Reply to: RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID
I think this exchange is a good illustration of the problem with IC. Because there isn't any real quantification of IC (an IC index if you will), it can be argued that anything or nothing is IC. When I first read articles by Dembski discussing IC, he stated that some things are IC and must be the result of an intelligent designer and some things, such as seasons are not. I believe this was in "What every theologian should know...". However, I would say that atoms must be IC. Each atom must have at least one proton and one electron. Actually, each element is IC, because each one must have a certain number of protons. And those particles are composed of certain types of quarks. I don't even know what quarks are composed of. Or, I could say that atoms are too regular and carry too little information to be shown to be intelligently designed. If it sounds like I'm blowing smoke, then it's because I am. But, this exchange would end quickly (smoke no longer needed) if someone, anyone could quantify what an IC system is. Even in ecology, which is a rather imprecise science, has indecies which quantify the level of diversity of a community. Why can't Dembski or Behe do the same?
Cliff H
><< Fam:
>Given the suggestion that the flagellum is IC and therefor shows evidence of
>intelligent design and therefor intelligence I would like to offer the
>follow
>data points against this idea.
>
>Ian Musgrave shows his views on evolution of the flagellum
>
>
>http://x59.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=598548093
>
>archived at
>
>http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/flagella.htm
>
>Nelson:
>I would like to address these links. Ian here thinks that the flagellum,
>because it has some parts similar to the secretory apparatus, evolved from
>the type III secretory system.Thus all the parts could be removed and
>selection will still be able to select for the flagellum since it is acting
>as a secretion system. I like Tim's analogy when Ken Miller brought this
>objection up:
>
>
>
>FAM:
>Ian has shown that indeed there are likely precursors to the system and
>since
>evolution uses pre-existing systems it is important to show that there parts
>that are similar to other systems.
>
>Nelson:
>However,the Type III secretion is not a likely precursor to the flageller
>system. When the facts shown in this posts are taken into consideration,
>saying that the secretion system is a simpler ancestor to the flagellum is
>ad hoc.
>
>
><< "We will not be impressed by the clever fellow who points
>out that it could run down the street in the absence of wheels if you
>put it on the back of an elephant, and argues that bikes with wheels
>evolved spontaneously from bikes on the backs of elephants. " >>
>
>FAM:
>No such argument is made.
>
>Nelson:
>This is exactly the argument Ian made.
>
><<
>But there is a more fundamental problem. The type III secretory system is
>actually quite complex. And it contains quite a few other parts that it
>needs for it's function. It also sits causally downstream from the
>flagellum, which would indicate that it may have evolved from the flagellum
>and not vice versa. In this review of a paper:
> >>
>
>FMA:
>Complexity is no objection to an evolutionary mechanism.
>
>Nelson:
>My argument was not about complexity objecting to any evolutionary
>mechanism.
>
>
><< Type III Secretion Machines: Bacterial Devices for Protein Delivery into
>Host Cells
>Jorge E. Galan and Alan Collmer
>Science 1999 May 21; 284: 1322-1328.
>
>"Made up of more than 20 proteins, type III secretion systems are the most
>complex of all known protein secretion systems in bacteria. The observation
>that these virulence-associated systems were always linked to phenotypes
>related to interactions between bacterial pathogens and their animal or
>plant hosts intrigued researchers in this field from the outset."
>
>It goes on to say that they require many chaperones for many of it's
>proteins.
> >>
>
>FMA:
>Any of them irreducibly complex?
>
>Nelson:
>I would say the type III secretory system may turn out to be IC itself.
>
>
><< "Despite the architectural similarity between flagella and type III
>systems,
>the structural components of the needle complex share limited sequence
>similarity with components of the flagellar basal body "
>
>Thus the reductionist viewpoint's prediction is falsified. And to view the
>flagellum as a type III system has no basis except as an apologetic. >>
>
>FMA:
>Hardly falsified.
>
>Nelson:
>It is indeed falsified.
>
>FMA:
>But perhaps you can tell us how ID designed the system?
>
>Nelson:
>I discussed in my response to Susan some of the methods intelligent agency
>uses to produce molecular machines.
>
>
>FMA:
>Lacking such predictions, can we conclude that ID is falsified as well? See
>how evolution leads to predictions and further research? What would ID do?
>
>Nelson:
>It does not lack such predictions. One can use the design principle of one
>machine , to predict the principle of another.
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Return-Path: <evolution-owner-Cliff_Hamrick=baylor.edu@udomo3.calvin.edu>
>Received: from BUVAX2.BAYLOR.EDU (buvax2.baylor.edu [129.62.1.1])
> by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08849
> for <Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU>; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 11:29:28 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from lists.calvin.edu (udomo3.calvin.edu)
> by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.2-31 #33495)
> with SMTP id <01JU319FA8NKFFARKF@baylor.edu> for
> Cliff_Hamrick@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU (ORCPT rfc822;Cliff_Hamrick@baylor.edu); Tue,
> 12 Sep 2000 11:29:03 CDT
>Received: (qmail 20272 invoked by uid 27); Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:28:35 +0000
>Received: (qmail 20266 invoked from network); Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:28:34 +0000
>Received: from ursa.calvin.edu (153.106.4.1) by udomo3.calvin.edu with SMTP;
> Tue, 12 Sep 2000 16:28:34 +0000
>Received: from tribesvr1.megatribe.com
> (tribesvr1.megatribe.com [64.209.219.236]) by ursa.calvin.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1)
> with SMTP id e8CGSq513995 for <evolution@calvin.edu>; Tue,
> 12 Sep 2000 12:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from MEGATRIBE11 ([209.97.92.133]) by tribesvr1.megatribe.com
> (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-66574U100L2S100V35)
> with SMTP id com for <evolution@calvin.edu>; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:26:11 -0400
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:27:54 -0400
>From: nalonso@megatribe.com (Nelson Alonso)
>Subject: RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID
>In-reply-to: <bd.6ef66f1.26efa98a@aol.com>
>Sender: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
>To: evolution@calvin.edu
>Reply-to: nalonso@megatribe.com
>Message-id: <001501c01cd6$679f8320$0d64a8c0@MEGATRIBE11>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
>Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>Importance: Normal
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-priority: Normal
>Precedence: bulk
>Delivered-to: evolution@lists.calvin.edu
>Status: >
Common sense isn't.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 14:22:05 EDT