>>Nelson:
>>No he ceases to explore them because evolutionary pathways are sterile,
>and
>>it is better explained by intelligence.
>
>Susan:
>sterile? You (and Behe, of course) know that in advance? Without looking?
>What does it mean to find an evolutionary pathway sterile? It becomes a
>pathway with no further implications?
>
>Nelson:
>Are you saying the only way to falsify evolutionary theory would be to
>to know all explanations in advance?
actually I think that is the exact opposite of what I was saying.
>We know how natural selection works and
>it cannot select non-functional precursors to a system.
true. However, it is very common for anatomical features to be co-opted for
other uses. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says evolution
must be linear. Quite the contrary. Since it is so opportunistic it would
make sense for evolutionary pathways to be roundabout.
>>Susan:
>> That's one of the main
>>objections to ID: it is stultifying to scientific inquiry.
>>
>>
>>Nelson:
>>Only if you equate "I understand this" with "It arose naturally".
>>That is simply not the case. One can use ID to understand any biological
>>feature.
>
>Susan:
>give me an example. Can I assume you've read Gould's essay "The Panda's
>Thumb"?
>
>Nelson:
>I read a great example once,where one design principle was used to learn
>about a completely unrelated system.A system that is like the F-ATPase, I
>can predict that, given it is IC, that I will find all of the F-ATPase
>subunits will be found in every bacterial genome employing the same
>mechanism and that similar systems will employ the same mechanism.
>
>If we test this with an unrelated but similar molecular machine,
>what will we find? The cytoskeleton actually works exactly like the F-
>ATPase.Both bind ATP. And just like the parts of the F-ATPase, we
>find that the cytoskeleton needs minimal parts to function. You can
>then safely hypothesize, that if F-ATPase binds to GTP, that the
>cytoskeleton will bind to GTP. And if that was my prediction, that
>would be true.And if the F-ATPase uses only one protein to hydrolyze
>it, I would predict that the cytoskeleton only uses one protein to
>hydrolyze it. And that would be true, it only uses the beta tubulin.
thank you for explaining this in such simple layman's terms! It sounds
like features of one system are used in similar ways by another system. Is
that what you are saying? And how does that prove supernatural
intervention? One would predict the same thing to happen if all organisms
share a comon ancestor.
>>Susan:
>> The purpose of
>>ID (and IC) is to "prove" the existence of the gods is a scientific fact.
>>
>>Nelson:
>>No it is to detect intelligent agency and distinguish it from natural
>>process.
>
>Susan:
>how? can you name a couple of processes that aren't natural and a couple
>that are and explain to me how they are different?
>
>Nelson:
>Natural selection and random mutation would be a natural process. This
>selects functional intermediates from simpler ancestors without foresight or
>planning.The "Waterfall method" and "Feedback Control" are two engineering
>principles. These have a goal in mind and purpose, with future usefulness.
I'm not sure this answers my question. Neither the "Waterfall method" or
"feedback control" are biological systems. We are talking about
supernatural intervention in biological design. I'm looking for clear
examples of such.
>>Susan:
>>If you can do that, you can get around the major legal roadblock to having
>>Christian dogma taught in public schools--in science class, no less.
>>
>>
>>Nelson:
>>That is a clear cut unsubstantiated assertion.
>
>Susan:
>:-) really? There are several Supreme Court decisions over the last several
>years that substantiate my claim. There are several areas of the country
>where conservative Christian pressure is being brought to bear to teach
>"ID" in classrooms.
>
>Nelson:
>Please don't tell me you are talking about Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish.
>That was not about intelligent design theory.
Unfortunately I can't find the dratted reference to the Supreme Court's
decision on some creationist case or other where they mention ID
specifically as just another verison of creationism. I've seen it, and
thought I bookmarked it but now I can't find it.
>Nelson:
>Well I can show you a designed system by an intelligent agent and an
>undesigned system. Pseudogenes and the bacterial flagellum. One is
>irreducible to it's parts and has function, the other has no genetic
>function whatsoever.
so it's pseudogenes that are natural and bacterial flagellum are the
product of supernatural intervention? OK. Unfortunately I'm running out of
time, I'll get back to you on that.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 08 2000 - 17:45:29 EDT