Intelligent Design receives jaw breaking right cross from Darwin The Merciless! :)

Michael

歌舞伎
Valued Senior Member
From: Molecular Evidence Supports Key Tenet Of Darwin's Evolution Theory

Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial." Professor Lithgow said.

A non-Darwinian explanation, from believers of Intelligent Design, proposed these complex machines to be "irreducibly complex". In other words they are so neatly complex and complete that they couldn't have evolved but rather must have been designed by an intelligent entity.

"Our research shows that these machines although complete and complex, were a result of evolution. Simple 'core' machines were established in the first eukaryotes by drawing on pre-existing proteins that had previously provided distinct, simplistic functions," Professor Lithgow said.

As a model system, the research focused on one specific molecular machine, the TIM complex, which transports proteins into mitochondria. Mitochondria are a compartment of human cells that serve as the energy-producing 'powerhouses'. At a very early stage in evolution, mitochondria were derived from bacteria that lived within the first eukaryotic cells.

"Our cells literally are chimeras of a "host" cell and these intracellular bacteria. Yet bacteria don't have TIM complexes – to understand where the TIM complex came from we simply applied scientific reasoning (oooh my, you mean "God Did It" isn't the best approach to explaining biological complexity :S) and looked at a modern-day bacterium akin to the organism that gave rise to mitochondria." Professor Lithgow said.

The group looked at the bacterium Caulobacter crescentus and found bacterial proteins related to the components of the mitochondrial TIM complex. They then showed that these bacterial proteins are not found as part of protein transport machines.

"François Jacob described evolution as a tinkerer, cobbling together proteins of one function to yield more complex machines capable of new functions." Professor Lithgow said.

"Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob's proposition, and shows that Darwin's theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be."
 
Darwin's Theory, proposed in 1859, is still being used to make scientific predictions, that, when tested, are confirmed. Again and Again and Again. It's really one of the most remarkable propositions in human history. In just over 150 years (well really 100) the change in thought has been Just amazing.
 
Not to mention the simplicity of the paradigm. Startlingly good. Oooooh, mighty Darwin, let my awesomely conceived idea bring me great fame!

Of the good kind, I mean.
 
Darwin's Theory, proposed in 1859, is still being used to make scientific predictions, that, when tested, are confirmed. Again and Again and Again. It's really one of the most remarkable propositions in human history. In just over 150 years (well really 100) the change in thought has been Just amazing.
\
kind of begs the question as to what warrants testing and what warrants theoretical suppositioning .....

.... at the very least its a sore sight short of putting an end to the theoretical suppositioning on the subject ....
 
\
kind of begs the question as to what warrants testing and what warrants theoretical suppositioning .....

.... at the very least its a sore sight short of putting an end to the theoretical suppositioning on the subject ....

The mark of religious truth, the end of questioning.
 
The mark of religious truth, the end of questioning.
We never stop questioning. We just joke about it. That's the difference. Religious people never start questioning, at least not their own folderol.

Nonetheless the scientific method establishes reasonable guidelines for the questions. They must show an adequate understanding of the subject matter, and they must be posed in good faith.

The average American evolution denialist does not know that there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis, immediately disqualifying himself on the grounds of inadequate understanding of the subject matter.
 
The average American evolution denialist does not know that there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis, immediately disqualifying himself on the grounds of inadequate understanding of the subject matter.
Hear, hear!

(I hope I used that correctly :D)
 
The average American evolution denialist does not know that there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis, immediately disqualifying himself on the grounds of inadequate understanding of the subject matter.

The average (atheist) scientist has as much training in philosophy as a car mechanic and does not know that there is a difference between intelligent design and creationism, immediately disqualifying themself on the grounds of inadequate understanding of the subject matter
 
The average (atheist) scientist has as much training in philosophy as a car mechanic and does not know that there is a difference between intelligent design and creationism, immediately disqualifying themself on the grounds of inadequate understanding of the subject matter

Arguments between proponents of intelligent design and creationism are delightful. They are akin to watching two insane asylum inmates argue about which of them is actually Napoleon, and which is the impostor.
 
Posting multiple times because it's apparently hip.

You also ought to see Kitzmiller V. Dover.

The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Putting lipstick and thong panties on grandma doesn't make her a young lady - it's still just grandma in a thong and lipstick.
 
The average (atheist) scientist has as much training in philosophy as a car mechanic and does not know that there is a difference between intelligent design and creationism, immediately disqualifying themself on the grounds of inadequate understanding of the subject matter

Nonsense. The difference is implicit in the address of evolutionists to the former paradigm.
 
Nonsense. The difference is implicit in the address of evolutionists to the former paradigm.
then what is the "foderal" of a person advocating intelligent design, eh?

Arguments between proponents of intelligent design and creationism are delightful. They are akin to watching two insane asylum inmates argue about which of them is actually Napoleon, and which is the impostor.

;)
 
Back
Top