>
> > > Nelson:
> > > An irreducibly complex systems can only be built simultaneously. Thus
> > > physical precursors are eliminated as the designer. It can not be
built
> > > gradually , step by step.
> >
> >So, ID (which, presumably, is implied by the presence of IC) is not
really
> >about "design" but about the manner in which something is "built" or
> >assembled?
>
> From an earlier post by Nelson:
>
>FMA:
>Indeed, that ID can exclude a natural designer has been merely asserted.
>
>Nelson:
>It is not an assertion. If I give you all the parts of the flagellum, you
>cannot build it step by step through functional precursors.
>
>Ralph:
>If you mean actually, physically, build it--no, I couldn't do that. But
>it is even more beyond me, or any one else, I think, to build it
>simultaneously, as you say an IC system *must* be built. If, as you
>say, natural pathways to IC systems are not possible, then are we
>beginning to zero in on your concept of what or who the Intelligent
>Designer must be? 1.non-natural 2.more intelligent (and/or capable)
>than us.
>
>Nelson:
>I think you misunderstood me and I apologize if I was vague. However, when
I
>say "you cannot build it step by step through functional precursors" I
>really mean "you cannot build this system by mimicing natural processes".
Ralph:
I'm afraid the 2nd phrase is less clear than the first. Let's try it this
way.
If we assume a bacterium with non-mobile flagella (flagellum? I'm no
expert),
then you are saying there is no way that a molecular motor to make the
flagella moveable can arise from strictly natural (mutational, etc.) means,
even if you take small, intermediate steps. Is that what you mean?
Nelson:
Well bacteria use flagella to move. Otherwise this sounds right enough.
>However, you are an intelligent agent, and therefore, you may build it by
>adding multiple parts together, with foresight, and future usefulness. You
>are natural selection with eyes.
>These give some clues as to who the designer is, namely, an intelligent
>agent with at least human intelligence.
Ralph:
Given our current level of knowledge about gene manipulation, I think we
are a long way from being able to generate a working molecular motor in a
biological organism that didn't already have one.
Nelson:
Well we can make stators , rotors, propellers etc. It doesn't take a
"higher" intelligence to make them, and there is nothing preventing us from
doing so, just advances in technology.We can make irreducibly complex
systems. In the Conference of Molecular Nanotechnology held in 1998 they
were actually able to make a motor much like the flagellum. There is also a
patent on such a motor:
Molecular Rotation Engine:
Licensing Opportunity
Description of Invention:
The present application describes a molecular-based macroscopic rotating
engine. The engine is constructed of two cylinders, one inner and one outer
whose inner surfaces are coated with oriented mobility or contractile
proteins. In the presence of ATP the cylinders rotate relative to each
other. Speed of relative rotation is controlled by the concentration of ATP
or by nesting a series of cylinders inside each other. Power is controlled
by adjusting the length of the cylinders. One advantage of this technology
over other macroscopic motors is that it can be used to supply power to
prosthetic implants and medical devices without the drawbacks associated
with conventional power sources. Other advantages are that the motor
operates at room temperature, fuels can be prepared by growing sugar so the
motor does not contribute to carbon dioxide pollution and the waste products
are biologically safe.
Inventor:
Thomas D. Schneider (NCI)
Patent Status:
DHHS Reference No. E-018-99/0 filed 03 Aug 1999
Portfolio:
Devices/Instrumentation - Therapeutics, methods of using devices
For additional information, please contact:
John Fahner-Vihtelic
Office of Technology Transfer
National Institutes of Health
6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325
Rockville, MD 20852-3804
Phone: 301/496-7735 ext. 270
There is also this paper Anthony P. Davis "Synthetic Molecular Motors" in
Nature that describe such processes. Even if all this was not true, it is a
illogical to equate "future knowledge" that would allow us to build these
machines with "non-natural higher intelligence". I'm not saying the designer
is not a higher intelligence or God. I am just saying it is reasonable to
say that the intelligent agent has at least human intelligence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 11:47:41 EDT