Deinonychus antirrhopus

Hey! You're skeptical of intelligent design! You're not a total moonbat, after all. Who knew.

And yet, you still are a total moonbat, df. I knew.

But I've got the balls to use my real name and you're too pathetic to even do that, pissant.

LOL - I'm soooo hurt.

Somehow I get the impression that df got a computer for Christmas and is just now out exploring the internet.

Can't you get anything right Deb, I'm not skeptical of ID, I think it is a complete fraud and is just so much psuedo-academic crap. I would have thought this was obvious from the six posts here on the front page. Sheesh.

Steve,

Take a deep breath. When I wrote:

Hey! You're skeptical of intelligent design! You're not a total moonbat, after all. Who knew.

I was complimenting you. Given your affinity with the marsbat birdbrain, i had my doubts about your cognitive capacity. Guilt by association. I was surprised and pleased that you don't appear to believe that there's a guy named god who lives in the sky who had a son named hey seuss who died for MY sins who CREATED the world.

Put your sword down for a minute, hombre. Okay?

Deb,

If I called you a complete moronic fuck head, but quite as bad as I initially thought, would you take it as a compliment?

Put your sword down for a minute, hombre. Okay?

Why? You seem to never put yours down.

Yes, deb, you did intend a compliment. But as seems to be your practice, you did it incompetently.

God knows I hate to interrupt the regularly-scheduled evisceration, but this "irreducible complexity" argument is nonsense anyway. This margin's too narrow for the complete discussion, but simply looking at DNA as a generating string for a Wolfram-esque cellular automaton, we'd expect to see cases where small changes cause radical changes in the results. It's the whole "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" thing.

The TTSS is not "basically a simpler version of the flagellum". It consists of about a quarter of the number of proteins, and although they are analagous, they are not the same. So 30 some flagellar proteins are still "unaccounted for", i.e. unique. It's not even clear that the TTSS came before the flagellum anyway.

My chief objection to this sort of thinking is the tendency to replace "we don't yet fully understand this" with "a miracle occurred", which pretty much obviates the need to investigate further.

The TTSS is not "basically a simpler version of the flagellum". It consists of about a quarter of the number of proteins, and although they are analagous, they are not the same. So 30 some flagellar proteins are still "unaccounted for", i.e. unique. It's not even clear that the TTSS came before the flagellum anyway.

Yes, but the point of the IC argument was that removing one or more of the parts renders it useless. While in a strict sense true, the TTSS shows that removing some parts and slight modification results in a still useful molecular machine. Not exactly what I'd call a good thing for IC.

Further, there is also the other IC mechanism the blood clotting cascade. That has been completely destroyed. What apparently looked IC turned out to be not IC at all.

The flagellum is still IC. You can't remove a part and still have a functioning flagellum. So what if the TTSS has 10 "similar" proteins, you still have to add 30 more (and maintain function) to get a flagellum. And I guess I'll just reiterate here, it looks equally as likely, if not more so, that the TTSS emerged after the flagellum. That's really irrelevant to my point, but it's relevant to yours.

There is obviously no direct evolutionary path to the flagellum, and indirect pathways such as co-option suffer from deep problems as well.

Who "completely destroyed" the clotting cascade's irreducibility? Careful you don't overstate your case carelessly.

And I guess I'll just reiterate here, it looks equally as likely, if not more so, that the TTSS emerged after the flagellum. That's really irrelevant to my point, but it's relevant to yours.

No, actually it is irrelevant in general. The point is that a simpler structure has been found, which renders the IC claim invalid. Notice the goal post shifting or "maintaining function/remove only one part" and "the simpler version must come first".

Who "completely destroyed" the clotting cascade's irreducibility? Careful you don't overstate your case carelessly.

Moving more goal posts?

What is this "moving goal posts" talk? There is no simpler structure. The TTSS is a TTSS, not a flagellum. They share a few parts, but that's it. Who cares?

Are you proposing that the TTSS was along the evolutionary pathway to the flagellum? Great, let's hear more about that. How would you evolve a flagellum?

Regarding the cascade (which you brought up), I thought I asked a relatively straightforward question, and for some reason you thought I was "moving goal posts" (whatever that means). So I guess I'll just ask it again:

Who "completely destroyed" the irreducibility claim of the clotting cascade?

I'm sorry Ulitmate, I have no interest in playing catch up to your Move-the-Goal-Post-Game (and please, you know exactly what that means).

So when pressed on some of your adversarial comments, you just back off and say I'm playing childish games?

No, the fact is you are playing childish games. Try reading Ken Miller, Keith Robison, and Russell Doolittle. Further, Behe's use of Doolittle's nontechnical lecture is a dishonest deception.

I'm not playing any games. I've read each of the three you suggested, and whether I've read Doolittle's technical or nontechnical writing has little to do with the fact that both fibrinogen deficient and plasminogen deficient mice suffer from lethal ailments.

You started this off by saying that the TTSS is basically a "simpler version" of the flagellum. That is purely absurd. I might as well say that a hard drive is "basically a simpler version" of my iPod, since it is a subset of it (and that's even a generous analogy since I can take a complete hard drive from an iPod, but to get a TTSS from a flagellum requires modifications to the relevant proteins).

The light that the notion of IC sheds is on the potential challenge of evolving IC structures. So, you can clap that you've found a system that has analogous proteins that functions as a pump, but I still haven't seen any plausible explanations for evolution of the flagellum. The flagellum itself does not function as a motor for mobility until all proteins are present AND assembled correctly. Once again, that seems to make a direct evolutionary path impossible, leaving indirect pathways to do the work. Everything I've read (Miller, Robison, etc.) amounts to stories, and not compelling ones unless you're already sold out to evolutionary explanations.

So, what is childish about this?

You keep intentionally missing the point, ultimate. That the ever-changing definition of "IC" is a moving goal post.

It is only confirmation that ID is simply, incontrovertably, not science.

You started this off by saying that the TTSS is basically a "simpler version" of the flagellum. That is purely absurd. I might as well say that a hard drive is "basically a simpler version" of my iPod, since it is a subset of it (and that's even a generous analogy since I can take a complete hard drive from an iPod, but to get a TTSS from a flagellum requires modifications to the relevant proteins).

Rhetorical games now? Of course, you are correct that my non-technical description is "absurd". The thing is not everybody reading my blog the a molecular biologist, and for that matter neither am I. So I use simplifying "laymens terms" to make the point that others such as Kenneth Miller make in far more exacting detail. This rhetorical point does nothing to establish that flagella are IC. You may have scored a point, but it is a meaningless point.

The light that the notion of IC sheds is on the potential challenge of evolving IC structures. So, you can clap that you've found a system that has analogous proteins that functions as a pump, but I still haven't seen any plausible explanations for evolution of the flagellum.

Have you looked? There is one out there on the internet by a fairly respectably individual.

Everything I've read (Miller, Robison, etc.) amounts to stories, and not compelling ones unless you're already sold out to evolutionary explanations.

Ahh yes, the old creationist dodge. "Until I see the complete evolutionary pathway from begining to the present I wont believe it possible." Why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and say "Nah nah nah...." at the top of your voice? You do realize you have just implicitly utilized the God of the Gaps argument don't you?

You guys are hopelessly closed minded. You were totally misleading when you said the TTSS is a simpler version of the flagellum, and you know it. It wasn't mere "simplification" for laymen. The flagellum is IC: if you remove any of the proteins (parts or for assembly), the flagellum no longer functions as a flagellum. Therefore, there is no evolutionary path in which a given function is gradually improved (the most common mechanism for evolution). I've asked numerous times here for you to propose a plausible pathway, and you haven't.

Now, you say "there is one out there" on the internet? Just one? I've read dozens, and they are hand waiving. I'm not looking for a flawless explanation for the evolution of the flagellum, I'm looking for a plausible one that gives honest consideration to the difficulties and obstacles that would be encountered. And I haven't seen one. Send me a link why don't you. Or better yet, explain it yourself.

You take evolution for granted. You're philosophically committed to it. If you weren't, you could at least be honest and say "we have no idea how something like the flagellum could have evolved. Perhaps it couldn't." But that's not even a logical possibility for you. On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it did, but only if the explanation is theoretically plausible. Robin may claim that ID is "incontrovertably unscientific" (which is another absurd statement), but I think it gives us a better shot of accurately explaining reality.

You gripe about the "god of the gaps" argument, but fail completely to see your own version of that, which is essentially "evolution of the gaps". You have no idea how it could have evolved, but none the less you maintain dogmatically that it did. What's more, you are so adversarial that you can't even conceive how anyone could be skeptical of evolution's ability to produce such a system.

By the way, any thoughts in the cascade? I know fibrinogen and plasminogen deficient mice are pretty much as good as dead, but you seem to think otherwise. Can you go into that?

Ultimate,

It is not my problem you have no inclination to test your beliefs.

Now, you say "there is one out there" on the internet? Just one? I've read dozens, and they are hand waiving. I'm not looking for a flawless explanation for the evolution of the flagellum, I'm looking for a plausible one that gives honest consideration to the difficulties and obstacles that would be encountered. And I haven't seen one. Send me a link why don't you. Or better yet, explain it yourself.

Well since you feel free to call me a liar, let me return the favor. You are a liar. You call such "plausible explanations" "stories". It is quite clear that such a "story" is not all you are asking for, so please have the decency to not lie to us.

You take evolution for granted. You're philosophically committed to it. If you weren't, you could at least be honest and say "we have no idea how something like the flagellum could have evolved. Perhaps it couldn't." But that's not even a logical possibility for you. On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it did, but only if the explanation is theoretically plausible.

Sorry to be so blunt and redundant, but you are a liar, and you are being absurd. The problems with ID in general is that it isn't honest. I've documented many instances of dishonesty, deception, and misdirection on this blog. I have enough evidence at this point to convince me that the typical ID supporter is not about discovering reality/truth, but about pursuing a preconcieved notion.

I am not committed to Darwinian evolution in the sense you describe. I am committed to it as the most likely true explanation of what we have observed. If a better theory comes along that offers a better chance of being true I'll go with that. I am committed to evolution because evolution (i.e., not the theory of evolution) is an observed fact.

You gripe about the "god of the gaps" argument, but fail completely to see your own version of that, which is essentially "evolution of the gaps".

Nice try, but this argument falls flat. I'm not saying, "I don't know therefore my favorite supernatural explanation." I'm saying, "I don't know, but based on past experience the explanation with the highest probability of being true is neo-Darwinian theory." Big difference there.

By the way, any thoughts in the cascade? I know fibrinogen and plasminogen deficient mice are pretty much as good as dead, but you seem to think otherwise. Can you go into that?

Look, even Behe admitted the blood cascade is probably not IC. Give it a freaking rest.

ultimate states: "Robin may claim that ID is 'incontrovertably unscientific' (which is another absurd statement), but I think it gives us a better shot of accurately explaining reality.".

This is an intentionally false statement, as ID does not "explain" anything at all. ID creates nothing more than a paradox - and paradoxes do not explain anything. ID attempts to show that life could only exist if created by something else - and cannot explain that "something else". Pure paradox if one has a fantasy that its proponents are honest. Pure mendacity is one is more realistic.

You know, if early in the 20th century, folks had just said "We can't explain why Mercury's orbit does what it does, therefore Newton's laws are completely invalid and it's got to be God moving things around manually", where would we be now?

The theory of evolution doesn't explain all things. It just explains things better than everything else. There's an enormous difference between phenomena not yet explained by a theory, and phenomena that contradict a theory. TOE hasn't been contradicted by anything.

ID is a dead end. Once you invoke a miracle, you no longer need an explanation for anything at all.

Creationist: There's this guy. His name is god. He lives in the sky. He created Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve!). He made the earth in seven days. That god. What a guy. And you should meet his son, Hey Seuss.......

Evolutionish: There were these molecules in this primordial slime. They bumped into each other, yada yada yada, here we are.

Both stories are kooky. Intelligent design is a step toward a less kooky alternative. I think. But a less kooky alternative is desperately needed. The creationist shpiel is bonkers. But the evolutionist shtick doesn't quite cut it.

Ah, just when I was worried that deb's orbit would approach perihelion with reality, we get the above little incoherent anti-science spiel.

This will be of enormous aid to you df.

Sooo...Deb...you are a creationist?

(Hint: The way IDists have structured their arguments only your dude in the sky can do the things IDist claim are IDed.)

Here's a hint, df, some of us are using the scientific method and the rest are not.

Note that df makes the completely amateur mistake of confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Alright. I'm out of here. I was asking you, Steve, to post a link to a proposed pathway for the evolution of the flagellum, or explain it yourself. Your response was to call me a liar. Nice.

I also asked you very straightforwardly what you thought of fibrinogen deficient and/or plasminogen deficient mice, and you didn't respond - at any time - with substance. Your latest epiphany was "Behe even says it's not IC". Of course you don't post a link to back that up.

No one in here took up the issues. You're pretty good at the "creationist" slams and such, but when it comes to actually discussing things, you cry foul ("moving goal posts", "childish games", "liar liar pants on fire").

I've had numerous, productive, and interesting discussions with people who are convinced of evolution's power over topics such as the flagellum. Obviously, nothing like that can be found here.

Have fun calling people names, kids. Ciao.

Have a nice flight!

Oh the great "Know-it-All" Ultimate 175 doesn't really know it all. You were unware that during a Q&A at the Amerian Museum of Natural History Behe basically retreated on the ICness of the blood clotting Cascade? His questioner was...wait for it...Ken Miller. Maybe you haven't read him as much as your thought you have Ultimate.

KM: So the point stands that a subset of these proteins is functional in a different context. Now that's the bacterial flagellum, let's look a couple of the other guys. Let's look at the clotting pathway, this is the way in which blood clots, you call this the Rube Goldberg in the blood, great stuff, and the clotting pathway is extremely complex. It produces a clot around the red blood cell, and what you wrote is, in your book is that none of the cascade proteins, these proteins, are used for anything except controlling the formation of clots, that's very clear. Yet, in the absence of any of the components blood does not clot and the system fails. Now here's the, the hard part for me. Remember you said, in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails. One of those components that you've talked about is called factor 12 or Hagemann factor, and you'd think, if we take it away, the system should fail, so there shouldn't be any living organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, but it turns out, uh, lo and behold, that there are some organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, I've crossed them off up there, and those organisms turn out to be, dolphins and porpoises, they don't have, um, I assume that statement therefore is incorrect and has to be changed?

MB:
Well, first of all let me express my condolences for the dolphins. Umm...[laughter]

KM:
You don't have to have to do condolences they do fine. That's my point. It's the theory of irreducible complexity that needs condolences at this point, [laughter/ applause] because that's what's happening.

MB:
Well, if you read my book a little more closely, you'll see that I talk about both the intrinsic and extrinsic pathway, I say that they can use both of them. And, uh, you'll see that when I talk about irreducible complexity I say, the details of the pathway, beyond uh christmas factor and so on, are rather vague, so let's uh, so I said I'll, we'll confine my argument to those. But nonetheless...

KM:
Yeah but your own words are up here and you point out Hageman factor, factor 12 and so forth, so they're part of that system.

MB:
Well, um, nonetheless, let me point out that if you do delete prothrombin if you delete tissue factor, you end up with this.

KM:
I'm asking you about Hageman factor. I'm not deleting those. My question is straightforward. You said you couldn't delete them, nature's done the experiment, it deleted them, doesn't that disprove the hypothesis?... and you're talking about deleting other ones?

MB:
You're right there are redundant components in the blood clotting system...

KM:
So it's not irreducibly complex?

MB:
In the same sense that a rattrap is not, that's correct.

So in answer to your question who "totally destroyed" the argument that the blood clotting cascade is not IC, that would be Michael Behe under questioning by Kenneth Miller who points out deleting one component, the Hagemann factor, still allows for blood clotting.

Also your whining about deleting more than one part is utter rubbish and "totally misleading" on your part. It doesn't matter how many parts you delete, the point is that if you delete one or more the system provides no selective benefit. Granted Behe changed that so that the function must be preserved, but biology doesn't workt that way. Anyhow, the idea of deleting more than one part is valid. How so? Because that is what Behe uses to support his claim of the cilium being IC. From the same lecture (oh, which your lazy butt can find here),

KM: Okay, so, so again, your use of that as an irreducible complex system breaks down upon inspection. Now let's look at the cilium, because you've said how, indeed how beautiful this structure is and let's take away not one part, not two, not three, not four, let's take away five and the parts that I've just X'ed out here, and that would include the central doublet, the outer dynein arms, the cross bridges, and a whole series of other components.

Granted that is Kenneth Miller speaking, but Behe does not dispute his claim.

It is funny reading that lecture as you can tell Behe knows there is traps coming periodically, but he can't sit there and not respond, and since Miller is being honest, Behe has to respond or he'll look like a jerk. And thus ends up walking right into the trap.

As for the bacterial flagellum there is Nick Matzke's model for how it evolved, and Ian Musgraves model. Haven't heard of them? They are two of the guys behind PandasThumb.org. You can find Nick's model here and Ian's model here.

I've had numerous, productive, and interesting discussions with people who are convinced of evolution's power over topics such as the flagellum. Obviously, nothing like that can be found here.

Well, I'm not going to entertain your moving goal posts, rhetorical slight of hand, or your own insults (by the way, calling somebody totally misleading and that "we know it" means we are liars, so spare me your indignation about being called a liar). By the way, Dembski's and Behe's use of IC cores is moving goal posts.

Sez Ultimate:

"The light that the notion of IC sheds is on the potential challenge of evolving IC structures..."

IC sheds light? That's big news. Try though I might, all I see IC doing is listing a bunch of stuff we deem complex (defined as needed on a case-by-case basis), and trying to amass an ooh-ing and aah-ing audience to marvel at our inability to reduce it.

Since when is our inability to do something indicative of a designer?