preponderance of those in the movement are Christians. It's hardly surprising that many see ID as simply creationism attempting to pass itself off as something else. It's a convenient argument. Beyond that, the personnel involved are somewhat the same. In the end, I believe that argument fails, but it must be addressed.

What I find each of the founders (e.g., Meyers, Dembski, Behe, Wells) are vocal about and share in common is that they find Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't explain adequately all that exists in the world today. Instead they suggest an approach of following the evidence to wear it leads. If something exhibits IC and CSI, and IDists would believe one is entirely justified to believe that something is a) purposeful, and b) designed.

Agreed. The question is, can this be reduced to a purely scientific hypothesis or statement that contains the requisite elements of falsification and subsequent replication? I think the answer is no. I think this is true by definition. I believe the realm of this argument is metaphysics and philosophy.

On this basis, by the way, I agree that Evolutionary Theory at the higher levels is effectively the same thing and if logic is to be applied uniformly, there should be either a removal of it from science texts or some reference to the alternatives available.

I see ID as a movement selecting the option to request equal footing and calling it science.

I believe we do not accomplish anything by this. I believe the better course is to call both what they are and remove them from science and place them into the context of philosophy.

Now in relation to ID challenging current theories and philosophies underpinning much of modern science one can choose two options:

1) Dismiss the arguments put forward by IDists because the majority are Theists (known as the genetic fallacy); or
2) Tackle the science and arguments head on rather than the person's religious affiliation.

Agreed. Science however in this realm is corallary, not primary.

I do think there has been huge strides in the area of science and further I do believe that IC is a more credible position today that similar arguments in the past. I believe that the existence of God will never be solved by science directly. At best, all we have is inference and while inference can be a scientific basis for conjecture or hypothesis, no construct exists that can prove or disprove it within the realm of pure science.

You are making it sound like a religious plot—those behind ID really have a religious agenda, it is all religiously motivated, they don't really consider their methods science or viable. It is all an agenda to get religion back into the classroom, and the science classroom at that. If this were the case, then I'd expect to see ID proponents jumping at the opportunity to have their ideas taught, but what do we really have?

I agree that perhaps I am overstating it. However, I believe its not that far off the mark. I don't accept that were this the case that ID proponents would be jumping at every opportunity. I think there are strong leaders within the DI group who are canny and savvy lawyers and they recognize the value of being selective in picking and chosing where they will get the most "bang for the buck," if you will, both in terms of limited resources and in terms of effectiveness in the overall battle plan.

I'm not cynicle in that regard, by the way. I think wisdom is needed and I would expect that they would be cautious and careful how they proceed and where the expend effort and resources to accomplish their goal.

I'll pick up more later if I can. I think that is enough for now.

Bart

[Kurieuo]

Junk DNA afterall was dismissed as useless and non-funcational since junky bits of DNA is what we would expect from evolutionary processes. Thus, it never occurred to naturalist scientists that it mattered.

Actually this is not quite right. When it was discovered that DNA encodes for proteins many were surprised to find that the vast majority of DNA did not serve this purpose. The term "Junk DNA" was coined to describe these non-encoding sections of DNA. It was not intented to imply that this DNA served absolutely no purpose.

When it comes to what is publicised I'd disagree, although I could accept many true scientists would have not been so bold to declare them outrightly as useless. Yet, "Junk DNA" was coined for a reason, and when I debated a few years ago it was one of the top arguments I came across from Atheists in debates (along with vestigal organs) against God creating us.

My beliefs that "Junk DNA" was ignored comes from what I read in published articles and experienced in my debates. Thus, I have been led to believe that these "junk" sections of DNA were largely ignored until scientists were suprised to find a purpose. Rich also has written an article regarding Junk DNA, tackling the argument many Atheists put forward which was why would a God design useless DNA? This article wasn't produced for no reason (see http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html).

Kurieuo

[Totoro]

I don't think there is any such thing as junk DNA. It all has a purpose we just dont kmow it yet.

[Canuckster1127]

Placed up without comment.


Dover trial judge makes Time's list

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnew ... xml&coll=1



Think tank scrambling to rebound after intelligent-design ruling

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/monte ... 479855.htm

[angel]

Canuckster1127, I really appreciated your posts. I did not commented them since I am more interested in the actual scientific content of ID rather than the political agenda.
Anyway, it is interesting to me to read your opinion about it.

As sandy_mcd noticed, I am not from US so the political issue is your problem, not mine..

you can search the Internet or elsewhere to answer most of your basic questions or at least get information to ask more specific questions.

Searching the internet is exactly what I was doing, here!


Do you want more specific questions? Ok.

Dembski, repeatedly claimed that the ID is based on the question (positively answered by ID) if designed features can be spotted without knowing anything about the designer.
They often quote as an example mt. rushmore and an hypothetical alien civilization visiting the earth in a far future after human civilization has disappeared and asking if someone made it.

Good. I believe that all ID is based on this.
Now the specific question is, can you spot which of the following is made by my limited intelligence and which is random?

10100011111011111111
00111101001011011010
11000100101000010110
01100010101111110101
01100010101111110101
10110000010101001000
01011110001000111000
10111011111111111100
01001001011100011100
01101111010100111011

Can someone show me that it is possible to spot the intelligent sequence better than by guessing (p=10%)? (if you wish I can provide longer strings or other strings).

If not, why should I expect to be able to spot intelligence in DNA/mutations?

I really cannot get it.

Other issues will follow.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Good. I believe that all ID is based on this.
Now the specific question is, can you spot which of the following is made by my limited intelligence and which is random?

10100011111011111111
00111101001011011010
11000100101000010110
01100010101111110101
01100010101111110101
10110000010101001000
01011110001000111000
10111011111111111100
01001001011100011100
01101111010100111011

Can someone show me that it is possible to spot the intelligent sequence better than by guessing (p=10%)? (if you wish I can provide longer strings or other strings).

If not, why should I expect to be able to spot intelligence in DNA/mutations?

I really cannot get it.

Other issues will follow.

Let us continue this thought and pretend that the numbers represent a sugary molecule which either faces inwards or outwards.

To continue with this thought experiment these molecules arrange themselves into ring like structures. This all due to the chemical nature of the sugar molecules which in turn are defined by the laws of the universe.

Also due to the chemistry of our imagined world each four number sequence binds to a specific type of lego block like mineral.

Each mineral has a face on it with four possible divots and or dimples or any combination thereof.

all divots.
00
00

all dimples
. .
. .

1010-0011-1110-1111-1111
0011-1101-0010-1101-1010
1100-0100-1010-0001-0110
0110-0010-1011-1111-0101
0110-0010-1011-1111-0101
1011-0000-0101-0100-1000
0101-1110-0010-0011-1000
1011-1011-1111-1111-1100
0100-1001-0111-0001-1100
0110-1111-0101-0011-1011

The last one would form a ring of encasings using the following sequence.
. 0
0.
00
00
. 0
. 0
. .
00
0.
00

Because of this configuration the rings of sugary molecules accumulate these lego blocks depending on the sequence. All due again to the chemical nature of the interacting parties.

And finally we find that there are times when the sugary ring detaches from the lego encasing. Perhaps when the environment gets too watery.

As the water subsides the encasings become like moldings for new sugar rings to develop. However due to environmental conditions a ring forms but does not stay attached, drifting away from the molding once formed. In this way many copies of sugary rings can be made depending on the conditions and the availability of sugary molecules.

These sugary molecules then in turn, when conditions become dry again form their own moldings.

Now lets take a breather.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Ok to continue,

Lets imagine that as sugar molecules roll away from their encasing that there is a slight posibility for sugar molecules to be lost or aquired or more likely flipped. The molding created by this ring will be slightly different from the molding which formed the sugar molecule.

Also imagine that each of the lego block like minerals has slightly different properties.

Perhaps a combination of them allows the sugar molecules to remain intact longer as the environment gets wet.

Perhaps another combination makes it easier to fall away from the molding.

Perhaps others combinations are unstable and fall apart once the sugar molecules are disolved away.

After many iterations of replication we will begin to see patterns emerging.

For example in watery conditions some sequences might be favored over others due to the fact that some lego rings are less soluable than others.

Or windy regions might be dominated by those rings which form moldings less prone to being blown away, or to peices.

We can see that it only takes a few simple laws; in this case covalent and ionic forces; to produce an order.

Due to the specificity of the atoms and the laws of nature themselves is it any wonder that patterns emerge in the very things which are formed from them?

[Canuckster1127]

Bgood,

I'm with you, as far as it goes in this context.

I understand that in the physical realm there is order and design which arises out of the nature of elements involved, such as crystals, snow flakes etc.

I've seen this type of explanation offered in the wake of the argument drawn from entropy in the 2nd law of thermodynamics and I understand that that law is often times extrapolated beyond the context of its original formulation and used to argue in a philosophic realm to a degree which is likely overstated.

With my understanding of the argument of irreducible complexity, which granted is limited, we're taking about far more than the arising of geometric pattern from physical elements.

As I understand it, the case made by Behe et al, is that within the realm of biology there are structures at the microbiological level that are derived from (in the case of a flagellum) up to 40 different components that need to be put in a specific construction to accomplish the functional purpose of propelling the organism.

The argument Behe makes as I understand it is, that if Natural Selection is a valid explanation for how such a construct arose in the process of evolution, it should be demonstrable how each component involved in that construct in the process of development provided a benefit to the organism that furthered its viability and caused that element to be selected over others without it, or even with different one.

I've done some limited reading on this in other areas and it is my understanding that there is some argument counter that this presentation is too simplistic and self-limiting and that there is in fact some evidence of other constructs such as those used for pumping in some capacity within the microbe being modified to other purposes.

Even granting that, it seems to me you would still have the original problem of how that first biological mechanism at even a simpler level developed such individual components for a specified purpose if there is no benefit to the individual component absent that mechanism.

The argument from design here goes way beyond geometrical patterns arising out of chemical affinities. We're talking about organization of components for a specified purpose.

It's not a perfect analogy, but your response sounds to me somewhat like answering someone who asked how an outboard motor could arise in nature and then suggesting that the development of a snowflake provides the key.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but those are the questions that come to my mind.

Help me out some, would you please?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

In the above posts I was only trying to show how specified information can arise from random sequences in which a set of sequences has the ability to duplicate itself. This being a response to a section of angel's post which dealt with specified complexity.

In the above example we started with random permutations which eventually lead to sugary rings encased in material which were adapted to their environments. This example goes much farther than simple geometric configurations.

As for going from this simplest of ideas to the development of something such as a flagellum, I cannot give you the solution.

However it would be premature at best to think that we could know enough on this subject to even determine that no such pathway exists.

ID has been an impetus for more recent and focused study of the flagellum, since it's use as an example of irreducible complexity. You can read more into detail here and we can continue that discussion there if you wish.
=)

P.S.
Sorry about not getting back to you about basketball, we have a deadline approaching and I have had to temporarily forego my basketball activities. =(

[Canuckster1127]

In the above posts I was only trying to show how specified information can arise from random sequences in which a set of sequences has the ability to duplicate itself. This being a response to a section of angel's post which dealt with specified complexity.

In the above example we started with random permutations which eventually lead to sugary rings encased in material which were adapted to their environments. This example goes much farther than simple geometric configurations.

As for going from this simplest of ideas to the development of something such as a flagellum, I cannot give you the solution.

However it would be premature at best to think that we could know enough on this subject to even determine that no such pathway exists.

ID has been an impetus for more recent and focused study of the flagellum, since it's use as an example of irreducible complexity. You can read more into detail here and we can continue that discussion there if you wish.
=)

P.S.
Sorry about not getting back to you about basketball, we have a deadline approaching and I have had to temporarily forego my basketball activities. =(

BGood,

Good enough.

I agree that the absence of a scientific explanation at this point does not necessarily mean that there is not one.

To claim otherwise is in effect to invoke the God of the Gaps argument, which is fallacious in my opinion.

It does however, to my limited understanding, demonstrate that Natural Selection has some very definite unanswered questions in terms of being the definitive agent or explanation of such development.

In view of that, I don't understand why so many in the scientific community are unwilling to admit that and give an answer of "I don't know." Natural selection may well need to develop a great deal and amend its understandings before an answer begins to emerge.

As a Christian, I frankly find it fascinating and it would not threaten or bother me in the least to see an answer come to this and other issues from science. To my way of thinking, all that does is show how God did it. While removing the shroud of mystery may disappoint some and diminish their concept of God, that is not what my faith is based on anyway.

As for Basketball, you let me know and I'll try. I'm starting a Master's Program on Saturday and my available time is going to be shrinking considerably.

Bart