Technology and Evolution

[David Blacklock]

>>to think that to produce intelligence doesn't require intelligent input is absurd<<That>>we are the most advanced technology ever designed<<

We obviously are the most intelligent on earth, but that's not the only measure of advanced technology by a long shot. There are probably not many species that can't do something better than we can. The anthropomorphic view of the evolutionary ladder and that man's perch is on the top rung is not a popular stance any longer in science.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

In the case of the transistors turning on and off, they have intelligence as well, an order, in addition, they have an intelligent guiding process as well.

Are you saying transistors are intelligent?

The transistor itself is not intelligent, but the order in which the material is constructed is, it needed intelligent input to acquire its order.

The transistors did not get their order in one day, it took model after model after model, and prototype after prototype, and design after design, to reach the processors we have today.

So are you saying that mistakes and blunders and just random discoveries, incremental improvement in technology and processes, and incremental discovery of properties of natural materials, along with various aha and look at that moments, are a processes which God used?

[godslanguage]

The transistors did not get their order in one day, it took model after model after model, and prototype after prototype, and design after design, to reach the processors we have today.

Thats what I stated earlier already, I said that in a sense, technology has evolved, but never has it evolved without intelligent input.

So are you saying that mistakes and blunders and just random discoveries, incremental improvement in technology and processes, and incremental discovery of properties of natural materials, along withvarious aha and look at that moments, are a processes which God used?

Discoveries have been made, to put those discoveries and "simply" apply them to certain foundations, in effect creating order (ie: computer), is just one phenomenom your going to have to deal with Bgood.

I can only assume what processes God used. Since God, is God, He has methods and processes which we are not aware of, they are far beyond our comprehension.

Ofcourse, nobody has answered any part of my original question. How come evolution (random processes) is capable of developing such complex structures,and I'm sure you can give me your detailed explanation on this, but--> since it doesn't involve intelligent input??? .

Everything humans have ever created needed it.

Is intelligence just a figment of the imagination, if you think that, then you are truly blind to human ingenuities. And in effect, are blind to the intelligence and order in the universe which God has established in the beginning of time.

That is like spitting on all the engineers who are responsible for the comforts we now possess to make life alot easier. In effect, it is spitting on God for giving us that gift in the first place.

[Gman]

Ofcourse, nobody has answered any part of my original question. How come evolution (random processes) is capable of developing such complex structures,and I'm sure you can give me your detailed explanation on this, but--> since it doesn't involve intelligent input??? .

Good point godslanguage. If one has a car, does one need to meet the designer of the car to prove that the designer made it?

it is spitting on God for giving us that gift in the first place.

For some I guess God's death on the cross for mankind isn't good enough for them.. No matter how well you can explain it...

[sandy_mcd]

A)

If one has a car, does one need to meet the designer of the car to prove that the designer made it?

Gman's argument is basically:
1) Examine a car
2) Obviously something so complicated and purposeful must have a designer.
Instead of a "car", what about a "frghjtkl"? Do "frghjtkls" have designers? As godslanguage wrote "I just assumed that everyone knew how a car looks like". But everyone knows that a "car" is a "transportation device designed by humans". So Gman's argument is really:
1) Examine a device designed by humans
2) Obviously this device has a designer.
Expressed in that form, it is a much less convincing argument. A better argument would be to give the reasons why a car must have a designer. A best approach would be some objective test which could ascertain the presence of "design".

B)Godslanguage's argument is much the same.

Computers are a natural component, created by humans who are also natural. Cells composed of DNA are millions of time more complex than a computer. ...
How can evolution miss the part about "intelligence" completely and prescribe it to random processes which are not evident in everything else but darwinian evolution itself?
Ofcourse, nobody has answered any part of my original question. How come evolution (random processes) is capable of developing such complex structures,and I'm sure you can give me your detailed explanation on this, but--> since it doesn't involve intelligent input??? .
Everything humans have ever created needed it.

This argument is basically:
1) Intelligent humans can design complex technology
2) Humans are more complex than their technology
3) Humans have not seen complex things develop without intelligence
4) Therefore complex things cannot develop without intelligence
5) Therefore humans must be designed
Step (4) here is the weak link. "A implies B" does not mean "B implies A". In the absence in this design theory of something like the laws of thermodynamics (which preclude perpetual motion machines), a better argument for claiming that complex entities cannot develop without intelligence is needed.
[The human/computer analogy is also quite limited.]
[And others in this field (such as Dembski) differentiate between "complex" and "information containing".]
[And yes, DNA and semiconductors are both made of atoms. How many things you can pick up aren't?]

[Gman]

Expressed in that form, it is a much less convincing argument. A better argument would be to give the reasons why a car must have a designer. A best approach would be some objective test which could ascertain the presence of "design".

Yes, you might have a good point there. Perhaps a better discussion would be is how did a rod, rings, bushings, a hook, and a rotor turn into the parts of the bacterial flagellum? I would like to know that answer...

[godslanguage]

For the time I have to write this post, just one question.

Science admits and has proven in certain circumstances that we are "literally" machines, right???

Such as the bacterial flagellum that Gman has pointed out is one circumstance.

[David Blacklock]

Gman says: "Perhaps a better discussion would be is how did a rod, rings, bushings, a hook, and a rotor turn into the parts of the bacterial flagellum? I would like to know that answer..."

I can provide resources that give the answer, but I think it would require an advanced degree in molecular biology and genetics to understand it.

[Gman]

Gman says: "Perhaps a better discussion would be is how did a rod, rings, bushings, a hook, and a rotor turn into the parts of the bacterial flagellum? I would like to know that answer..."

I can provide resources that give the answer, but I think it would require an advanced degree in molecular biology and genetics to understand it.

Well I don't think so because many of the components haven't even been crystallized yet. They don't even know yet what some of the structures are...

I don't have an advanced degree in molecular biology and genetics... But if they claim they have an answer for it, please let the media know about it. It should make headline news..

G -

[David Blacklock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Introductory resources

As not every reader will be very familiar with the relevant molecular systems and proteins, I have included some background links that should help bring readers up to speed. To have any hope of following the article, readers should read and understand the below material first. Berg's popular article is particularly recommended as a starting point.

Flagellum

A good short introduction to the three unrelated kinds of "flagella" can be found at Wikipedia: flagellum
A detailed popular article on the bacterial flagellum by Howard Berg
Chapter 15 of Alberts et al. (1994), Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd edn.
Section 34.4 of Berg, Tymoczko, and Stryer (2002), Biochemistry
F1F0 ATP synthetase (also known as ATP synthase or ATPase)

Hongyun Wang's webpage on his ATP synthase research
Chapter 14 of Alberts et al. (1994), Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd edn.
Section 18.4 of Berg, Tymoczko, and Stryer (2002), Biochemistry
Life in the viscous microscopic world of bacteria

Life at Low Reynolds Number by Purcell (1976)

That ought to get you started

[Gman]

That ought to get you started

David I'm not advocating that some scientists haven't come up with some opposing theories (to Behe's work) as to the origns of the bacterial flagellum.

Like you said, they are just starting to examine it... This is the year 2006 and scientists still don't have a complete answer to all the bacterial flagellum's parts and how they materialised to form the motor.. If someone wants to raise the victory flag on this one, please call cnn.. I would like to see it.

Don't forget the bacterial flagellum machine is highly complex like the engines of our cars.. There are 40 structural parts to it and it requires a precise timing sequence of assembly instructions in order to build it. In other words it was built inside out, one part before the other just like how you would build a building. 30 of the parts are unique and natural selection doesn't even have other parts to borrow from to construct them...

[David Blacklock]

Thanks for the reply, Gman. Although you say homologies for those 30 proteins have not been found, this website says otherwise. They have provided a detailed chart with homologies shown.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... evolu.html

Those of us in and around science, but not in a certain field sometimes take things on faith. Wow, really, you might say...scientists take something on faith? Well, not in a religious way. We have faith that the scientists that specialize in these areas have the appropriate expertise, use the appropriate methods, and that their work is appropriately peer reviewed. We trust that if their work is faulty, it will be corrected soon - because science is self-correcting by nature. Nothing is ever considered finished. But mainstream science has the best opinion available at any given time - about scientific issues.

These are the people I put my faith in. Not to be derogatory, but the others, including myself, eventually get to a point in reading this highly technical material, that they run out of expertise and get bogged down.

[Gman]

Thanks for the reply, Gman. Although you say homologies for those 30 proteins have not been found, this website says otherwise. They have provided a detailed chart with homologies shown.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... evolu.html

Behe was talking about parts that are unique to the flagellum and don't exist in any other capacity inside the bacterium not outside of it... Also they haven't been all found yet according to that link (only supposedly 2/3's).

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/module_ ... icleID=340

Also there are still areas of the motor (possible proteins) that they don't know what they are and they haven't even been crystallized yet.. At least that is what an evolutionist has told me. If you want I can give you his name...

Even if some were found, what is the mechanism that gives the precise timing sequence of assembly instructions in order to build it? And build it from the inside out? And if you have an answer for that, where did that mechanism come from? Also why isn't it encased in the bacterium itself?

Those of us in and around science, but not in a certain field sometimes take things on faith. Wow, really, you might say...scientists take something on faith? Well, not in a religious way.

You mean the atheism faith? The religion that believes there is no God?

We have faith that the scientists that specialize in these areas have the appropriate expertise, use the appropriate methods, and that their work is appropriately peer reviewed. We trust that if their work is faulty, it will be corrected soon - because science is self-correcting by nature. Nothing is ever considered finished. But mainstream science has the best opinion available at any given time - about scientific issues.

Thank you. Sounds like a word salad to me then. A theory lost in a shuffle of papers... Well if nothing is ever considered finished then it is still a theory and not a fact as many are led to believe... Someone better get cracking then... There are mountains of explaining to do here..

These are the people I put my faith in. Not to be derogatory, but the others, including myself, eventually get to a point in reading this highly technical material, that they run out of expertise and get bogged down.

So you do have faith? I thought before you were advocating that you didn't.. In other words you are saying that you only believe in the scientists that support your belief structure? In other words, scientists like Michael Behe aren't really scientists?

[sandy_mcd]

Perhaps a better discussion would be is how did a rod, rings, bushings, a hook, and a rotor turn into the parts of the bacterial flagellum? ...
Also there are still areas of the motor (possible proteins) that they don't know what they are and they haven't even been crystallized yet.. Even if some where found, what is the mechanism that gives the precise timing sequence of assembly instructions in order to build it? And build it from the inside out? And if you have an answer for that, where did that mechanism come from? Also why isn't it encased in the bacterium itself?

These are very intriguing questions. I suspect the answers are not known in the detail you desire.
If you truly want to know, I suggest going to an undergraduate school with good biology and engineering departments, then follow that up with a doctorate at a school with a good bioenginering program (e.g., UC Davis ?). Start your own research group and maybe you can shed some light on this issue. Who knows, you may even win a Nobel prize.

[Gman]

Talk about more pressure... I'm still trying to finish up my third degree in computer science... Anyways they really aren't my questions... I'm reading this out of Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box"..