Evidence for God from Science

animal wrote:godslanguage,

If I explain to you the evolution of the bacteria flagellum, would you then repudiate intelligent design? (if at the very least to this IC argument?)

Now, before you think your initial reaction to this response through - just think about the question, honestly, for a moment.

I know the question was not directed at me, but i decided it needed an actual answer. And the answer is sort of. If you could lay out a step-by-step darwinian process in (GREAT) detail about how something like that could evolve, then i would concede that the bacteria flagellum itself was not IC. However, that does not prove much of anything. It proves that it is POSSIBLE for the bacteria flagellum to have evolved by DE, but it does not say it actually happened that way. AND it is only one of many examples of IC structures. AND, just because it is POSSIBLE to evolve by DE, again does not say it MUST.

A good enough answer?

PS-Even if you proved ID wrong, it does not prove DE right.

Enigma7457 wrote:

animal wrote:godslanguage,

If I explain to you the evolution of the bacteria flagellum, would you then repudiate intelligent design? (if at the very least to this IC argument?)

Now, before you think your initial reaction to this response through - just think about the question, honestly, for a moment.

I know the question was not directed at me, but i decided it needed an actual answer. And the answer is sort of. If you could lay out a step-by-step darwinian process in (GREAT) detail about how something like that could evolve, then i would concede that the bacteria flagellum itself was not IC. However, that does not prove much of anything. It proves that it is POSSIBLE for the bacteria flagellum to have evolved by DE, but it does not say it actually happened that way. AND it is only one of many examples of IC structures. AND, just because it is POSSIBLE to evolve by DE, again does not say it MUST.

A good enough answer?

PS-Even if you proved ID wrong, it does not prove DE right.

My answer would simply be for animal to first explain the evolutionary process of the flagellum, then we'll see if it measures up to standard scientific machinations (such as lab results showing the exact pathways, peer reviews, etc), before we can render a judgment wrt ID and the flagellum.

Yes, I know the question was directed at me. And I believe my answer was very clear, precise and on target.

The early bicycle had no pedals and was propelled by pushing along the ground. It was made of wood and did not have any of the parts you would find in today's bicycles. Much of the parts probably came from carriages. In fact it resembled very closely the frame of a carriage on either side. It was not a practical devise as it required well groomed roads or pavement.

Worth a mention, the improvement of roads came partly as a result of the improvement of bicycles as transportation and of the industrial revolution making them more affordable!

Early bicycles were front wheel driven.
Before foot driven devices there was a hand driven hobby horse, where the rider would ratchet the device forward.

The earliest spokes came from umbrella companies.
Early tires were all wooden later to be made of metals, and then solid rubber tires followed by pneumatic tires.
Pneumatic tires were invented in 1845. They weren't used on bicycles until 1888.
What was the original purpose of the new tires? To cushion the ride.
Wear resistance of the wheel was a side effect.

Steady improvements on the balance of bicycles can be traced to modern forms.
Practically every single part of the bicycle came into the picture independently.

So is the bicycle irreducibly complex?

The original bicycles do not meet the specifications required now of modern machines, yet they existed. The reasons modern machines meet specifications is because as designs gradually changed specifications changed with them. The market drove the development of the bicycle, and in turn modifications in the bicycle changed the demands of the market.

So what is specified complexity if the specifications are in flux?

Bgood,

I have shown you that even a Bicycle without pedals is still irreducibly complex, you just don't see that. If there are no pedals, yet the bicycle is specified to get from point a to point b, then you need something else to fill in the missing gap (ie: something pushing the bicycle etc...just like you stated).

Its like a 500 piece puzzle, your logic is that if you had only 50 out of the 500 pieces, then it is no different then the 500 piece puzzle, it just needs time to get there, and of course, your logic also implies that it will go beyond that of the 500 pieces, since evolution never stops ticking. The point is that you would have to fill in those missing 450 pieces with a very strong imagination. When something is specified to do something highly specific, irreducible complexity becomes more of a reality.

The other side of the story is, that bicycles didn't evolve because they just happened too, they evolved because of market demands, purpose which tends to pre-determine the intended function as part of a goal-directed process is the only scientific mechanism humans know of that creates complex modular systems. The bicycle is a very nice example of a design, but as I stated before Biological systems are much more sophisticated then any design, they even "reproduce", they incorporate everything and beyond of what the modern term of "design" means to humans.

godslanguage wrote:Bgood,

I have shown you that even a Bicycle without pedals is still irreducibly complex, you just don't see that. If there are no pedals, yet the bicycle is specified to get from point a to point b, then you need something else to fill in the missing gap (ie: something pushing the bicycle etc...just like you stated).

So when did this become irreducibly complex? After someone thought to use it to lazily push themselves around in the garden? Or when it was the left frame piece of a carraige?

godslanguage wrote:Its like a 500 piece puzzle, your logic is that if you had only 50 out of the 500 pieces, then it is no different then the 500 piece puzzle, it just needs time to get there, and of course, your logic also implies that it will go beyond that of the 500 pieces, since evolution never stops ticking. The point is that you would have to fill in those missing 450 pieces with a very strong imagination. When something is specified to do something highly specific, irreducible complexity becomes more of a reality.

I don't understand this analogy, the earliest contraptions do not have the gears, pedals, spokes, seats, tires, chains, and frames of modern bicycles. Doesn't that mean that peices were added later on?

godslanguage wrote:The other side of the story is, that bicycles didn't evolve because they just happened too, they evolved because of market demands, purpose which tends to pre-determine the intended function as part of a goal-directed process is the only scientific mechanism humans know of that creates complex modular systems. The bicycle is a very nice example of a design, but as I stated before Biological systems are much more sophisticated then any design, they even "reproduce", they incorporate everything and beyond of what the modern term of "design" means to humans.

Remember that the specifications of the original contraption is not the same as those of modern machines. Don't forget that the requirements of bicycles changed as bicycles progressed from those original forms to the modern ones we have now. So in what way was the purpose of the bicycle pre-determined. Did Baron von Drais determine that bicycles would be used by couriers to deliver legal documents, or be motorized an eventually become the modern motorcycle?
The market determines whether a bicycle will continue to be produced. It determines which innovations will become parts of future designs and which will fall by the wayside. The mechanisms which determine the lineages of organisms are similar. This is why I had asked before why you treat goal-directed and evolution as oppositional forces. Obviously evolution is not driven entirely by random forces. But if you want to continue to jab at straw men, be my guest.