>We know how natural selection works and
>it cannot select non-functional precursors to a system.
Susan:
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.
Matt:
Co-option would predict variation among the parts of IC systems.And that the
parts would be capable of being shaped or formed. All the parts to IC
systems are universal and well-matched. Co-option would be completely
random, something Darwin wanted to distance himself from.
Why would cooption be completely random? That does not seem to follow.
Susan:
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.
Nelson:
I am not trying to prove supernatural intervention or discredit the utility
of another theory. I am simply speaking of the utility of a design theory.
The use of the design principle in one system lead me to complete knowledge
of the design principle of another system. This is a prime example of "I
understand it" having nothing to do with "It arose naturally." Perhaps a
simpler example would be a review of a paper I recently read which
illustrates this. I'll simply quote myself:
Borrowing From Biology to Power the Petite
Robert F. Service
Science 1999 January 1; 283: 27-28.
"Okay, so molecular vehicles are pure fantasy. But their immobility is a
problem that's all too real for would-be builders of nano-sized devices.
Such devices are so small, there's no obvious way to power them. Now,
researchers are turning to biology for what may be a possible solution:
molecular motors from living things."
Here a paper is discussed on how a team of scientists actually used the
design principle of the F1-ATPase, to build a nano-device.
"For their molecular motor, Montemagno and his colleagues turned to one of
the cell's heavy lifters: ATPase, a complex of nine types of proteins that
work together to generate ATP. While tiny--it measures just 12 nanometers
across and 12 high--this cellular motor is remarkably sophisticated,
containing a cylinder of six proteins surrounding a central shaft. ATPase
converts the movement of protons within the cell's energy powerhouse, the
mitochondrion, into a mechanical rotation of the shaft, a motion that helps
catalyze the formation of ATP. But the motor can also run in reverse,
burning ATPs to rotate the shaft and move protons."
The team then changed two of the proteins in the F-ATPase motor to see if it
could move actual objects. One so that it could stick to metal, the other to
act as a "holder" for the beads they were to move.
"To make the first change, the team added an amino acid sequence loaded with
histidine, which binds tightly to metals, to the base of the proteins that
form the motor's cylinder. Next they used electron beam lithography to
pattern an array of nickel islands--each roughly 40 nanometers across--atop
a glass microscope cover slip. When they then spritzed water on top to keep
the proteins happy and added the motors, the base of the cylinders bound to
the nickel islands, causing the motors to stand upright."
They then added ATP fuel to the solution and the thing started twirling for
almost two hours. He then goes on to say that if the motor was as big as a
person it would be able to twirl a telephone pole at 1 revolution per
second. I must concur with Montemagno when he says "It was seriously cool".
They eventually want to attach magnetic bars. Twirling these bars could
actually generate a magentic field and electric currents. This type of
generation could be used in many different ways to power devices.
They also borrowed from a cellular monorail which consists of microtubules
and kinesin. These two parts act as "rails" where molecular motors can be
lined up.
"In cells, the kinesin motors latch onto the fixed microtubules and churn
like steam engines from one end of the line to the other, ferrying molecular
cargo such as proteins and lipids. But for their experiment, Vogel and her
colleagues John Dennis and Jonathan Howard reversed these roles, fastening
kinesin motors to a surface and having them shuttle microtubules down the
line from one motor to the next."
Thus the claim that ID "stifles scientific inquiry" has no basis.
It does. Your example has nothing to do with ID.
>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.
Susan:
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.
Nelson:
I was simply showing you two natural processes and two design processes.But
you are mistaken when you say "feedback control" is not used in biological
systems.
"The circadian clock of cyanobacteria"
Bioessays 2000 Jan;22(1):10-5
"Although kai genes do not share any homology with clock genes so far
identified in eukaryotes, analysis of their expression suggests that a
negative feedback control of kaiC expression by KaiC generates the circadian
oscillation and that KaiA functions as a positive factor to sustain this
oscillation. "
Ironically this mechanism was borrows from engineers.
=====
Ironically engineers borrowed it from nature? So what does this show other
than that nature can suggest design?
=====
>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.
Susan:
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.
Nelson:
I am saying intelligent intervention. Whether it's supernatural is
irrelevant.
=======
Nelson has claimed that the flagellum is designed. And even claims
intelligent intervention but this is not supportable by the data presented.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 09 2000 - 15:05:37 EDT