Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:Hi Byblos; your words just made a nice juxtaposition with the article.

And that's why I found it funny. I also thought a clarification of my position was in order lest it be misconstrued as an over-simplification of biology.

Sandy wrote:I don't claim to know any more than you. I do not know what many of the words mean and have no biology background.

Trust me, you probably know more than I do. My wife is the biology wiz in the family, not me.

Sandy wrote: The article seems to be saying that one bug has a device for injecting material into other cells and another (most likely) bug has a means for propelling itself with flagella. About 40% of the types of components (proteins) used for building the the injector are similar in composition and/or shape to parts used in the flagella. There are also some other shared characteristics in the formation of both (didn't understand any of that).
The unstated implication is that both devices are derived from some common or similar starting point. If true, this would undermine the use of the flagella as an example of irreducible complexity.
I know you asked for differences to be highlighted. There are undoubtedly many differences (presumably more than similarities) but it is the similarities which are important since they would indicate some degree of relationship.

And that is precisely why I'm looking for the differences because similarities can be found anywhere. Take for example the complex machine in the flagella. It was mechanically built long before discovering it in the flagella. A few millennia from now, do you not think the similarities between them would be a source of wonder?

The similarities the article highlights are unmistakable but in no way prove a common origin. And that is very clear when you look at the differences, i.e. they serve completely different purposes and each one in its own right is a good candidate for IC.

Snady wrote:Warranty: the validity of this interpretation is worth precisely what I was paid for it.

LOL! It's worth more than you think.

Byblos wrote:

Bgood wrote:Back to the point however. Its too simplistic to see things as having a purpose. A man born with deformaties either perishes or lives with them, he does not learn to live with them because he has not know anything else. Our behaviour is a result of our given bodies.

You know me, I like to keep things simple. However, purpose is exactly what this is all about. The man with defotmities is the exception rather than the rule.

BGood wrote:In the hypothesis above the defective bacteria will either perish or live with the deformity. As bacteria do not procreate sexually any new traits will definitely pass on to progeny. Defective or not bacteria tend to gather useless and debilatating mutations. Of course overall the bacteria population remains healthy.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the 'defective' argument. You had suggested that the flagellum could have evolved from a more simple expulsion system that had some crude and secondary transport capability.

No the expulsion system is not simpler. Just a possible precursor, it is in fact quite complex.

Byblos wrote:The expulsion system was not a deformity. By your reasoning, it was a primary system that was discarded and replased by the secondary one. Sort of like a shift in priorities. My question is, would it not have been necessary to keep the expulsion system as well since it had a vital function?

This is what I meant by simplifying. An organism is a complex collection of bio-chemical interactions. As long as the whole survives it will propogate. There is no shifting of priorities, as long as it reproduces everything is ok.

p.s. o.k. simplifying is the wrong word. how about presumption? The only criteria for organisms to exist is successful propogation of the earlier generation. Anything else is adding more to the observation than can be supported by the evidence.

Byblos wrote: And that is precisely why I'm looking for the differences because similarities can be found anywhere. Take for example the complex machine in the flagella. It was mechanically built long before discovering it in the flagella. A few millennia from now, do you not think the similarities between them would be a source of wonder?

There is nothing man-made which resembles the flagella.

Byblos wrote:The similarities the article highlights are unmistakable but in no way prove a common origin. And that is very clear when you look at the differences, i.e. they serve completely different purposes and each one in its own right is a good candidate for IC.

They do not absolutely prove homology, however there are striking similarities. I am not sure you can say with certainty that they "in no way prove a common origin". Examining the data one could not reach this conclusion.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote: And that is precisely why I'm looking for the differences because similarities can be found anywhere. Take for example the complex machine in the flagella. It was mechanically built long before discovering it in the flagella. A few millennia from now, do you not think the similarities between them would be a source of wonder?

There is nothing man-made which resembles the flagella.

Does it not resemble a minaturized rotary motor?

BGood wrote:

Byblos wrote:The similarities the article highlights are unmistakable but in no way prove a common origin. And that is very clear when you look at the differences, i.e. they serve completely different purposes and each one in its own right is a good candidate for IC.

They do not absolutely prove homology, however there are striking similarities. I am not sure you can say with certainty that they "in no way prove a common origin". Examining the data one could not reach this conclusion.

Would you reach the same conclusion when comparing the similarities of chimps to humans?

What about the similarities between rats and humans?

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote: And that is precisely why I'm looking for the differences because similarities can be found anywhere. Take for example the complex machine in the flagella. It was mechanically built long before discovering it in the flagella. A few millennia from now, do you not think the similarities between them would be a source of wonder?

There is nothing man-made which resembles the flagella.

Does it not resemble a minaturized rotary motor?

Superficially yes of course it works by rotating. However the mechanism for driving the movement is caused by a chemical gradient. Just like the ion channels used by cells to remove materials, or by nerve cells to create an action potential. Also the flagellum operates at a different scale than you might be used to. At those dimentions movement through water is dominated by viscous forces rather than momentum.

Byblos wrote:

BGood wrote:

Byblos wrote:The similarities the article highlights are unmistakable but in no way prove a common origin. And that is very clear when you look at the differences, i.e. they serve completely different purposes and each one in its own right is a good candidate for IC.

They do not absolutely prove homology, however there are striking similarities. I am not sure you can say with certainty that they "in no way prove a common origin". Examining the data one could not reach this conclusion.

Would you reach the same conclusion when comparing the similarities of chimps to humans?

Hmm, not really a good analogy because the cellular structure between chimps and humans is virtually identical.

Byblos wrote:What about the similarities between rats and humans?

When it comes to multicellular speceis it it the organization of the cells which are being compared. Imagine each organism as self contained biospheres, the unique aspect of multicellular organisms is that they require haploids from two parents to create a new "biosphere". For some reasons something prevents the haploids from either meeting or being viable. This is how the genetic material between species becomes isolated.

Hopefully this wasn't mentioned, but I realized this...your articles have evolution as a premise...so they aren't proving evolution in any sense, as much as they are assuming it.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Hopefully this wasn't mentioned, but I realized this...your articles have evolution as a premise...so they aren't proving evolution in any sense, as much as they are assuming it.

This is quite true, the articles are based on experiments devised to prove or disprove a hypothesis which is based on evolutionary theory.

However the data is there for you to reinterpret.

Before a paper can be published it must be reviewed by others. If it is shown that the data has been misinterpreted or has questionable explanations the paper has to be resubmitted or declined altogether.

I do not see what you're talking about with this