[_ Old Earth _] Gears in Nature

[Vaccine]

Thought this was interesting, they found gears in the Planthopper insect:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/mechanical_gear076801.html


It got me thinking, what if the naturalists are right, that what I'm looking at there isn't the product of an intelligent agent but rather millions of years of evolution. Perhaps nature can make gears, a motor, language and even life. If millions of years of wind, rain, gravity, and earthquakes can make all that, who's to say it didn't make stonehenge, the Gobekli temple, the pyramids, or even a book?
It was one thing trying to explain traits or species by strictly natural causes, but if gears, motors, genetic code (language), and even life itself are explained by natural causes, God is a superfluous correlation to nature. There never was guidance by some divinity, it was just unknown natural laws. The only way to detect any divinity would be in people's heads.
Intelligent design theory is the one asserting a directed process like design is detectable, evolution attributes everything to unguided natural causes. To me, that makes evolution to science what the Easter bunny is to Easter or Santa is to Christmas, just a secular mask to cover up the glory of God.

 

[Asyncritus]

Thanks for that Vaccine. I'm staggered, to say the least.

Reminds me of Behe and the engineering of the bacterial flagellum with its motor and rotor and all the associated structures clearly designed to perform a function and doing so supremely well, because in relation to their body length, they move like rockets.

Another view of it:

Granted that these are idealised diagrams, the design element is clearly obvious.

Here's the link: if you want to be staggered, try reading the description of the formation of the flagellum.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

And of course, we have these jokers leaping up and saying that maybe there are simpler structures, and therefore this complicated object evolved by natural selection and mutation from those.

It's disgraceful that such claims can be made by supposedly intelligent biologists.

Its like saying that the Empire State evolved from a mud hut.

 

[Claudya]

It was one thing trying to explain traits or species by strictly natural causes, but if gears, motors, genetic code (language), and even life itself are explained by natural causes, God is a superfluous correlation to nature. There never was guidance by some divinity, it was just unknown natural laws. The only way to detect any divinity would be in people's heads.

Nature doesn't explain motors, gears or code. There's just details in living organisms that ressemble such human made things, so they remind us of motors or gears. And since humans made those things by using some cognitive effort we therefor are tempted conclude that when we made gears using our intelligence there must be an intelligence behind natural occurances of gears, too.
A human who's never seen a gear in their life and doesn't know the concept would probably not see any sign of a creator or designer in the "gears" of that insect.

Intelligent design theory is the one asserting a directed process like design is detectable, evolution attributes everything to unguided natural causes. To me, that makes evolution to science what the Easter bunny is to Easter or Santa is to Christmas, just a secular mask to cover up the glory of God.

If you consider ID scientifically equal (I doubt it is, but just for the argumentation) the mask could be the other way around, too - religious ideas covering up natural processes.

 

[Barbarian]

Behe used to cite the flagellum as something that couldn't evolve. Then they discovered several different levels of bacterial flagella, and even a simplified mechanism for the flagellum used for an entirely different purpose. (Type IV secretory apparatus) So that one crashed and burned, too. The "gears" are present in a slightly simplified form, in many, many organisms. The interesting thing in planthoppers, is there are multiple stops instead of a single one, such as that of thysanurans.

IDers will, of course, deny that a single stop could evolve into multiple ones. But the evidence clearly shows that they do.

 

[Asyncritus]

I really don't understand you barbarian.

You open up a gearbox and observe the gears there: all of the appropriate metals, size ratios, and all the other things engineers spent years devising and developing.

Now you look at the insides of a mechanical watch, and observe gears of the appropriate metals, size ratios and all the other things engineers spent years devising and developing.

And say, hey guys, look, the gearbox evolved from the watch guts!

I can't credit someone of your intelligence talking like that. You'd be laughed to scorn in decent company.

Yet, here are these so-called intelligent biologists talking like that. And you buy it.

They cannot see that every one of the 'simpler' structures was also designed for its purpose - that one size fits all cannot work, and re-designing is an integral part of increasing complexity. Just as you can't simply enlarge a Honda Civic and expect it to turn into a Rolls Royce. Re-designing is necessary, no, vital.

Paley had it right:

. . . when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

. . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker -- that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.

Living organisms, Paley argued, are even more complicated than watches, "in a degree which exceeds all computation."

How else to account for the often amazing adaptations of animals and plants? Only an intelligent Designer could have created them, just as only an intelligent watchmaker can make a watch: The marks of design are too strong to be got over.

Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD. And, as Paley went on to argue, if God had taken such care in designing even the most humble and insignificant organisms, how much more must God care for humanity!

The hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennae, are as highly wrought, as if the Creator had nothing else to finish. We see no signs of diminution of care by multiplicity of objects, or of distraction of thought by variety. We have no reason to fear, therefore, our being forgotten, or overlooked, or neglected.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html​

 

[Claudya]

. . . when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

. . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker -- that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.

Your post contains nothings but making fun of Barbarian and a mere repetition of the irreductible complexity argumentation, while you are completely ignoring that in using the example of the bacteria flagellum Barbarian has shown that organic systems that are seemingly too complex to have evolved have less complex versions in other organism, which is 1. putting a dent into the irreductibility, and 2. showing that (and how) complex organic systems may evolve in a natural process.
So there is evidence against your position. What are you gonna do about that?
You seem to be very resistant against any argumentation contrary to your own. Unfortunately that's not helping your own argumentation's credibility at all.

 

[Asyncritus]

Trust me, Claudya, I am not making fun of Barbarian.

This is a deadly serious matter, and I have too much respect for his intelligence and good sense to make fun of him.

The point at issue here is simply this: there are simpler versions of any number of complex organs in nature. That, says Barbarian and the biologists, means they evolved from simpler to complex organisms.

I am saying that the existence of simpler forms proves nothing, except that there ARE simpler forms, EVERY ONE OF WHICH has been designed to do a simpler job, in a simpler organism, or better yet, another job.

Let me give you an astonishing example, which wrecks this argument completely.

There are some proteins let's say 1000 amino-acids long. That protein performs a complicated job, AND THEN BREAKS INTO SAY 2 PIECES.

Each piece is now able to perform 2 DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS to the original protein.

Each piece now breaks again into more pieces - and each new piece can now perform ANOTHER FUNCTION yet.

There is obviously a limit to this, but the point is that the COMPLICATED CAME FIRST, not the other way round.

So to return to the bacterial flagellum: I hope you agree that it is an extraordinarily complex structure. Barbarian says there are simpler structures, and that proves that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

That is clearly nonsense. Remove any one of those parts FROM THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM in question, and the whole thing folds up, is wrecked. ALL of those parts are necessary to that bacterium - or it was going nowhere.

To use the analogy of the gear box or the watch, remove one of the parts and see what happens. I think you know the answer to that one: that's the end of the gearbox or the watch.

As you may know, there are simple gearboxes, and extremely complicated ones. But that only proves that there are simple boxes and extremely complicated ones. It doesn't prove that they came from one another.

The real problem here, which we haven't touched, is that the organism KNOWS how to use the structure. It knows HOW TO MOVE. It knows that if it doesn't move, it will starve or get eaten.

HOW does it know that? There is a powering instinct UNDERLYING that movement: and that instinct is immaterial, and cannot have evolved. If it was imperfect at any stage, then the organism would have been stuck right there, and perished.

So, HOW did it get there? Answer, it was created. No other answer will do. Will it?

 

[Barbarian]

I really don't understand you barbarian.

You don't really understand God's creation; that's what keeps tripping you up. He's set a feast before you, and you keep complaining that he didn't bring candy bars.

You open up a gearbox and observe the gears there: all of the appropriate metals, size ratios, and all the other things engineers spent years devising and developing.

And notice that God had created a universe that would evolve such things (not as complex as humans like, but still the same principle).

Now you look at the insides of a mechanical watch, and observe gears of the appropriate metals, size ratios and all the other things engineers spent years devising and developing.

And say, hey guys, look, the gearbox evolved from the watch guts!

The ideas evolved, of course. The simplest gears appeared first, and only later the extremely complex systems. But artifacts are fundamentally different than biology. This was the problem with Paley's argument. He use a watch to propose design in nature. An unnatural thing was his idea of how nature is. But he had to. If he had used a natural object, no one would have seen design.

I can't credit someone of your intelligence talking like that. You'd be laughed to scorn in decent company.

Even many creationists/IDers admit that the evidence supports my point. Even the guys who invented ID as a religion say so. (Phillip Johnson admits that there is evidence for evolution, and Michael Behe admits that common descent is a fact)

Yet, here are these so-called intelligent biologists talking like that. And you buy it.

It all comes down it evidence. Infuriating, maybe. But still real.

They cannot see that every one of the 'simpler' structures was also designed for its purpose - that one size fits all cannot work, and re-designing is an integral part of increasing complexity. Just as you can't simply enlarge a Honda Civic and expect it to turn into a Rolls Royce. Re-designing is necessary, no, vital.

Humans can only design, and so must scale and adjust when they do such things in an ad hoc manner. On the other hand, we observe that many species, confined to islands, become smaller by natural selection. No design necessary for the things God makes. God created the world and it's living things to adjust to conditions, without any divine tinkering or "designing." "Design" is what limited creatures do. But of course, most creationists are offended by a Creator great enough to do what we observe in nature.

They prefer a smaller, more manageable deity.

 

[Barbarian]

Trust me, Claudya, I am not making fun of Barbarian.

Ridicule in your hands plays into my hands. You have never caught on to the way it looks to others.

The point at issue here is simply this: there are simpler versions of any number of complex organs in nature. That, says Barbarian and the biologists, means they evolved from simpler to complex organisms.

Actually,that they are also genetically closely related, the transitionals between them, and the direct observation of evolution of increased fitness are the reasons we know that they evolved. Even more important, we never find this evidence where there isn't such common structure.

I am saying that the existence of simpler forms proves nothing, except that there ARE simpler forms, EVERY ONE OF WHICH has been designed to do a simpler job, in a simpler organism, or better yet, another job.

Comes down to evidence. And as you see, it's overwhelming.

Let me give you an astonishing example, which wrecks this argument completely.
There are some proteins let's say 1000 amino-acids long. That protein performs a complicated job, AND THEN BREAKS INTO SAY 2 PIECES.
Each piece is now able to perform 2 DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS to the original protein.

This seems unlikely. You have an example? Typically, such a protein has an active site which depends on the configuration of the protein folding. Major damage to the structure makes it inactive. Typically, mutations that functionally change proteins involve a better "fit" on the active site, or a more precisely fitting shape for the molecule.
Or occasionally, we see polymerization, such as in hemoglobin, IgM, or the like. Show us an example.

Each piece now breaks again into more pieces - and each new piece can now perform ANOTHER FUNCTION yet.

There is obviously a limit to this, but the point is that the COMPLICATED CAME FIRST, not the other way round.

See above. You've been misled on that. So

So to return to the bacterial flagellum: I hope you agree that it is an extraordinarily complex structure. Barbarian says there are simpler structures, and that proves that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex.

That is clearly nonsense. Remove any one of those parts FROM THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM in question, and the whole thing folds up, is wrecked.

No, that's wrong. There are various kinds of bacterial flagellum, and they all function, even though many of them lack parts that others have. Again, you've been misled.
And the argument that the most complex came first, is not really supportable. The Type III apparatus is usable for conjugation as well as for infection.

ALL of those parts are necessary to that bacterium - or it was going nowhere.

Many bacteria survive very well without motility. And many others move about without flagella. So you're wrong, again.

To use the analogy of the gear box or the watch, remove one of the parts and see what happens.

J Bacteriol. 1999 December; 181(23): 7149–7153.

PMCID: PMC103673
The Bacterial Flagellum: Reversible Rotary Propellor and Type III Export Apparatus
Robert M. Macnab*
Bacteria export or secrete proteins by several different pathways (of which perhaps the best known is the type II Sec-dependent general secretory pathway or GSP (30), which entails signal peptide cleavage during translocation of the protein across the cytoplasmic membrane). In the field of bacterial pathogenesis, genes needed for export of virulence factors by the so-called type III pathway (35), whose characteristics include a lack of signal peptide cleavage, were rapidly being discovered during the 1990s, and as their sequences and the sequences of putative flagellar export genes became available, there was an almost overnight realization by many laboratories that the flagellar export pathway and type III export pathways for virulence factors are closely related (see, e.g., references 29 and 31). I consider, in fact, that the flagellar pathway is a type III pathway, differing only in the nature of its export substrates and in the fact that it operates via a working organelle of propulsion.

Surprise.

The real problem here, which we haven't touched, is that the organism KNOWS how to use the structure. It knows HOW TO MOVE. It knows that if it doesn't move, it will starve or get eaten.

Bacteria know nothing at all. They have no consciousness. And yet they work. This is a great mystery to those ignorant of biology, but it's really quite simple.

 

[Vaccine]

Barbarian You said the guys who invented ID say its a religion, yet the ID website says this:

Intelligent Design
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such asnatural selection.
Read More >>

Do you have a quote to back that up?



As far ar irreducible complexity, Behe even said in his book being able to make a mousetrap from spare parts laying around a garage doesnt address HOW they were repurposed, it only shows something can have more than one purpose. Because a screwdriver can be used to pry or stab doesnt prove anything about its origin
.
The function of the bacteria flagellum is motility.
The function of the type III secretory system (TTSS) is to infect eukaryotes.

Bacteria exhisted a long time before eukaryotes. The argument the TTSS predates the bacteria flagellum motor is putting the cart before the horse. A predator supposedly evolved a needle to infect a non-existent prey? A stronger case can be made the TTSS is a broken and repurposed flagellum motor. It exposes a persons bias which one they prefer.

There's another issue that has not been addressed, the step by step making of the bacteria flagellum. For arguments sake, suppose the ability to infect a non-existent organism evolved before the ability to move. As unlikely as that is, it doent explain all the other steps or proteins involved in making the bacteria flagellum. Its another hopeful monster scenario, one day there was a TTSS, then dozens of random mutations in one generation made the most efficient motor known to man. Just like the atheist Hubble considered a unique position in the universe "horrific", many biologists embrace a hopeful monster because the alternative is horrific to them. It challenges their beliefs.
No matter what we believe, i think we can all agree this is pretty cool:

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian You said the guys who invented ID say its a religion, yet the ID website says this:

Intelligent Design
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such asnatural selection.

That's what they say publicly. But what they said, when they thought no one was listening, was quite different. According to an inadvertently leaked "Wedge Documnent", the guys who invented the doctrine wrote:
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

It's a religion, not science.

Do you have a quote to back that up?

There it is. From the guys who invented it.

As far ar irreducible complexity, Behe even said in his book being able to make a mousetrap from spare parts laying around a garage doesnt address HOW they were repurposed, it only shows something can have more than one purpose. Because a screwdriver can be used to pry or stab doesnt prove anything about its origin

Which is consistent with observed evolution. Natural selection doesn't care what a structure "is for." It often reworks something to entirely new functions, as you see in the flagellum.

The function of the bacteria flagellum is motility.

In the same sense as the function of forelimbs in tetrapods is to walk. And yet the evolved for digging, flying, swimming, and manipulating objects.

The function of the type III secretory system (TTSS) is to infect eukaryotes.

And dolphins don't walk on their limbs anymore. That's how evolution works.

Bacteria exhisted a long time before eukaryotes. The argument the TTSS predates the bacteria flagellum motor is putting the cart before the horse. A predator supposedly evolved a needle to infect a non-existent prey?

In fact, conjugation and other forms of invasive transfer between prokaryotes preceded eukaryotes. So not really an issue. But of course, if the flagellum evolved first and later was simplified and refined into a very effective transfer structure, that would still be evolution.

A stronger case can be made the TTSS is a broken and repurposed flagellum motor.

Nothing broken about something that works so well. But again, evolution works by modifiying something already there, so it could have happened that way. The evidence suggests not, however.

It exposes a persons bias which one they prefer.

Comes down to evidence. And that's the way that ends.

There's another issue that has not been addressed, the step by step making of the bacteria flagellum. For arguments sake, suppose the ability to infect a non-existent organism evolved before the ability to move.

Two errors there; first there's a lot of transfer between prokaryotes, and likely always has been. Second, bacteria have other modes of movement than flagella.

So that hits a wall, too.

 

[Vaccine]

That's what they say publicly. But what they said, when they thought no one was listening, was quite different. According to an inadvertently leaked "Wedge Documnent", the guys who invented the doctrine wrote:
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

It's a religion, not science.

The assertion in post #8 was "Even the guys who invented ID as a religion say so"
This is from intelligent design.org "The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization".
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Intelligent design theory is based on empirical observations and has been around a lot longer than people think. What you quoted was the discovery institutes philosophy, a good philosophy, but isn't science. Anyway, what's so terrible about defeating materialism?!?

As far ar irreducible complexity, Behe even said in his book being able to make a mousetrap from spare parts laying around a garage doesnt address HOW they were repurposed, it only shows something can have more than one purpose. Because a screwdriver can be used to pry or stab doesnt prove anything about its origin

Which is consistent with observed evolution. Natural selection doesn't care what a structure "is for." It often reworks something to entirely new functions, as you see in the flagellum.

I can't make the connection. ...doesn't address how[/i[ they were repurposed ..or.. doesn't prove anything about its origin... is consistent with observed evolution? Where did anyone ever observe something being reworked into entirely new functions??

In the same sense as the function of forelimbs in tetrapods is to walk. And yet the evolved for digging, flying, swimming, and manipulating objects.

And dolphins don't walk on their limbs anymore. That's how evolution works.

In fact, conjugation and other forms of invasive transfer between prokaryotes preceded eukaryotes. So not really an issue. But of course, if the flagellum evolved first and later was simplified and refined into a very effective transfer structure, that would still be evolution.

Nothing broken about something that works so well. But again, evolution works by modifiying something already there, so it could have happened that way. The evidence suggests not, however.

Comes down to evidence. And that's the way that ends.

The only way any of that can be considered "evidence" is if we consider speckulation evidence. In which case, that's just a sophisticated version of Pagans imagining little nature gods that pranced around, making a tree here, a rabbit there, changing forelimbs into fins, or fins into wings, changing a type 4 secretion into a type 3 secretion system, or a type 3 secretion system into a flagellum.
Nobody has provided a step by evolutionary step explanation of the bacteria flagellum. The type three secretory system is a terrible example of 1 possible step.

Two errors there; first there's a lot of transfer between prokaryotes, and likely always has been. Second, bacteria have other modes of movement than flagella.

That's just a rabbit trail.

 

[Barbarian]

That's what they say publicly. But what they said, when they thought no one was listening, was quite different. According to an inadvertently leaked "Wedge Documnent", the guys who invented the doctrine wrote:
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

It's a religion, not science.
The assertion in post #8 was "Even the guys who invented ID as a religion say so"
This is from intelligent design.org "The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization".
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Intelligent design theory is based on empirical observations and has been around a lot longer than people think. What you quoted was the discovery institutes philosophy, a good philosophy, but isn't science. Anyway, what's so terrible about defeating materialism?!?

As far ar irreducible complexity, Behe even said in his book being able to make a mousetrap from spare parts laying around a garage doesnt address HOW they were repurposed, it only shows something can have more than one purpose. Because a screwdriver can be used to pry or stab doesnt prove anything about its origin

Which is consistent with observed evolution. Natural selection doesn't care what a structure "is for." It often reworks something to entirely new functions, as you see in the flagellum.

I can't make the connection.

It doesn't require God to step in and tinker with it. He created something that does it without design. You see, natural selection just tends to preserve changes that make it more likely for an organism to live long enough to reproduce. It doesn't care what things "are for."

.

.doesn't address how[/i[ they were repurposed

Mutation and natural selection.

..or.. doesn't prove anything about its origin...

That's wrong, too. We can for example, tell the difference between homologous and analogous organs by looking at the details of their anatomy or genetics.

is consistent with observed evolution? Where did anyone ever observe something being reworked into entirely new functions??

When did anyone ever observe a giant redwood to grow from a seed? Your argument is that a man can have a grandfather, but he can't have a great, great, great grandfather, because you never saw that happen. However, the evolution of an entirely new organ in Pod Mrcaru lizards has been documented, so on rare occasions, it happens fast enough to be observed in one person's lifetime.

The function of the bacteria flagellum is motility.

Barbarian observes:
In the same sense as the function of forelimbs in tetrapods is to walk. And yet they evolved for digging, flying, swimming, and manipulating objects.
And dolphins don't walk on their limbs anymore. That's how evolution works.

In fact, conjugation and other forms of invasive transfer between prokaryotes preceded eukaryotes. So not really an issue. But of course, if the flagellum evolved first and later was simplified and refined into a very effective transfer structure, that would still be evolution.
Nothing broken about something that works so well. But again, evolution works by modifiying something already there, so it could have happened that way. The evidence suggests not, however.
Comes down to evidence. And that's the way that ends.​

The only way any of that can be considered "evidence" is if we consider speckulation evidence.

I don't think that's going to help you at this point. Instead of denying the evidence on the table, you should be trying to put together a cogent alternative that is consistent with the evidence.

Barbarian, regarding ID/Creationism:
In which case, that's just a sophisticated version of Pagans imagining little nature gods that pranced around, making a tree here, a rabbit there, changing forelimbs into fins, or fins into wings, changing a type 4 secretion into a type 3 secretion system, or a type 3 secretion system into a flagellum.

Nobody has provided a step by evolutionary step explanation of the bacteria flagellum. The type three secretory system is a terrible example of 1 possible step.

As you learned, there are a number of different bacterial flagella, each less complex than the last. And of course, an even less complex version, using many of the same parts, still works for an entirely different function. Precisely what ID denies happening. So that's not a valid excuse, either.

Bacteria exhisted a long time before eukaryotes. The argument the TTSS predates the bacteria flagellum motor is putting the cart before the horse. A predator supposedly evolved a needle to infect a non-existent prey?

Barbarian observes:

Two errors there; first there's a lot of transfer between prokaryotes, and likely always has been. Second, bacteria have other modes of movement than flagella.​

That's just a rabbit trail.

You denied that bacterial could move about without flagella, and it's a fact that bacteria interact and inject material into each other, quite apart from prokaryotes. If that's a rabbit trail, I just brought it to an abrupt end.