(Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. - Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Best Posts Active Topics Galleries FAQ User List Calendar Chat Store Random Growery

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop for:

Agar, Hemp, pH Test Strips

½ Pint Jars, Chlorella, Microscope, Scales

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Last > [ show all ]

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

(Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible.
#10309710 - 05/08/09 06:16 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

I too, feel that Intelligent Design is more plausible than evolution on "The Origins of Life", or should at least be considered. It IS a relevant question IMHO.

Enjoy, discuss.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Regards Everyone.

--------------------
Imagine if you needed it and it wasn't there... GIVE BLOOD
Get a free (PAINLESS) bone marrow testing kit and help save lives HERE.
Jesus if you're reading this, please come back already. We need you now more than ever!
The U.S. Constitution!

Best WBS Tek
Potato-Honey Agar Tek
MY TRADES

Edited by mushroomhunter10 (05/08/09 06:18 PM)

Post Extras:

Bimmin
You must be shroomin'

Registered: 12/09/07
Posts: 233
Loc: VT
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10309760 - 05/08/09 06:25 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

The mechanism of evolution could have been intelligently designed.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10309772 - 05/08/09 06:27 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Who says it hasnt been considered?

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: DieCommie]
#10309786 - 05/08/09 06:29 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

Bimmin said:
The mechanism of evolution could have been intelligently designed.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:

Qubit said:
Who says it hasnt been considered?

It's becoming taboo.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Bimmin]
#10309966 - 05/08/09 07:02 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

Bimmin said:
The mechanism of evolution could have been intelligently designed.

This necessarily implies the laws of physics and nature have been designed, which does not invalidate the theory of evolution by natural selection nor does it substantiate any of the current, relevant assaults intelligent designers make on school curriculums.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: DieCommie]
#10310756 - 05/08/09 10:18 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

With savages the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build assylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

All that is non-viable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior lifeforms, we have encouraged their propagation. The offspring of these sick people looked like this [image of mentally challenged man], individuals lower than any beasts.

Nazi propaganda film, circa 1943

Not fun either time, this time or at the cinema. At least there I had popcorn and soda pop.

I had forgotten that Dawkins admitted the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Thanks :thumbup:

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10311029 - 05/08/09 11:22 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

You did not just invoke Godwin's law in reference to Charles Darwin?!

A theoretical prediction or ontological description is hardly the same thing as a blanket condoning of eugenics and death camps. :nonono:

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10311091 - 05/08/09 11:38 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
You did not just invoke Godwin's law in reference to Charles Darwin?!

A theoretical prediction or ontological description is hardly the same thing as a blanket condoning of eugenics and death camps.

No, I quoted two statements from a movie. Ben Stein as well as David Berlinski are Jewish. The two quotes are inextricably linked, as is obvious in their reading.

Godwin's Law states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

That hasn't anything to do with my quoting the movie. The Nazis used natural selection as a reason for exterminating the weak and infirmed.

But we're not supposed to mention that? Why?

Many people that love Chuck don't know anything about his "other" book. Nor are they familiar with the full title of his famous book.

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10311110 - 05/08/09 11:43 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: The Nazis used natural selection as a reason for exterminating the weak and infirmed.

Yes, and it was a poor reason. This is irrelevant to whether or not natural selection exists.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10311116 - 05/08/09 11:48 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Absolutely irrelevant. But if man is only a beast, it makes perfect sense.

Consider this: if the descent of man is true we are left with only two choices. Out of fairness and equality we should either treat men as beasts or beasts as men.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mufungo
Coming at ya

Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 2,556
Loc: Knowhere

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10311134 - 05/08/09 11:56 PM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Well if Darwin was fascist then the theory of evolution must be misguided and false naturally.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10311157 - 05/09/09 12:07 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: Consider this: if the descent of man is true we are left with only two choices. Out of fairness and equality we should either treat men as beasts or beasts as men.

We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10311189 - 05/09/09 12:25 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: Consider this: if the descent of man is true we are left with only two choices. Out of fairness and equality we should either treat men as beasts or beasts as men.

We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

I understand the viewpoint. I see it as internally inconsistent.

You're allowed to be an Idealist when you're young. Cynicism comes naturally as you age.

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10311197 - 05/09/09 12:27 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

deCypher said: We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

I understand the viewpoint. I see it as internally inconsistent.

Elaborate.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10311204 - 05/09/09 12:30 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Not tonight. It is 3:30 in the morning and I'm heading for bed.

:hatsoff:

--------------------

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mufungo]
#10311248 - 05/09/09 12:48 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

Mufungo said:
Well if Darwin was fascist then the theory of evolution must be misguided and false naturally.

And because Einstein was not Father-of-the-Year, his theory of General Relativity shall be revoked.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10311902 - 05/09/09 07:29 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

I just think it's humorous how the most hardcore scientists just can't accept that something can't come from nothing regarding life, and how the odds of life randomly occurring are impossible statistically.

To me that's science. :shrug:

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10311967 - 05/09/09 07:51 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: Consider this: if the descent of man is true we are left with only two choices. Out of fairness and equality we should either treat men as beasts or beasts as men.

We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

All organisms are evolved if the descent of man is true. Being evolved puts man and beast on a level playing field. The future or the past has no bearing in this case.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10312067 - 05/09/09 08:23 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

I never knew, until this film, that 250 proteins IN THE RIGHT ORDER are required for minimum life functions.

To me that SCREAMS ID.

Ben Stein is a smart mafaka too, so for somebody so intelligent and well respected in the science community to question the establishment is a breath of fresh air to me.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312089 - 05/09/09 08:31 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

I always prefer the iconoclasts, probably because I am one.

And yes, you are right, the 250 proteins in order are of such a magnitude, given that neither chance nor natural law could have created the sequence, intelligent design is the best answer we have.

Don't expect to convince a skeptic though. Facts don't matter to them, their mind is made up.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10312140 - 05/09/09 08:47 AM (3 years, 20 days ago)

Perhaps evolution was designed.

Especially since I'm an IT professional, I really like the question of "Where did the source code come from?".

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10312204 - 05/09/09 09:05 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
I always prefer the iconoclasts, probably because I am one.

I suppose I am too, more of the fanatics than anything. Especially ones that would kill, for a religion of peace. Makes no sense to enforce religion by disobeying its teachings.

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 6 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10312230 - 05/09/09 09:13 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

And yes, you are right, the 250 proteins in order are of such a magnitude, given that neither chance nor natural law could have created the sequence, intelligent design is the best answer we have.

They couldn't have?

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312289 - 05/09/09 09:32 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

I too, feel that Intelligent Design is more plausible than evolution

And science is all about gut feelings... :rolleyes:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10312304 - 05/09/09 09:38 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Darwinism is flawed though, that's the whole point of science... to be able to question current dogma with evidence to back the claim.

No?

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312356 - 05/09/09 09:53 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

The reason scientists pretty much universally dislike intelligent design is that it's distinctly not scientific.

Now I'm not saying it is or is not valid, I'm merely suggesting that the way the scientific community reacts to ID is entirely understandable.

ID cannot be researched and it cannot be confirmed or disproven through experiment.
It is not a theory, it is an assertion.

Once you have your hypothesis of "a higher power dictates the physical form of life" ... where do you go from there?
How do you check that assumption? Where do you look to compare, what tests do you run?

That's the scientific community's problem with ID. It's cannot be investigated with scientific method ... and scientific method is seen as pretty much sacred among scientists, because it is the one and only process which has been shown to reliably differentiate between facts and guesswork throughout history.

I'm not claiming ID is wrong and I'm not taking the side of the scientists, but surely you all can understand WHY they have such a negative reaction to ID being taught or discussed as science -- something which cannot be scientifically investigated is not science, and that's been the distinction for centuries.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: laserpig]
#10312371 - 05/09/09 09:57 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

On the other end of the spectrum, evolution can't prove how life began either.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312385 - 05/09/09 10:02 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Strawman of the Day award! :trophy:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312388 - 05/09/09 10:02 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
On the other end of the spectrum, evolution can't prove how life began either.

Um ... actually it can?

Experiments have already proven that almost every single precursor to living cells could easily have formed spontaneously in the shallow seas of ancient earth.

Granted, not every step in the chain is yet accounted for, but most of them are and the others have certainly not been proven impossible.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: laserpig]
#10312419 - 05/09/09 10:11 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Yeah the precursors are 250 proteins, and lined-up perfectly too.

No way...

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 6 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312431 - 05/09/09 10:16 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Improbable does not equal impossible.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312436 - 05/09/09 10:16 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. :thumbdown:

BTW, it would actually help the discussion if you brought up one very specific point of the movie that you want to discuss and stuck with it instead of shotgunning.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10312463 - 05/09/09 10:25 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

The point that interests me the most is the 250 proteins argument.

They couldn't have just spontaneously formed, then lined-up. Something had a hand in building them and the source code of DNA.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312472 - 05/09/09 10:28 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

They couldn't have just spontaneously formed, then lined-up. Something had a hand in building them and the source code of DNA.

That is merely an assertion and not an argument.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10312485 - 05/09/09 10:33 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

So is the origin of life according to Darwin lol...

That's another point. Nobody knows, it's all about theory and both sides should be explored.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312513 - 05/09/09 10:46 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

*sigh*

Evolutionary Theory does not address abiogenesis.

What do you mean two sides? If you want to add pure fantasy into the mix with science then there are an infinite number of sides.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10312518 - 05/09/09 10:48 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Why call it "Origins of Life"?

Where is the fantasy? I don't follow.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312554 - 05/09/09 10:58 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

A supernatural explanation with no evidence other than amazement is called fantasy. Show an airplane to a primitive tribesman with no prior contact with modern inventions and they will tell you God/magic/spirits made the machine fly. Same-same.

How many religions are there? That is how many sides there are at a minimum, which is a lot more than two.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312561 - 05/09/09 11:00 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
The point that interests me the most is the 250 proteins argument.

They couldn't have just spontaneously formed, then lined-up. Something had a hand in building them and the source code of DNA.

Which 250 proteins are these? Why 250?

Biological Science, Third Edition, Scott Freeman.
That's my current bio textbook. Cal Poly's standard intro book.
The first four chapters walk you through exactly how simple proteins, lipid membranes, and RNA can and did form spontaneously to create the first simple microcells.
Once that happened, the RNA was protected from outside forces by the lipid membranes and the cycle of life was started. From there, any interaction of protein and RNA which produced more stable RNA ... well, produced more stable RNA, which obviously persisted longer and produced more RNA. This isn't magic, this isn't complicated, and it isn't unlikely to have occurred. It's the way chemistry works -- those conditions just naturally can and will produce spontaneously replicating patterns. Randomness produces variation and variations which are more stable persist.

It irks me to see people say "evolution can't explain ____" when in reality they simply don't know the explanation for ____.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312575 - 05/09/09 11:05 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Why call it "Origins of Life"?

Who calls 'it' that? :confused:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Doc_T
Random Dude

Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 36,989
Loc: Colorado

Last seen: 2 hours, 36 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312614 - 05/09/09 11:14 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
So is the origin of life according to Darwin lol...

The book is "On the Origin of Species".

Just sayin'

--------------------
.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: laserpig]
#10312637 - 05/09/09 11:21 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Yes but supernatural may actually be natural. :shrug:

Seriously, life shouldn't theoretically exist. Really nothing should

Quote:

laserpig said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
The point that interests me the most is the 250 proteins argument.

They couldn't have just spontaneously formed, then lined-up. Something had a hand in building them and the source code of DNA.

Which 250 proteins are these? Why 250?

Biological Science, Third Edition, Scott Freeman.
That's my current bio textbook. Cal Poly's standard intro book.
The first four chapters walk you through exactly how simple proteins, lipid membranes, and RNA can and did form spontaneously to create the first simple microcells.
Once that happened, the RNA was protected from outside forces by the lipid membranes and the cycle of life was started. From there, any interaction of protein and RNA which produced more stable RNA ... well, produced more stable RNA, which obviously persisted longer and produced more RNA. This isn't magic, this isn't complicated, and it isn't unlikely to have occurred. It's the way chemistry works -- those conditions just naturally can and will produce spontaneously replicating patterns. Randomness produces variation and variations which are more stable persist.

It irks me to see people say "evolution can't explain ____" when in reality they simply don't know the explanation for ____.

The book sounds like theory too...

You say it walks you through how they "can and did". Is the author as old as The Universe?? Do they prove these things by experimentation? Seems like even that book's explanation is just theory too.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Doc_T]
#10312649 - 05/09/09 11:24 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

ID proponents rarely let facts get in the way.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Doc_T
Random Dude

Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 36,989
Loc: Colorado

Last seen: 2 hours, 36 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312672 - 05/09/09 11:28 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
just theory

What's that mean?

Theory of Gravity, just a theory?
Theory of Relativity- why, that's just at theory too.
Go tell them that at Hiroshima.

--------------------
.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312678 - 05/09/09 11:29 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Seems like even that book's explanation is just theory too.

Is this the 'Let's see how much ignorance we can stuff in one thread' thread?

ALL scientific explanations - even the very best ones - are considered theory. Yet ID proponents love to display their ignorance on this matter by making it seem like they scored a point.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10312679 - 05/09/09 11:29 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

So Aliens couldn't have even seeded the planet either?

Let's not forget too, that tons and tons of organic matter fall to Earth each year from Space.

Is that a forgotten possibility too?

OrgoneConclusion: Seriously, how is his book factual on that specific explanation? If there are successful experiments then fine, but give me sources, which I doubt exist.

Post Extras:

Doc_T
Random Dude

Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 36,989
Loc: Colorado

Last seen: 2 hours, 36 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312686 - 05/09/09 11:32 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
So Aliens couldn't have even seeded the planet either?

Doesn't that just move the question up a level?
Where did aliens come from?

--------------------
.

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312688 - 05/09/09 11:33 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
You say it walks you through how they "can and did". Is the author as old as The Universe?? Do they prove these things by experimentation? Seems like even that book's explanation is just theory too.

No, the author is not as old as the universe, and you know that.
No author is, and that's why being as old as the universe is not usually considered a necessary criteria for credibility.

YES, it's proven by experimentation. That's what makes it science.

Saying something is "just theory" is misunderstanding the nature of science.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Doc_T]
#10312692 - 05/09/09 11:34 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Yeah, but I'm saying.

There is NOT JUST ONE theory. :smile:

Post Extras:

Doc_T
Random Dude

Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 36,989
Loc: Colorado

Last seen: 2 hours, 36 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312701 - 05/09/09 11:38 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

You are really using the word 'theory' incorrectly.

Try 'hypothesis', it'll make your argument more effective.

--------------------
.

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312702 - 05/09/09 11:38 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yeah, but I'm saying.

There is NOT JUST ONE theory.

There is not just one hypothesis.
At this point, there is just one theory.

The theory of evolution is the sum total of all hypotheses about evolution which have withstood testing by scientific method.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: laserpig]
#10312715 - 05/09/09 11:41 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

You're right hypothesis.
The Origins of Life can't be tested though.

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312731 - 05/09/09 11:47 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
You're right hypothesis.
The Origins of Life can't be tested though.

Can you please actually explain what you mean when you say that?
And why are you capitalizing "origins of life?"

Regardless ... I'm sorry, but you're wrong. We can replicate in a laboratory the conditions known to have pervaded on earth 3.5 billion years ago, and we can watch as organic molecules of increasing complexity are created by spontaneous interactions. These organic molecules themselves then interact, creating simple cells and setting evolution in motion.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

Doc_T
Random Dude

Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 36,989
Loc: Colorado

Last seen: 2 hours, 36 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: laserpig]
#10312751 - 05/09/09 11:54 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Laserpig- not true.
Amino acids have been created the way you say. Nothing more complex.

But evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

--------------------
.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: laserpig]
#10312756 - 05/09/09 11:55 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

And why are you capitalizing "origins of life?"

So he can fallaciously attack a non-existent book. 0 for 10 now which is pretty good for an IDer.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Doc_T]
#10312769 - 05/09/09 11:58 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Doc_T said:
Laserpig- not true.
Amino acids have been created the way you say. Nothing more complex.

But evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

As I said before, we have not successfully replicated every step in the process yet -- but that does absolutely nothing to invalidate the theory. It just means there are small parts we don't fully understand ... which is always the case in every developing science.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

Doc_T
Random Dude

Registered: 03/06/09
Posts: 36,989
Loc: Colorado

Last seen: 2 hours, 36 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: laserpig]
#10312785 - 05/09/09 12:02 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Oh, agreed about invalidating the theory.
But we haven't yet replicated the non-life to life jump yet. Don't make your argument weaker than his.

--------------------
.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312790 - 05/09/09 12:03 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

mushroomhunter10, your very right that the diversity of complex life could not arise from chance alone. But the theory of evolution by natural selection does not say that biodiversity arose by chance alone; thats a strawman invented by ID proponents. Evolution, that is the mutation of genes, is random but natural selection is not. Species get selected due to their fitness with respect to the current landscape, this is not a random process and is key to understanding biodiversity and is what Darwin's great contribution was. People knew species mutated long before Darwin, but the mechanism of natural selection is needed to give random mutations of evolution a direction that leads to the complexity we observe.

(also the theory of evolution by natural selection makes no claim or statement about abiogenesis, or the origin of life. The origin of life is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution, evolution explains only with the diversity of life not the origin.)

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: laserpig]
#10312795 - 05/09/09 12:04 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

It just means there are small parts we don't fully understand ... which is always the case in every developing science.

And religious folks will continue to throw God in the knowledge gaps until the end of time.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Doc_T]
#10312809 - 05/09/09 12:07 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Doc_T said:
Oh, agreed about invalidating the theory.
But we haven't yet replicated the non-life to life jump yet. Don't make your argument weaker than his.

There is no "jump." What we call life is just chemical interactions which lead to more of the same chemical reactions. In the beginning these interactions were simple, over time they became more complex.

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: laserpig]
#10312833 - 05/09/09 12:14 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Nobody is talking about God...

Seriously laserpig, I highly doubt simple chemicals become complex enough to create life.

There is some source code at work here too.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312880 - 05/09/09 12:25 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
There is some source code at work here too.

Computer code has been developed using mutations and selection that has striking resemblance to life's mutations and selection. Code that was designed to run as efficiently as possible took 80 lines, after a night of mutations with selection it evolved to run in 20 lines.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/9145544#9145544

Time and time again it is shown that random mutations coupled with a selection mechanism can solve problems that intelligence cannot. (this is also the basis of the famous 'monte carlo' simulations that we use to solve many problems)

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10312924 - 05/09/09 12:35 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Right, but the initial source code could not have written itself.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10312948 - 05/09/09 12:41 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Why not? Regardless, Ill reiterate a point I made earlier... Evolution does not deal with the origin of life (that is the origin of the source code) it only deals with the cause of diversity of life. You can argue that life could not start without help all you want, and even if you are right that does not invalidate evolution by natural selection as the means to diversity of life.

Once more: Evolution does not make any claims about abiogenesis. Thus, any idea you have about abiogenesis is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design in the class room.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10312978 - 05/09/09 12:50 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Thus, any idea you have about abiogenesis is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design in the class room.

It is irrelevant to rational discussion; however, the two favorite canards of ID are:

1. Evolution is just a theory.
2. Evolution does not explain the origin of life.

Holding true to this ignorant point of view, unsurprisingly we have seen both 'arguments' in this thread

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10313069 - 05/09/09 01:16 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Qubit said:
Why not? Regardless, Ill reiterate a point I made earlier... Evolution does not deal with the origin of life (that is the origin of the source code) it only deals with the cause of diversity of life. You can argue that life could not start without help all you want, and even if you are right that does not invalidate evolution by natural selection as the means to diversity of life.

I agree on that. It's just that most evolutionists sadly believe that it does explain the origin of life.

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10313138 - 05/09/09 01:33 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
*sigh*

Evolutionary Theory does not address abiogenesis.

What do you mean two sides? If you want to add pure fantasy into the mix with science then there are an infinite number of sides.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I never knew, until this film, that 250 proteins IN THE RIGHT ORDER are required for minimum life functions.

To me that SCREAMS ID.

Ben Stein is a smart mafaka too, so for somebody so intelligent and well respected in the science community to question the establishment is a breath of fresh air to me.

Ben stein is well respected in teh science community?

And what is the basis for the 250 proteins claim?

What is the right order claim actually referring to? What is "the order"?

Either way, ID seems utterly unscientific for reasons stated by another poster in this thread.

Untill they can produce a hypothesis that actually claims something coherent and concise that can be tested it has nothing to do with science and is just a naked claim from an appeal to incredulity.

I share your amazement that life could have started from nothing, but its not a logical argument given there's nothing to say it didn't and nothing to say it could have started any other way. Beleive whatever you want, just know that their doesn't seem to be any logical claim supporting ID as correct.

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
*sigh*

Evolutionary Theory does not address abiogenesis.

Thank you. it is pointless to criticize a theory with claims it can't answer a question that is irrelevant to its claims.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: johnm214]
#10313186 - 05/09/09 01:48 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Yeah you guys are correct about the abiogenesis and evolutionism connection.

I suppose it's the "well-respected" darwinists/evolutionists that seem to think life sprang into existence autonomously. IE Dawkins...

I think that's why a lot of evolutionists tend to think that evolution explains the beginnings.

Perhaps that's why it's considered so taboo in the classroom.

The basis for the 250 proteins is in the movie... watch it.

If anybody posting has NOT watched the movie then please watch it, then post.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10313609 - 05/09/09 03:42 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: Consider this: if the descent of man is true we are left with only two choices. Out of fairness and equality we should either treat men as beasts or beasts as men.

We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

All organisms are evolved if the descent of man is true. Being evolved puts man and beast on a level playing field. The future or the past has no bearing in this case.

How is this an internal contradiction? Different organisms have different levels of intelligence; we obviously possess some of the highest on this planet. Doesn't change the fact that we're still fundamentally animals with built-in instinctual drives.

Also, for anyone who believes in ID, please explain how the intelligence that designed everything got to be there in the first place.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10313619 - 05/09/09 03:45 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Also, for anyone who believes in ID, please explain how the intelligence that designed everything got to be there in the first place.

It could have evolved. :shrug:

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: DieCommie]
#10313630 - 05/09/09 03:47 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Right, but then it would be ontologically simpler to say that we evolved rather than invent an additional step in the explanatory chain.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10313680 - 05/09/09 04:07 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Nobody knows, but it's taboo to teach and explore anything BUT evolution.

Even when evolution can't explain the beginnings of life, it's still taught that it practically did.

Anyways, we have to stop looking at it as being only this planet. It's a cosmic universal question.

People used to say that because we're human we always felt there is a beginning and an end, but since scientists have figured out that The Universe is expanding then there obviously was a beginning.

Technically, nothing should exist, so there has to be a reason behind it. It didn't just "appear"...

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10313686 - 05/09/09 04:09 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Nobody knows, but it's taboo to teach and explore anything BUT evolution.

How can we teach and explore Intelligent Design? Can we observe this Intelligent Designer? Is the theory itself falsifiable?

Teach it in religion class if you wish, but it does not count as science.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Redstorm
Prince of Bugs

Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,162
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 6 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10313687 - 05/09/09 04:09 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

It's taboo to teach because, outside of comparative courses, religion has no place in public schools.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10313696 - 05/09/09 04:11 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Even when evolution can't explain the beginnings of life, it's still taught that it practically did.

No its not. Where did you get that idea?

Quote:

Technically, nothing should exist...

wtf? Please explain that technicality, otherwise dont just make up crazy claims.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: DieCommie]
#10313703 - 05/09/09 04:12 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Qubit said:
Quote:

Technically, nothing should exist...

wtf? Please explain that technicality, otherwise dont just make up crazy claims.

I think he's referring to the old adage ex nihilo, nihilo fit or out of nothing, nothing comes. Accounting for the Big Bang is a completely different story than accounting for natural selection and the origin of species, though.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10313714 - 05/09/09 04:17 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

lol, then he is committing the same fallacy yet again because the big bang theory makes no claim as how the universe was created only how it unfurled after creation. Just as evolution doesnt attempt to describe the origin/creation of life, the big bang theory doesnt attempt to explain the origin/creation of the universe.

mushroomhunter10, you should really better understand these theories before making claims about them.

Post Extras:

C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer

Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: DieCommie]
#10313814 - 05/09/09 04:50 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

In the "BIG BANG" theory, there are theories on what the cause was.

Post Extras:

learningtofly
Ancient Aliens

Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 9 months, 19 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: C.M. Mann]
#10313854 - 05/09/09 05:04 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Did anyone else find it ironic that the title of the film was No Intelligence Allowed?

ID seems to confuse theory with hypothesis and use a lot of double-speak and nonsense. "Oh you can't test evolution bla bla bla" "Show me evidence" where is the evidence for ID? none? How do you even teach ID in a class "God did it, done."

The worst argument, or should I say assertion from ID is that "It's too complicated to have come about naturally." But no one has ever explained to me why it's too complicated. Do you know how old the universe is? 13.5 billion years is a pretty damn long time.

Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean that some 'intelligent designer' made it. which only begs the question of where did the intelligent designer (God. I've heard some people say ID is not synonymous with God but that's bullshit) come from? Did this intelligent designer just appear? Couldn't be, because 'nothing comes from nothing' right? hmm

--------------------

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: C.M. Mann]
#10313884 - 05/09/09 05:12 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

C.M. Mann said:
In the "BIG BANG" theory, there are theories on what the cause was.

Nope, only unsubstantiated hypothesis; none of which are part of the big bang theory.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10314041 - 05/09/09 05:58 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: Consider this: if the descent of man is true we are left with only two choices. Out of fairness and equality we should either treat men as beasts or beasts as men.

We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

All organisms are evolved if the descent of man is true. Being evolved puts man and beast on a level playing field. The future or the past has no bearing in this case.

How is this an internal contradiction? Different organisms have different levels of intelligence; we obviously possess some of the highest on this planet. Doesn't change the fact that we're still fundamentally animals with built-in instinctual drives.

Also, for anyone who believes in ID, please explain how the intelligence that designed everything got to be there in the first place.

Please take note the phrase "internal contradiction" does not appear in these quotes. Meaning you still need to provide reasoning for your claim:

We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10314043 - 05/09/09 06:00 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Right, but then it would be ontologically simpler to say that we evolved rather than invent an additional step in the explanatory chain.

What could be simpler than saying, "God did it."?

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Redstorm]
#10314054 - 05/09/09 06:03 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Redstorm said:
It's taboo to teach because, outside of comparative courses, religion has no place in public schools.

Incorrect.

The "Argument from Design" is an ancient theological argument dating from the time of the Greek philosophers that maintains we can know a supreme being exists based on the design of the external world. The most widely known version of it is found in a book called, "Natural Theology," written by William Paley in 1803. Most people, including creationists, Christians, Atheists, and evolutionists assume this is intelligent design. However counterintuitive it may seem intelligent design is a scientific theory, not a theological argument. This confusion arises from the similarity of the ideas and the theological or philosophical prejudices brought to the table from either side.

The distinction between scientific theories and theological implications is critical. The court, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, failed to make such a distinction as well as numerous posters in the forum attacking intelligent design. In Nature magazine, a premier publication from the publishers of scientific journals, the editor John Maddox wrote an article entitled, "Down with the Big Bang." In it, he stated, "Creationists, and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang. That, they might say, is when and how the universe was created." Mr. Maddox wrote this in August of 1989. His opinion, based on the theological implications of the Big Bang, was that the theory would be found incorrect by December, 1989. It turns out, he was wrong.

Similarly, Eugenie Scott, in her book, "Evolution versus Creationism (2004)," makes a similar error. She states, "In some ways, [intelligent design] is a descendant of William Paley's Argument from Design (Paley 1803), which argued that God's existence could be proved by examining His works. Paley used a metaphor: if one found a watch, it was obvious that such a complex object could not have come together by chance; the existence of a watch implied a watchmaker who had designed the watch with a purpose in mind."

In contrast intelligent design is a scientific theory based on three critical concepts: specified complexity, irreducible complexity, in combination with a probability matrix called the "explanatory filter."

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: DieCommie]
#10314062 - 05/09/09 06:05 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

There you guys go again.

Comparing religion to ID... tisk tisk

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: learningtofly]
#10314065 - 05/09/09 06:06 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

learningtofly said:
Did anyone else find it ironic that the title of the film was No Intelligence Allowed?

ID seems to confuse theory with hypothesis and use a lot of double-speak and nonsense. "Oh you can't test evolution bla bla bla" "Show me evidence" where is the evidence for ID? none? How do you even teach ID in a class "God did it, done."

The worst argument, or should I say assertion from ID is that "It's too complicated to have come about naturally." But no one has ever explained to me why it's too complicated. Do you know how old the universe is? 13.5 billion years is a pretty damn long time.

Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean that some 'intelligent designer' made it. which only begs the question of where did the intelligent designer (God. I've heard some people say ID is not synonymous with God but that's bullshit) come from? Did this intelligent designer just appear? Couldn't be, because 'nothing comes from nothing' right? hmm

You need a lesson in what ID is rather than reading the media or its opponents.

Here. from the CMTU thread.

:mypleasure:

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10314070 - 05/09/09 06:08 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Yes, and my post just above yours explains why ID isn't a religion.

The religion argument is probably one of the stupidest ones evolutionists have.

:whatever:

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314083 - 05/09/09 06:11 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

Redstorm said:
It's taboo to teach because, outside of comparative courses, religion has no place in public schools.

Incorrect.

The "Argument from Design" is an ancient theological argument dating from the time of the Greek philosophers that maintains we can know a supreme being exists based on the design of the external world. The most widely known version of it is found in a book called, "Natural Theology," written by William Paley in 1803. Most people, including creationists, Christians, Atheists, and evolutionists assume this is intelligent design. However counterintuitive it may seem intelligent design is a scientific theory, not a theological argument. This confusion arises from the similarity of the ideas and the theological or philosophical prejudices brought to the table from either side.

The distinction between scientific theories and theological implications is critical. The court, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, failed to make such a distinction as well as numerous posters in the forum attacking intelligent design. In Nature magazine, a premier publication from the publishers of scientific journals, the editor John Maddox wrote an article entitled, "Down with the Big Bang." In it, he stated, "Creationists, and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang. That, they might say, is when and how the universe was created." Mr. Maddox wrote this in August of 1989. His opinion, based on the theological implications of the Big Bang, was that the theory would be found incorrect by December, 1989. It turns out, he was wrong.

Similarly, Eugenie Scott, in her book, "Evolution versus Creationism (2004)," makes a similar error. She states, "In some ways, [intelligent design] is a descendant of William Paley's Argument from Design (Paley 1803), which argued that God's existence could be proved by examining His works. Paley used a metaphor: if one found a watch, it was obvious that such a complex object could not have come together by chance; the existence of a watch implied a watchmaker who had designed the watch with a purpose in mind."

In contrast intelligent design is a scientific theory based on three critical concepts: specified complexity, irreducible complexity, in combination with a probability matrix called the "explanatory filter."

I can see this guy has done his homework. I'm glad you see it as science whereas some "hard heads" still think it's fairy tales and religion. It's not. Sure evolution exists, but as you say about the watchmaker. Did they intend it this way?

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10314114 - 05/09/09 06:21 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Actually, intelligent design does have it roots in religion despite what you say, as shown both in court and in 'the wedge' document. Have you forgotten about Kitzmiller vs Dover already? There was a whole NOVA special on it, im sure you saw it. Remember where its shown that they simply did a search and replace to change the religious word 'creationists' to the so called secular 'design proponents'.

The intelligent design movement is born after the Edwards vs Aguillard Supreme Court decision of 1987 ruled creationism is religion and cannot be taught in schools. After this the movement, headed by The Discovery Institute, re-branded itself as a secular movement and changed the claim from creationist to intelligent design in an effort to get around the supreme court decision. This has all been well documented from court cases, publications and the leaked "wedge" document outlying the method of assault that intelligent design/creationists will make on the scientific method, education and our culture.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10314119 - 05/09/09 06:23 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Did who intend what which way?

Thanks for the compliment. I've been involved in this issue longer than anyone here. I'm sure of it. My ties to the Discovery Institute and their fellows will remain unknown specifically. Let's just say others know who I am. :wink:

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: DieCommie]
#10314151 - 05/09/09 06:34 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Qubit said:
Actually, intelligent design does have it roots in religion despite what you say, as shown both in court and in 'the wedge' document.

Baseless claim or rhetoric. Please substantiate.

Quote:

Qubit said:
Have you forgotten about Kitzmiller vs Dover already? There was a whole NOVA special on it, im sure you saw it. Remember where its shown that they simply did a search and replace to change the religious word 'creationists' to the so called secular 'design proponents'.

Remember the trial? I was there. I have the DVD of the Nova special as well as Unlocking The Mystery of Life. I'm fully informed on both sides of the issue. Have you seen Unlocking or read "Traipsing Into Evolution": Legal Experts Analyze the Impact of the Dover Intelligent Design Trial in New Book? Or do you enjoy having one-sided, half-informed opinions?

Quote:

Qubit said:
The intelligent design movement is born after the Edwards vs Aguillard Supreme Court decision of 1987 ruled creationism is religion and cannot be taught in schools. After this the movement, headed by The Discovery Institute, re-branded itself as a secular movement and changed the claim from creationist to intelligent design in an effort to get around the supreme court decision. This has all been well documented from court cases, publications and the leaked "wedge" document outlying the method of assault that intelligent design/creationists will make on the scientific method, education and our culture.

Yes, that is one version of the story. As always, there is another. And the truth is somewhere in the middle.

If you read my analysis carefully, you would have seen I do not deny the similarity between intelligent design and the argument from design, nor do I deny which came first. It is the differences between them that are critically important.

--------------------

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314161 - 05/09/09 06:37 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Is it sheer coincidence that most organizations promoting ID also have a religious agenda (or subtly stay quiet so as not to offend real scientists while providing many links to creationists organizations)?

Number of inventions derived from ID 'science'? Zero

New knowledge of the cosmos (beyond the basic premise) added by ID? None.

Non-theologic ways in which we can integrate ID into our daily lives? None.

Scientific ways in which ID can support other scientific disciplines? None.

Ways in which ID can add to the body of knowledge of mankind? None.

:congrats:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314183 - 05/09/09 06:41 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Remember the trial? I was there.

Let me see if I undertsand this:

If the Dover Trial had gone the other way - that would be vindication for ID.

The Dover Trial decision going to the plaintiffs means that the judge was ill-informed and made an erroneous decision.

ID wins again! :cheer:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314200 - 05/09/09 06:47 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Number of inventions derived from ID 'science'? Zero

New knowledge of the cosmos (beyond the basic premise) added by ID? None.

Non-theologic ways in which we can integrate ID into our daily lives? None.

Scientific ways in which ID can support other scientific disciplines? None.

Ways in which ID can add to the body of knowledge of mankind? None.

And of course you can provide evidence for each of those claims. If not, they are baseless.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314209 - 05/09/09 06:51 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Remember the trial? I was there.

Let me see if I undertsand this:

If the Dover Trial had gone the other way - that would be vindication for ID.

The Dover Trial decision going to the plaintiffs means that the judge was ill-informed and made an erroneous decision.

ID wins again!

Courts make law. It isn't in their purview to decide what is or isn't science. To say Roberts' decision was overreaching is being kind.

But then again, you've read the book "Traipsing Into Evolution": Legal Experts Analyze the Impact of the Dover Intelligent Design Trial in New Book, right? Or did you just make a half-informed opinion? Do you actually read books? I don't remember hearing you claim you did.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314219 - 05/09/09 06:53 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Instead of sniping, perhaps you'll lead the class and explain what is wrong with this statement:

The "Argument from Design" is an ancient theological argument dating from the time of the Greek philosophers that maintains we can know a supreme being exists based on the design of the external world. The most widely known version of it is found in a book called, "Natural Theology," written by William Paley in 1803. Most people, including creationists, Christians, Atheists, and evolutionists assume this is intelligent design. However counterintuitive it may seem intelligent design is a scientific theory, not a theological argument. This confusion arises from the similarity of the ideas and the theological or philosophical prejudices brought to the table from either side.

The distinction between scientific theories and theological implications is critical. The court, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, failed to make such a distinction as well as numerous posters in the forum attacking intelligent design. In Nature magazine, a premier publication from the publishers of scientific journals, the editor John Maddox wrote an article entitled, "Down with the Big Bang." In it, he stated, "Creationists, and those of similar persuasions seeking support for their opinions have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang. That, they might say, is when and how the universe was created." Mr. Maddox wrote this in August of 1989. His opinion, based on the theological implications of the Big Bang, was that the theory would be found incorrect by December, 1989. It turns out, he was wrong.

Similarly, Eugenie Scott, in her book, "Evolution versus Creationism (2004)," makes a similar error. She states, "In some ways, [intelligent design] is a descendant of William Paley's Argument from Design (Paley 1803), which argued that God's existence could be proved by examining His works. Paley used a metaphor: if one found a watch, it was obvious that such a complex object could not have come together by chance; the existence of a watch implied a watchmaker who had designed the watch with a purpose in mind."

In contrast intelligent design is a scientific theory based on three critical concepts: specified complexity, irreducible complexity, in combination with a probability matrix called the "explanatory filter."

But I doubt it.

Hey, that makes ME the skeptic. :smirk:

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314231 - 05/09/09 06:56 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Did who intend what which way?

The "watchmaker"...

Did the proverbial watchmaker design evolution?

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314260 - 05/09/09 07:02 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Have previous examples of alleged irreducibly complex biological mechanisms been trashed in favor of the flagellum?

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10314273 - 05/09/09 07:05 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Did who intend what which way?

The "watchmaker"...

Did the proverbial watchmaker design evolution?

How can we know? Many friends of mine are FLE fans. Front-Loaded Evolution. They are devout believers in intelligent design AND evolution.

Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't.

--------------------

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314275 - 05/09/09 07:05 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Courts make law. It isn't in their purview to decide what is or isn't science.

It is better to leave it in the domain of Creationist organizations.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314298 - 05/09/09 07:09 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

OrgoneConclusion

I don't why understand you can't at least accept it as a possibility though.

Edited by mushroomhunter10 (05/09/09 07:11 PM)

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314332 - 05/09/09 07:15 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Have previous examples of alleged irreducibly complex biological mechanisms been trashed in favor of the flagellum?

None that I can decypher. Mike (Behe) talks about a number of things from vision to beetles, but I don't specialize in any of them. My focus is the flagellum. Arguments go back and forth from Krebs cycles to immunity, but most of them are beyond by comprehension on either side.

The one I know for sure is the flagellum. No one, to date, has published a plausible story of its creation. That is because the story would have to be too complex. As I said, 30 of the proteins are missing. Yes, they do have homologues (similar proteins), but using them in the story just begs the question. It's hard to write a story if you don't have the characters to write about.

That is one reason I am certain a plausible story will never be written. Bill Dembski and Mike Behe are quite sure of it too.

Why do you think it became our mascot? :wink:

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314345 - 05/09/09 07:18 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Courts make law. It isn't in their purview to decide what is or isn't science.

It is better to leave it in the domain of Creationist organizations.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

In case I didn't say it, I don't think intelligent design should be taught in public schools.

Why?

Because, strictly categorically speaking, it isn't science. It is historical research.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314370 - 05/09/09 07:22 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Courts make law. It isn't in their purview to decide what is or isn't science.

It is better to leave it in the domain of Creationist organizations.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

In case I didn't say it, I don't think intelligent design should be taught in public schools.

Why?

Because, strictly categorically speaking, it isn't science. It is historical research.

Then what about history class?

I think it would fit into philosophy too.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314400 - 05/09/09 07:30 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Why do you think it became our mascot?

For the same reason that earlier mascots were held in high regard then discarded.

Moving goalposts anyone?

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10314441 - 05/09/09 07:38 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Courts make law. It isn't in their purview to decide what is or isn't science.

It is better to leave it in the domain of Creationist organizations.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

In case I didn't say it, I don't think intelligent design should be taught in public schools.

Why?

Because, strictly categorically speaking, it isn't science. It is historical research.

Then what about history class?

I think it would fit into philosophy too.

A perfect class for evolution and intelligent design would be natural world history. But don't think that will ever happen.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314449 - 05/09/09 07:40 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

The thing that I don't understand is that for every argument there is a counterargument.

These counterarguments aren't from cooks, or nut cases either. They're reputable scientists that have held many tenures at very prominent institutions.

They find evidence, simply mention it, then are completely ostracized.

Seems like a conspiracy to me.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10314454 - 05/09/09 07:42 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Why do you think it became our mascot?

For the same reason that earlier mascots were held in high regard then discarded.

Moving goalposts anyone?

The first mascot was the flagellum. It was the thing that caught Behe's eye. It isn't like a motor. It IS a motor. And one that can never have its story told. Why? Because its parts exist nowhere else in nature.

In Behe's first book, Darwin's Black Box, the flagellum appears as a drawing before the title page.

This is also the reason it has been attacked so viciously. And it's still standing.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10314462 - 05/09/09 07:45 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
The thing that I don't understand is that for every argument there is a counterargument.

These counterarguments aren't from cooks, or nut cases either. They're reputable scientists that have held many tenures at very prominent institutions.

They find evidence, simply mention it, then are completely ostracized.

Seems like a conspiracy to me.

It's not a conspiracy in the usual way. Nearly all scientific theories go through this process. Few are accepted outright at the start. A great book to read on this is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314499 - 05/09/09 07:54 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Have previous examples of alleged irreducibly complex biological mechanisms been trashed in favor of the flagellum?

None that I can decypher. Mike (Behe) talks about a number of things from vision to beetles, but I don't specialize in any of them. My focus is the flagellum. Arguments go back and forth from Krebs cycles to immunity, but most of them are beyond by comprehension on either side.

The one I know for sure is the flagellum. No one, to date, has published a plausible story of its creation. That is because the story would have to be too complex. As I said, 30 of the proteins are missing. Yes, they do have homologues (similar proteins), but using them in the story just begs the question. It's hard to write a story if you don't have the characters to write about.

That is one reason I am certain a plausible story will never be written. Bill Dembski and Mike Behe are quite sure of it too.

Why do you think it became our mascot?

What do you mean by "Thirty of THE proteins are missing."? How many should there be?

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10314648 - 05/09/09 08:31 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

The flagellum is made of 40 proteins. Thirty of them exist nowhere in nature other than the flagellum.

If evolution made the flagellum these parts would be found other places.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10314750 - 05/09/09 08:50 PM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Because they would have been added during each evolutionary step?

Why would they be found in other places? Can you give me examples of other places too?

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10315603 - 05/10/09 12:29 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
The flagellum is made of 40 proteins. Thirty of them exist nowhere in nature other than the flagellum.

If evolution made the flagellum these parts would be found other places.

Not necessarily. Plenty of proteins are unique.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10316014 - 05/10/09 05:30 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Can you give examples?

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10316062 - 05/10/09 06:11 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

There's far too many to give specific examples. But I can provide some details. Here's a paper published just this year.

Origin of Primate Orphan Genes: A Comparative Genomics Approach

Quote:

Genomes contain a large number of genes that do not have recognizable homologues in other species and that are likely to be involved in important species-specific adaptive processes. The origin of many such "orphan" genes remains unknown. Here we present the first systematic study of the characteristics and mechanisms of formation of primate-specific orphan genes.

Quote:

A special class of lineage-specific genes are "orphan" genes, which are genes that do not show homology to sequences in other species. Each newly sequenced genome contains a significant number of such genes. For example, among 60 fully sequenced microbial genomes, 14% of genes are species-specific orphans, and about 18% of genes in Drosophila are restricted to the Drosophila group. They typically encode short proteins and show high nonsynonymous substitution rates, but their functions are largely unknown.

The number of orphaned genes in humans is unknown, because we don't have the genome sequences for many other primates to compare it to. In this paper they examined 66 genes which they suspect are unique to primates.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast

Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 3,824
Loc: Ohio

Last seen: 22 hours, 19 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]

1
#10316100 - 05/10/09 06:44 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

The odds of life are extremely possible given the number of galaxies and the size of the universe.

I hope Ben Stein dies in a thermonuclear flame. The thing I'll never understand about proponents of ID is that, firstly it's pointless, I mean even if there is a designer there is no evidence of him whatsoever and certainly no evidence to grovel in front of him like some servile follower and as such there is no way something like ID should be taught in any sort of public setting. Secondly, almost all ID pros tie their bloated and ignorant ID theories all the way back to their ancient dogma and all the horrifying ideals that go along with it, and that is just so original and smart it boggles my mind, I mean holy shit why didn't we think of this earlier?

But again mushroomhunter, your argument leads to an infinite regression. Why is it fine and dandy for your brain to accept that the universe and life were created by something because something can't come out of nothing, but yet you can just say there is a God? Where did he come from? Or is it just magic and he's always been up there floating around with his beard on some cumulus clouds?

--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
:awecid:

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10316254 - 05/10/09 08:02 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
The flagellum is made of 40 proteins. Thirty of them exist nowhere in nature other than the flagellum.

If evolution made the flagellum these parts would be found other places.

Not necessarily. Plenty of proteins are unique.

Then unless we beg the question with homologues as I indicated in the CMTU thread, each "orphan" creates a problem for evolution. And in the case of the flagellum, it is devastating, i.e. no plausible story can be constructed.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: 5HTSynaptrip]
#10316264 - 05/10/09 08:06 AM (3 years, 19 days ago)

Quote:

5HTSynaptrip said:
The odds of life are extremely possible given the number of galaxies and the size of the universe.

I hope Ben Stein dies in a thermonuclear flame. The thing I'll never understand about proponents of ID is that, firstly it's pointless, I mean even if there is a designer there is no evidence of him whatsoever and certainly no evidence to grovel in front of him like some servile follower and as such there is no way something like ID should be taught in any sort of public setting. Secondly, almost all ID pros tie their bloated and ignorant ID theories all the way back to their ancient dogma and all the horrifying ideals that go along with it, and that is just so original and smart it boggles my mind, I mean holy shit why didn't we think of this earlier?

But again mushroomhunter, your argument leads to an infinite regression. Why is it fine and dandy for your brain to accept that the universe and life were created by something because something can't come out of nothing, but yet you can just say there is a God? Where did he come from? Or is it just magic and he's always been up there floating around with his beard on some cumulus clouds?

You'll burn in hell for that. :grin:

Seriously though, aside from the baseless claims what have you? Nothing.

Infinite regression is answered by the Prime Mover argument and Necessary (Not contingent) Being. What evidence can you bring to the table that God isn't a Necessary Being?

--------------------

Post Extras:

zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,509
Last seen: 23 hours, 9 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]

1
#10317590 - 05/10/09 02:33 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

The very first second that intelligent(?) design shows itself to have a predictive value is the day I'll start paying it any attention.

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10317667 - 05/10/09 02:57 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
The flagellum is made of 40 proteins. Thirty of them exist nowhere in nature other than the flagellum.

If evolution made the flagellum these parts would be found other places.

Not necessarily. Plenty of proteins are unique.

Then unless we beg the question with homologues as I indicated in the CMTU thread, each "orphan" creates a problem for evolution. And in the case of the flagellum, it is devastating, i.e. no plausible story can be constructed.

Just because it appears to be an orphan gene to us, doesn't mean it didn't evolve. There are theories for how a gene could evolve yet have no apparent ancestors.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10317908 - 05/10/09 03:54 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

My only question is if the world was 'intelligently designed' then who designed the designer? If you're going to question the origin of life and deduce someone created it then you can't stop there. what created the creator?

Life is RAAAAARE. But it's inevitable that sooner or later the right conditions will occur.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10318697 - 05/10/09 06:32 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

So seriously.

How many of you that replied have watched the documentary?

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10318957 - 05/10/09 07:11 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

who would want to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10319011 - 05/10/09 07:21 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

I think it's a good documentary.

Give it a try. wtf? :shrug:

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10319461 - 05/10/09 08:41 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
So seriously.

How many of you that replied have watched the documentary?

Probably none. Most answers come from frightened people terrified that God may actually exist. The very idea of intelligent design sends people screaming as they run from the room (meaning they will do anything except consider it).

There have been a few posters that are somewhat familiar with the concepts and may have actually done some research. Most, assuredly, have not. That doesn't stop them from having an opinion though, however uninformed it may be.

The same arguments appear across the Internet with few doing as much as reading a book on intelligent design or watching a 1 hour and 37 minute movie. I went to the cinema to watch it the day it came out.

There were 6 people in the room.

One of the things I have the least respect for are arguments born of ignorance, and ignorance abounds.

Most people are lazy idiots. Not much we can do about that. :shrug:

--------------------

Edited by Mr. Mushrooms (05/10/09 08:47 PM)

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10319862 - 05/10/09 09:44 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

I must admit. I haven't read any books on this subject. I merely figured this film would interest people. It caught my attention.

I can see that your knowledge of this subject is very extensive. You must have burned a lot of midnight oil on this one and I thank you for sharing the information. :hatsoff:

Post Extras:

youbreakyoubuy
Monkey Mouth

Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 2,632
Last seen: 2 years, 16 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10319868 - 05/10/09 09:46 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

I saw it. I saw the NOVA special afterwards. The flagellum thing seems crucial. But NOVA did a good job trying to show that the flagellum is an appendage that is in fact reducible. It did seem apparent that the judge have overstepped his bounds by deciding something that wasn't really in his proper arena.

I remember coming away with a sense that there was something there. But I didn't know how to express it. These are incredibly big ideas to be jawing away about at a byob bbq. So I turned to this message board. Maybe I should have posted in P&S?

At any rate, I'm not an effective arguer. I don't usually have much conviction either way and it seems to me that, ultimately, this argument comes down to conviction. Either you believe it or you don't. It doesn't matter one way or another; it's just a line drawn in the sand. I've tried to follow the logic from the points that both sides have given but I can't seem to make the necessary connections.

For what it's worth, part of me thinks that the universe is a creation. But then the other part of me thinks that the universe just is, and I'm completely cool with the idea that we came from nothing. But during those dark tea times of the soul.....I become anxious at the thought of a creator-less universe.

I will say that I'm happy that they don't teach this stuff in biology class. Beyond the fact that I'm here, the origin of life bears little bearing on my day to day life. And I'd rather keep it that way. I already have enough trouble as it is trying to be "the fittest"

Does it matter one way or the other? Do lives hang in the balance? I say 'no' to both. Just don't let the courts decide. The courts decide the law, not nature.

--------------------
Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10320105 - 05/10/09 10:44 PM (3 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
So seriously.

How many of you that replied have watched the documentary?

Probably none. Most answers come from frightened people terrified that God may actually exist. :

Why would anyone be afraid of God existing? It seems like it would be more comforting than anything.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10320550 - 05/11/09 12:56 AM (3 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Probably none. Most answers come from frightened people terrified that God may actually exist. The very idea of intelligent design sends people screaming as they run from the room (meaning they will do anything except consider it).

I thought you said intelligent design had nothing to do with God?

Quote:

One of the things I have the least respect for are arguments born of ignorance, and ignorance abounds.

Something about this movie poster doesn't give me the impression that it'll dispel ignorance. It hardly presents itself as an intellectual discourse on the subject, does it? I'm not surprised that no one saw it.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10320605 - 05/11/09 01:16 AM (3 years, 18 days ago)

I am not going to read through 7 pages of BS related to Ben Stein, but I saw someone misquote Darwin on the first page and I just wanted to make sure the record was set straight, because Ben Stein was very deceptive in his movie and did not give Darwin's full quote:

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
With savages the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build assylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

All that is non-viable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior lifeforms, we have encouraged their propagation. The offspring of these sick people looked like this [image of mentally challenged man], individuals lower than any beasts.

Nazi propaganda film, circa 1943

Not fun either time, this time or at the cinema. At least there I had popcorn and soda pop.

I had forgotten that Dawkins admitted the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Thanks

The bold parts, Stein leaves out:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.[8]

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]

1
#10320672 - 05/11/09 01:40 AM (3 years, 18 days ago)

That's pretty deceitful of Stein. What a douchebag.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10320797 - 05/11/09 02:50 AM (3 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
How is this an internal contradiction? Different organisms have different levels of intelligence; we obviously possess some of the highest on this planet. Doesn't change the fact that we're still fundamentally animals with built-in instinctual drives.

Also, for anyone who believes in ID, please explain how the intelligence that designed everything got to be there in the first place.

Please take note the phrase "internal contradiction" does not appear in these quotes. Meaning you still need to provide reasoning for your claim:

We should do neither. Men are evolved beasts; we should be looking to the future and not back to the past.

Apologies, I thought you were referring to a different quote. At any rate, I believe that we are evolved beasts based on the fact that I think all other alternatives (namely that we are somehow distinct from all other organisms on this planet) to be unlikely.

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Right, but then it would be ontologically simpler to say that we evolved rather than invent an additional step in the explanatory chain.

What could be simpler than saying, "God did it."?

That's a pretty simple answer at first glance, but further inspection reveals that this is anything but. What do you mean by God? How did God get there, and how did He interact with humans in order to produce us in our current state? What evidence do we have to show that God exists in the first place?

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10321076 - 05/11/09 05:08 AM (3 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Probably none. Most answers come from frightened people terrified that God may actually exist. The very idea of intelligent design sends people screaming as they run from the room (meaning they will do anything except consider it).

I thought you said intelligent design had nothing to do with God?

uh yeah, I thought so too.

And what kind of bullshit is this anyways?

The movie didn't even try to make a case for intelligent design being correct anyways to my recollection- just the same generic bullshit and "they're picking on us" arguments which are totally irrelevant.

Its also pretty tiring to here someone presume that if you don't agree there's any scientific evidence of god that you must not believe in him or if you do believe in god you would conclude their is evidence. Same with the conclusion that its logical to hold life was intelligently designed.

Maybe some people don't change their logic and conclusions based on their personal beliefs? :thumbdown:

You can believe in god or supernatural abiogenesis without believing scientific evidence or logic support it.

Edited by johnm214 (05/11/09 06:38 AM)

Post Extras:

Dj_sIntjsboh
Stranger

Registered: 05/11/09
Posts: 43
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10321226 - 05/11/09 05:55 AM (3 years, 18 days ago)

gotta watch this , had a nice trailer :thumbup:

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Dj_sIntjsboh]
#10321678 - 05/11/09 08:37 AM (3 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Dj_sIntjsboh said:
gotta watch this , had a nice trailer

You really don't, unless you want to be lied to and deceived the whole movie. If you want to see Ben Stein's tactics in this movie, just look 5 or 6 posts up right here and see Ben Stein horrendously misquoting Darwin to make a point.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10321827 - 05/11/09 09:27 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

Dj_sIntjsboh said:
gotta watch this , had a nice trailer

You really don't, unless you want to be lied to and deceived the whole movie. If you want to see Ben Stein's tactics in this movie, just look 5 or 6 posts up right here and see Ben Stein horrendously misquoting Darwin to make a point.

Why not watch it?

I didn't find it a bad movie neccesarily, I just found it somewhat irrelevant.

I totally agree with him that people should not be discriminated upon by universities on the basis of their ideas or thoughts on these matters.

To the extent he asks for an open debate and universities to not use strong arm tactics I totally agree with him. Nothing wrong with that.

Its more the unspoken presumptions (maybe he says it, I forget) that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis and the lack of explaining what science actually is and why intelligent design's present political garbage doesn't really mesh well with scientific thought that was the problem.

I just think its going to be the presumptions people draw that is the problem. People really don't understand science. I mean even the intelligent design proponents who are trying to get their theories accepted seem to be going about it all wrong (they should focus on particular valid hypothesises that are scientific in nature) so what help do the lay public have of understanding the problem? Well, maybe the I.D.ers are going about it "right"... maybe they've realized they can't get where they want to get via science and so instead are using political means to advance their ideas. All I want is for the school boards to understand the issues... it seems the ones who've voted to allow I.D. really don't understand at all what the problem is.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10321895 - 05/11/09 09:46 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

Dj_sIntjsboh said:
gotta watch this , had a nice trailer

You really don't, unless you want to be lied to and deceived the whole movie. If you want to see Ben Stein's tactics in this movie, just look 5 or 6 posts up right here and see Ben Stein horrendously misquoting Darwin to make a point.

Why not watch it?

I didn't find it a bad movie neccesarily, I just found it somewhat irrelevant.

I totally agree with him that people should not be discriminated upon by universities on the basis of their ideas or thoughts on these matters.

To the extent he asks for an open debate and universities to not use strong arm tactics I totally agree with him. Nothing wrong with that.

Its more the unspoken presumptions (maybe he says it, I forget) that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis and the lack of explaining what science actually is and why intelligent design's present political garbage doesn't really mesh well with scientific thought that was the problem.

I just think its going to be the presumptions people draw that is the problem. People really don't understand science. I mean even the intelligent design proponents who are trying to get their theories accepted seem to be going about it all wrong (they should focus on particular valid hypothesises that are scientific in nature) so what help do the lay public have of understanding the problem? Well, maybe the I.D.ers are going about it "right"... maybe they've realized they can't get where they want to get via science and so instead are using political means to advance their ideas. All I want is for the school boards to understand the issues... it seems the ones who've voted to allow I.D. really don't understand at all what the problem is.

Do I need to show where Stein misquotes Darwin in a way on purpose so that the quote says something completely differently than what he actually says? This is not the only example of misquotaitons and egregious lies in the movie, but it is probably the most striking. Mushroom man parroted Stein, showing exactly how dangerous this movie is to accurate representation of the facts, because apparently stein connected at some level with him to make him want to share the quote again. All of what Stein left out in Darwin's quote is colored in red:

Here is what Mr. Mushroom says Darwin said compared to what Hitler said, directly taken from Stein's movie.

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
With savages the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build assylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

All that is non-viable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior lifeforms, we have encouraged their propagation. The offspring of these sick people looked like this [image of mentally challenged man], individuals lower than any beasts.

The blue parts, Stein leaves out:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Thus I would dissuade anybody attempting to enter this movie from trying to draw any good information from it. Although I know that Stein lies and misquotes people on numerous occasions in his movie, most people in the general public do not, and may actually buy into some of his notions based on outright disingenuous statements. There is a reason the movie is not in very high regard among scientifically minded people.

Edited by supernovasky (05/11/09 09:53 AM)

Post Extras:

Grapefruit
Obliviated

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 2 days, 18 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10321928 - 05/11/09 09:54 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

To be fair I honestly think the current medical system does go about treating disease in the wrong way. We can't just become completely dependent on medicine with fucked up immune systems to support our own irrational moral values. The way things are going there will inevitably be a large scale disease that the medicine of the time cannot cope with and it will do significant harm to us. Medicine should perhaps develop into a system that supports permenant growth of our immune systems rather than temporary.

--------------------
"So man's insanity is heaven's sense; and wandering from all mortal reason, man comes at last to that celestial thought, which, to reason, is absurd and frantic; and weal or woe, feels then uncompromised, indifferent as his God." - Herman Melville

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10322025 - 05/11/09 10:18 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Yeah, I would also encourage anyone watching the movie to not think a movie that obviously is pushing a point of view and using fallacious and incomplete reasoning to do it is presenting a fair picture of the subject.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

And anyone who thinks the views of darwin have anything to do with this debate at all is doomed to foolishness- who cares? I mean yeah, its stupid that people are misquoting, but its stupider that they think darwin or anyone's personal views have anything to do wtih anything. Its just so ridiculous a subject I figure anyone who knows whats going on would recognize the eugenics talk as insultingly stupid and irrelevant.

Its like arguing relativity is a bad theory and should be discarded because black holes can squish kittens. (never mind alot of the eugenics nonsense is actually at odds with genetics)

I just don't think a reasonable person would be harmed by watching the movie. The bullshit is transparent and anyone who accepts at face value what the movie says when it is so clear what is going on is likely allready living in ignorance.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]

1
#10322049 - 05/11/09 10:28 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Yeah, I would also encourage anyone watching the movie to not think a movie that obviously is pushing a point of view and using fallacious and incomplete reasoning to do it is presenting a fair picture of the subject.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

And anyone who thinks the views of darwin have anything to do with this debate at all is doomed to foolishness- who cares? I mean yeah, its stupid that people are misquoting, but its stupider that they think darwin or anyone's personal views have anything to do wtih anything. Its just so ridiculous a subject I figure anyone who knows whats going on would recognize the eugenics talk as insultingly stupid and irrelevant.

Its like arguing relativity is a bad theory and should be discarded because black holes can squish kittens. (never mind alot of the eugenics nonsense is actually at odds with genetics)

I just don't think a reasonable person would be harmed by watching the movie. The bullshit is transparent and anyone who accepts at face value what the movie says when it is so clear what is going on is likely allready living in ignorance.

I think a reasonable person may easily fall trap to believing in what seems like a factual quote when it is actually a bold faced lie. I don't think that a few in this thread that have already seen the quote and reacted to it as if it were true are probably not all that unreasonable.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Edited by supernovasky (05/11/09 10:28 AM)

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Grapefruit]
#10322379 - 05/11/09 11:56 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

Grapefruit said:
To be fair I honestly think the current medical system does go about treating disease in the wrong way. We can't just become completely dependent on medicine with fucked up immune systems to support our own irrational moral values. The way things are going there will inevitably be a large scale disease that the medicine of the time cannot cope with and it will do significant harm to us. Medicine should perhaps develop into a system that supports permenant growth of our immune systems rather than temporary.

I think any expert in sperm cells will tell you that human sperm is of a much lower quality than bull sperm, because only the best bull sperm is selected for breeding, while humans with a very low sperm quality now can get their sperm cells artificially injected into egg cells.

There are also some indications that autism is more common among children born from artificially injected sperm.

Post Extras:

King Koopa
Mr. Hit Dat Hoe

Registered: 06/02/08
Posts: 8,045
Loc: Houston
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10322428 - 05/11/09 12:11 PM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

Zanthius said:
Quote:

Grapefruit said:
To be fair I honestly think the current medical system does go about treating disease in the wrong way. We can't just become completely dependent on medicine with fucked up immune systems to support our own irrational moral values. The way things are going there will inevitably be a large scale disease that the medicine of the time cannot cope with and it will do significant harm to us. Medicine should perhaps develop into a system that supports permenant growth of our immune systems rather than temporary.

I think any expert in sperm cells will tell you that human sperm is of a much lower quality than bull sperm, because only the best bull sperm is selected for breeding, while humans with a very low sperm quality now can get their sperm cells artificially injected into egg cells.

There are also some indications that autism is more common among children born from artificially injected sperm.

What both you are saying is science could be the fall of man?

--------------------
Best Post on the Shroomery
Don't criticize my mess unless you'd like to become part of it.

Post Extras:

Grapefruit
Obliviated

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 2 days, 18 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: King Koopa]
#10322659 - 05/11/09 01:13 PM (3 years, 17 days ago)

I doubt it, generally the lessons are learnt, even if it must be learnt rather harshly. Man is a very adaptable species with a massive population.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Grapefruit]
#10324890 - 05/11/09 10:09 PM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Maybe Ben is doing to them what they're doing to ID proponents.

Could it be a Jew conspiracy to keep people in church? :rolleyes:

Seriously though. Does anybody think The Designer sends prophets, or gurus to us occasionally so that we can be reminded of what made us?

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10324972 - 05/11/09 10:32 PM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Seriously though. Does anybody think The Designer sends prophets, or gurus to us occasionally so that we can be reminded of what made us?

Billions of people think that.

Post Extras:

andrewss
precariously aggrandized

Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,672
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 23 hours, 56 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10325044 - 05/11/09 10:46 PM (3 years, 17 days ago)

god is the will to life/power manifesting itself in 3d space - all of life is a mode of god, we are all shadows of god losing itself in the game of incarnated life. Perhaps there is really no way out of the cycle of life, your sense of self hood isnt your soul, you have no transcendent self that can identify with your life experience, but there is something beyond your grasp that you are at the helm of - just another perceiving instantiation of DNA. This is the big show folks :smile:

Or maybe im totally wrong stoned diatribes are fun... :stoned:

thats my dogma pretty much fragments of influences and psychedelic induced thoughts... anyway and any like minds wanna hold pagan church rituals and slaughter cute animals

--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Post Extras:

Thor
Anti-Theist OVERLORD

Registered: 08/12/98
Posts: 9,775
Loc: Calgary, Canada

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]

1
#10325612 - 05/12/09 02:13 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
So seriously.

How many of you that replied have watched the documentary?

I have, and I'm aware of the continuing nonsense that the ID and Discovery institute try to push on the general public.

The flagellum:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

The documentary, err sensationalist film:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

As a Biologist I want to take a big trout and slap a few of you in the face.

--------------------

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason
http://www.richarddawkins.net/

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Thor]
#10326145 - 05/12/09 07:20 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

B.S.

Fuck Dawkins.

What about the 250 proteins? They couldn't just appear.

Edited by mushroomhunter10 (05/12/09 07:23 AM)

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326148 - 05/12/09 07:22 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
B.S.

Fuck Dawkins.

Have you even read The Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene?

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Grapefruit
Obliviated

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 4,276
Last seen: 2 days, 18 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326187 - 05/12/09 07:38 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

I've got a copy of the blind watchmaker but i still haven't started due to having other books I wanted to finish. It's good huh?

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Grapefruit]
#10326190 - 05/12/09 07:39 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

I've always liked Dawkins; he's a smart and witty writer who knows his stuff.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326203 - 05/12/09 07:42 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

He seems like a miserable jerk to be honest. I think that calling people stupid for not believing a theory is deplorable.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326207 - 05/12/09 07:43 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
He seems like a miserable jerk to be honest. I think that calling people stupid for not believing a theory is deplorable.

When did he call people stupid for not believing a theory? A quick Google search only led me to his comment calling the Pope stupid for saying that condoms can increase the problem of AIDS, which is pretty justified IMO.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326228 - 05/12/09 07:51 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

He says it right in the movie.

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326251 - 05/12/09 07:59 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
He seems like a miserable jerk to be honest. I think that calling people stupid for not believing a theory is deplorable.

Well, I guess it is possible to give different theories different amounts of credit, according to how much observable data confirms the theories. So I guess I would have to agree that people rejecting "the theory of evolution", either must be stupid or ignorant of our current scientific knowledge.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326262 - 05/12/09 08:02 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
He says it right in the movie.

What time in the movie? I haven't been able to sit down and watch the full thing yet.

Quote:

Zanthius said:
So I guess I would have to agree that people rejecting "the theory of evolution", either must be stupid or ignorant of our current scientific knowledge.

Or experiencing cognitive dissonance between their desire to believe in some form of Creator and their knowledge of modern science.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10326265 - 05/12/09 08:03 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Yes but his viewpoint is that it's the ONLY theory. If you don't conform to his viewpoint then you're an idiot according to him.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326276 - 05/12/09 08:06 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yes but his viewpoint is that it's the ONLY theory. If you don't conform to his viewpoint then you're an idiot according to him.

Well, if you didn't conform to the theory that the Earth is round I'd probably call you an idiot too.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326285 - 05/12/09 08:09 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yes but his viewpoint is that it's the ONLY theory. If you don't conform to his viewpoint then you're an idiot according to him.

Yeah, I think Cristopher Langan and David Bohm are much more clever than Dawkins, and they believe in God.

I also think that mathematicians and theoretical physicists often are more clever than biologists, but not necessarily always.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326295 - 05/12/09 08:12 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yes but his viewpoint is that it's the ONLY theory. If you don't conform to his viewpoint then you're an idiot according to him.

Well, if you didn't conform to the theory that the Earth is round I'd probably call you an idiot too.

Yeah I'd call myself an idiot too. However, the Earth being round isn't a theory.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326299 - 05/12/09 08:14 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Sure it is... except it's a theory that's backed up by many, many pieces of evidence (including satellite pictures and the possibility of sailing completely around the globe). Same thing with the theory of evolution.

The problem with ID is that it can never disprove the possibility of us arising by chance; and I would much rather focus on looking for naturalistic explanations than stop looking just because God/an Intelligent Designer did it. Read up on God of the Gaps.

Post Extras:

King Koopa
Mr. Hit Dat Hoe

Registered: 06/02/08
Posts: 8,045
Loc: Houston
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326308 - 05/12/09 08:16 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Maybe it could. DOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH

--------------------
Best Post on the Shroomery
Don't criticize my mess unless you'd like to become part of it.

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326317 - 05/12/09 08:19 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Yeah I'd call myself an idiot too. However, the Earth being round isn't a theory.

Of course it is a theory. The entire universe might be a computer simulation directly connected to your nervous system.

How would you know the difference between the world you see around you now, and a computer simulation directly connected to your nervous system?

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10326349 - 05/12/09 08:27 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Probably none. Most answers come from frightened people terrified that God may actually exist. The very idea of intelligent design sends people screaming as they run from the room (meaning they will do anything except consider it).

I thought you said intelligent design had nothing to do with God?

Quote:

One of the things I have the least respect for are arguments born of ignorance, and ignorance abounds.

Something about this movie poster doesn't give me the impression that it'll dispel ignorance. It hardly presents itself as an intellectual discourse on the subject, does it? I'm not surprised that no one saw it.

Please tell me this isn't an example of your reasoning.

--------------------

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326370 - 05/12/09 08:33 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yes but his viewpoint is that it's the ONLY theory. If you don't conform to his viewpoint then you're an idiot according to him.

Well, if you didn't conform to the theory that the Earth is round I'd probably call you an idiot too.

Yeah I'd call myself an idiot too. However, the Earth being round isn't a theory.

The earth being round absolutely is a theory, albeit an extremely well supported one. You seem to have a misunderstanding on the way that the scientific method works. A theory is an explanation for a body of facts. A well supported theory is one supported by many, many facts. The Earth being round was not always completely accepted (although it was theorized as early as the days of the Greeks). The data points supporting a round earth theory back then were seeing sails on the horizon were the last to disappear, and the bodies of the ships were the first to disappear. This gave rise to the idea that the earth was curved. Now the evidence in support of a round earth ranges from satellite pictures, observing other planets and planetary objects that are round, circumnavigation, etc.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is based on the overwhelming evidence that every living organism shares a common ancestor. Endogenous retroviruses, mitochondrial DNA, the fossil record, comparative anatomy and morphology, and the observations of mutations with advantageous characteristics all highly support the theory of evolution by natural selection.

As for how it all started, thats a completely different question. I find the evidence for abiogenesis compelling, because given enough time and billions and billions of molecules constantly interacting, I do not find it surprising that self-sustaining chemical reactions could form.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326386 - 05/12/09 08:36 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
I am not going to read through 7 pages of BS related to Ben Stein, but I saw someone misquote Darwin on the first page and I just wanted to make sure the record was set straight, because Ben Stein was very deceptive in his movie and did not give Darwin's full quote:

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
With savages the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build assylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

All that is non-viable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior lifeforms, we have encouraged their propagation. The offspring of these sick people looked like this [image of mentally challenged man], individuals lower than any beasts.

Nazi propaganda film, circa 1943

Not fun either time, this time or at the cinema. At least there I had popcorn and soda pop.

I had forgotten that Dawkins admitted the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Thanks

The bold parts, Stein leaves out:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.[8]

1) It's not a "misquote," it's a partial quote, or, if you will, an incomplete quote. Nevertheless, the complete quote contains words that have been misused by others with different morals.

2) The Nazis were such people.

I caught the correction you made in the first thread about this. It changes nothing with respect to how the theory of evolution can be, and has been, used.

More to the point, Darwin's idea of the "nobility of man" is a load of horse shit given his theory. He can't answer it and neither can you. From a philosophic point of view, please tell me why we shouldn't practice eugenics? I asked the same question of deCypher in a roundabout way and he didn't answer it either.

Please enlighten us.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326396 - 05/12/09 08:39 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yes but his viewpoint is that it's the ONLY theory. If you don't conform to his viewpoint then you're an idiot according to him.

Well, if you didn't conform to the theory that the Earth is round I'd probably call you an idiot too.

Yeah I'd call myself an idiot too. However, the Earth being round isn't a theory.

The earth being round absolutely is a theory, albeit an extremely well supported one.

The earth being round was a theory, it is now a known fact. Let's at least be precise.

If you have a source that states the earth's shape is a theory, I'll be happy to review it.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326424 - 05/12/09 08:48 AM (3 years, 17 days ago)

That's what I'm saying.

After theories are proven, aren't they like law or fact?

See to me, when Dawkins states that theory is fact just makes him look more stubborn than he already is.

I'm not denying evolution, but the fact that everything exists, has an estimated age, etc... makes me believe it was all put here. Things don't just suddenly appear. See, the Universe is what, 13.5 billion years old (somebody stated earlier). So, there was a beginning, but where did that beginning come from? To me evolution can't explain that whatsoever.

I like the hypothesis that everything was designed, from gravity to the atom to the cell. Everything is just too perfect to be random or caused by chance. All of the systems integrate too well with each other to be random IMHO.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326460 - 05/12/09 08:58 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

supernovasky said:
I am not going to read through 7 pages of BS related to Ben Stein, but I saw someone misquote Darwin on the first page and I just wanted to make sure the record was set straight, because Ben Stein was very deceptive in his movie and did not give Darwin's full quote:

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
With savages the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build assylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized society propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871

All that is non-viable in nature invariably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior lifeforms, we have encouraged their propagation. The offspring of these sick people looked like this [image of mentally challenged man], individuals lower than any beasts.

Nazi propaganda film, circa 1943

Not fun either time, this time or at the cinema. At least there I had popcorn and soda pop.

I had forgotten that Dawkins admitted the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Thanks

The bold parts, Stein leaves out:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.[8]

1) It's not a "misquote," it's a partial quote, or, if you will, an incomplete quote. Nevertheless, the complete quote contains words that have been misused by others with different morals.

2) The Nazis were such people.

I caught the correction you made in the first thread about this. It changes nothing with respect to how the theory of evolution can be, and has been, used.

More to the point, Darwin's idea of the "nobility of man" is a load of horse shit given his theory. He can't answer it and neither can you. From a philosophic point of view, please tell me why we shouldn't practice eugenics? I asked the same question of deCypher in a roundabout way and he didn't answer it either.

Please enlighten us.

If you can look at that flagrant misquote, and still contend that Darwin had Nazi views and that Ben Stein was not being deliberately deceitful, I don't think you and I will get very far in this discussion. I simply posted the quote as an example of the dirty, underhanded tactics that Stein uses to trick people.

So why should we not practice eugenics? It all depends on what school of ethics you follow. There are value ethics, deontological ethics, and utilitarian ethics. Take your pick, but since we're talking Darwin here, his ethics were deontological, so I'll use his line of reasoning as to why we should not practice Eugenics:

For a quick primer on deontological ethics, here is Kant:

""Now I say that man exists as an end in himself, not for arbitrary use, he must in
all his actions, whether directed to himself or other raitonal beings, should always be
treated as an end in themselves, not means to an end""

The idea is to treat all men in equal standing, and treat all men as ends, not means to an end. The idea is that there are some things that are never right and some things that are always right, and that unlike utilitarianism, you cannot simply plug everything into a CBA equation, because there are some actions that even if they result in a greater good for a greater number of people, do harm to the nature of humanity itself.

Darwin would say that the contingent benefit of eugenics does not make up for the evil of practicing it. Its the same idea behind torture being wrong, even if it may provide a contingent benefit. Some disagree, so do not, but it is certainly well within their ethical theory to do so.

I can also take a utilitarian or values based approach to why we should not practice eugenics, but Darwin seems to be deontological in his ethics, so this is probably best.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326481 - 05/12/09 09:03 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
That's what I'm saying.

After theories are proven, aren't they like law or fact?

If an observation reaches a new level it becomes a fact or a law. In evolution the Hardy-Weinberg law states: that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant—that is, they are in equilibrium—from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Meaning if nothing changes, nothing changes. A brilliant deduction, wouldn't you say Watson?

:sherlock:

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
See to me, when Dawkins states that theory is fact just makes him look more stubborn than he already is.

Yes, and he has admitted he takes natural selection on faith. Probably the first time I ever knew him to be honest.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I'm not denying evolution, but the fact that everything exists, has an estimated age, etc... makes me believe it was all put here. Things don't just suddenly appear. See, the Universe is what, 13.5 billion years old (somebody stated earlier). So, there was a beginning, but where did that beginning come from? To me evolution can't explain that whatsoever.

I like the hypothesis that everything was designed, from gravity to the atom to the cell. Everything is just too perfect to be random or caused by chance. All of the systems integrate too well with each other to be random IMHO.

There are many things evolution cannot answer. Consciousness is one.

--------------------

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326484 - 05/12/09 09:04 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

The earth being round was a theory, it is now a known fact. Let's at least be precise.

If you have a source that states the earth's shape is a theory, I'll be happy to review it.

Mr. Mushroom, this is where you fail to understand how science works. I had a really good professor back in undergrad who, on the first day, collected all of the definitions of fact and theory. To a layperson, a theory is less good than a fact, its "just a theory," it is not strong. A fact is stronger to a layperson, and many people have this idea that theories become facts.

In science, that is simply not how things work. A fact is weaker than a theory. Every monkey can have a fact, but it is when you take the body of facts and propose an explanation for their observation that you get a theory. Theories are much stronger than facts

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326486 - 05/12/09 09:04 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
He seems like a miserable jerk to be honest. I think that calling people stupid for not believing a theory is deplorable.

Quoted for Truth

--------------------

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326507 - 05/12/09 09:08 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
That's what I'm saying.

After theories are proven, aren't they like law or fact?

See to me, when Dawkins states that theory is fact just makes him look more stubborn than he already is.

I'm not denying evolution, but the fact that everything exists, has an estimated age, etc... makes me believe it was all put here. Things don't just suddenly appear. See, the Universe is what, 13.5 billion years old (somebody stated earlier). So, there was a beginning, but where did that beginning come from? To me evolution can't explain that whatsoever.

I like the hypothesis that everything was designed, from gravity to the atom to the cell. Everything is just too perfect to be random or caused by chance. All of the systems integrate too well with each other to be random IMHO.

No, theories do not become facts.

As I said in my post in response to Mr. Mushroom, this is a common misunderstanding of the scientific method.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326509 - 05/12/09 09:08 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

The earth being round was a theory, it is now a known fact. Let's at least be precise.

If you have a source that states the earth's shape is a theory, I'll be happy to review it.

Mr. Mushroom, this is where you fail to understand how science works. I had a really good professor back in undergrad who, on the first day, collected all of the definitions of fact and theory. To a layperson, a theory is less good than a fact, its "just a theory," it is not strong. A fact is stronger to a layperson, and many people have this idea that theories become facts.

In science, that is simply not how things work. A fact is weaker than a theory. Every monkey can have a fact, but it is when you take the body of facts and propose an explanation for their observation that you get a theory. Theories are much stronger than facts

Please respond to what I am saying, not what you think I am saying. And don't presume to inform me of science, especially the philosophic components. Your explanation, while completely true, has no bearing on the claim I made. The earth's shape does not need to be explained by a theory or hypothesis after it is observed. To suggest that (not saying you are) is sheer idiocy.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326515 - 05/12/09 09:10 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
That's what I'm saying.

After theories are proven, aren't they like law or fact?

See to me, when Dawkins states that theory is fact just makes him look more stubborn than he already is.

I'm not denying evolution, but the fact that everything exists, has an estimated age, etc... makes me believe it was all put here. Things don't just suddenly appear. See, the Universe is what, 13.5 billion years old (somebody stated earlier). So, there was a beginning, but where did that beginning come from? To me evolution can't explain that whatsoever.

I like the hypothesis that everything was designed, from gravity to the atom to the cell. Everything is just too perfect to be random or caused by chance. All of the systems integrate too well with each other to be random IMHO.

No, theories do not become facts.

As I said in my post in response to Mr. Mushroom, this is a common misunderstanding of the scientific method.

Please explain that to Dr. Dawkins and talkorigins. Both have made statements that evolution is now so firmly established it is now a fact. Google "evolution is a fact."

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326518 - 05/12/09 09:11 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I like the hypothesis that everything was designed, from gravity to the atom to the cell. Everything is just too perfect to be random or caused by chance. All of the systems integrate too well with each other to be random IMHO.

Ah, so of course we must say likewise for the millions of debilitating diseases such as cancer or AIDS, genetic deformities and mental retardation, serial killers and natural disasters; all of these have also been perfectly designed?

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: From a philosophic point of view, please tell me why we shouldn't practice eugenics? I asked the same question of deCypher in a roundabout way and he didn't answer it either

The existence of recessive genes makes eugenics very difficult to practice successfully if we're solely judging based on phenotype. If we have the genetic know-how to fully understand our own genome and prevent the birth of organisms with significant defects (ensuring of course that no racially-motivated or evil policies determine what is considered a defect), then by all means let us do so. Moreover, the ethical consequences of a scientific theory have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of that theory.

Quote:

supernovasky said:
No, theories do not become facts.

Yes. To me, a fact conveys that nothing can ever disprove it. All science produces are theories, which may be disproven at any time.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326525 - 05/12/09 09:13 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
That's what I'm saying.

After theories are proven, aren't they like law or fact?

If an observation reaches a new level it becomes a fact or a law. In evolution the Hardy-Weinberg law states: that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant�that is, they are in equilibrium�from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Meaning if nothing changes, nothing changes. A brilliant deduction, wouldn't you say Watson?

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
See to me, when Dawkins states that theory is fact just makes him look more stubborn than he already is.

Yes, and he has admitted he takes natural selection on faith. Probably the first time I ever knew him to be honest.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I'm not denying evolution, but the fact that everything exists, has an estimated age, etc... makes me believe it was all put here. Things don't just suddenly appear. See, the Universe is what, 13.5 billion years old (somebody stated earlier). So, there was a beginning, but where did that beginning come from? To me evolution can't explain that whatsoever.

I like the hypothesis that everything was designed, from gravity to the atom to the cell. Everything is just too perfect to be random or caused by chance. All of the systems integrate too well with each other to be random IMHO.

There are many things evolution cannot answer. Consciousness is one.

This should help explain to you what a theory, a fact, and a law is. You have the scientific understanding of these words wrong.

Theories do not become facts, and laws are not what you think they are:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/09/19/theories-laws-facts/

Quote:

A “theory” in science is a structure of related ideas that explains one or more natural phenomena and is supported by observations from the natural world; it is not something less than a “fact.” Theories actually occupy the highest, not the lowest, rank among scientific ideas. … Evolution is a “theory” in the same way that the idea that matter is made of atoms is a theory.

This is right in spirit, but the truth is not so very scary or technical that we can’t just fess up to it. The truth is that the hierarchy of “hypotheses” and “theories” and “laws” and “facts” that many people are taught in elementary school (or wherever) has absolutely no relationship to how real scientists use those words. Which is, that they are completely inconsistent and sloppy with their use. There is no procedure by which an ambitious young Hypothesis accumulates some promising support, and is brought up before the Most Supreme Council of Learned Scientists to be promoted to a Theory.

The reality of the situation is that it’s a mess. I can invent a half-baked idea tonight and call it a “model” or a “theory” and nobody cares, or would even notice. The Standard Model of Particle Physics is much closer to objective truth than Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, and the General Theory of Relativity is somewhere in between.

And “facts”? Eavesdrop on some scientists at work. You will go years without hearing any of them talk about “facts.” They’ll talk about data, and measurements, and observations, and experiments — those are things with identifiable meanings that we can work with. But call something a “fact” and you’re making some absolute metaphysical claim that isn’t the kind of thing scientists like to do. Likewise “proof.” Mathematicians and logicians, who deal with abstract symbols independent of any connection to nature, prove things. Scientists don’t. They figure out that certain beliefs should be held with greater and greater confidence, but proving something is simply outside the domain of science.

A law, by the way, is just another name for a theory, and scientists rarely use the word "law" anymore... nothing about calling something a law makes it stronger than a theory, and in the case of some laws which people assume are strongly supported by evidence, such as Newton's Law of Gravity, are less strong than many theories out there.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326543 - 05/12/09 09:18 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

The earth being round was a theory, it is now a known fact. Let's at least be precise.

If you have a source that states the earth's shape is a theory, I'll be happy to review it.

Mr. Mushroom, this is where you fail to understand how science works. I had a really good professor back in undergrad who, on the first day, collected all of the definitions of fact and theory. To a layperson, a theory is less good than a fact, its "just a theory," it is not strong. A fact is stronger to a layperson, and many people have this idea that theories become facts.

In science, that is simply not how things work. A fact is weaker than a theory. Every monkey can have a fact, but it is when you take the body of facts and propose an explanation for their observation that you get a theory. Theories are much stronger than facts

Please respond to what I am saying, not what you think I am saying. And don't presume to inform me of science, especially the philosophic components. Your explanation, while completely true, has no bearing on the claim I made. The earth's shape does not need to be explained by a theory or hypothesis after it is observed. To suggest that (not saying you are) is sheer idiocy.

Scientifically, yes, the theory that the earth is round is probably the strongest theory we've ever had, because it was one of the first scientific theories and is as old as the Greeks, and because with our current level of technological advancement, the evidence makes doubting it rather "idiotic" as you would say. However, it is still a THEORY, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are actually some theories that are so well supported, it would be idiotic not to believe they are accurate. The theory of a round earth is one of these theories. I think you are still operating on a non-scientific mindset with your desire to turn a theory into a fact, which does not happen in science, because a fact is less strong than a theory. The facts in the theory of a round earth are: The circumnavigation of the earth, pictures of an earth that appears round, orbit, and the observation of other planets that are also round. They all support the strongest theory we have, a round earth, but because it is a theory does not make it at all weak. Theories occupy the strongest position in the heirarchy of science. I WILL continue to lecture and inform you of science, especially the philosophic components, because you continue to demonstrate an extremely weak understanding of them.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326549 - 05/12/09 09:19 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

The existence of recessive genes makes eugenics very difficult to practice successfully if we're solely judging based on phenotype. If we have the genetic know-how to fully understand our own genome and prevent the birth of organisms with significant defects (ensuring of course that no racially-motivated or evil policies determine what is considered a defect), then by all means let us do so.

Darwin provided and I reiterated the deontological ethics approach to the question of eugenics. You have just given a good example of a utilitarian approach to the question of eugenics. There are multiple systems of ethics and each one has its own rationale for not practicing eugenics.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326556 - 05/12/09 09:21 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Please explain that to Dr. Dawkins and talkorigins. Both have made statements that evolution is now so firmly established it is now a fact. Google "evolution is a fact."

Evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory (that is why I have consistently referred to the theory of evolution by natural selection, instead of just calling it the theory of evolution). Species change over time, and mutations occur that yield advantageous results. This is observed. The theory of evolution uses the fact of individual genetic evolution between parent and offspring as one of its facts.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326584 - 05/12/09 09:27 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
If you can look at that flagrant misquote, and still contend that Darwin had Nazi views and that Ben Stein was not being deliberately deceitful, I don't think you and I will get very far in this discussion. I simply posted the quote as an example of the dirty, underhanded tactics that Stein uses to trick people.

Whether we get far is really beside the point. You see the quotes as meaning Darwin had Nazi views. I understand that interpretation, but disagree. I take the quotes on their face, meaning the Nazi's used Darwin's theory to justify their actions. They did and you can't deny it.

Quote:

supernovasky said:
So why should we not practice eugenics? It all depends on what school of ethics you follow. There are value ethics, deontological ethics, and utilitarian ethics. Take your pick, but since we're talking Darwin here, his ethics were deontological, so I'll use his line of reasoning as to why we should not practice Eugenics:

For a quick primer on deontological ethics, here is Kant:

""Now I say that man exists as an end in himself, not for arbitrary use, he must in
all his actions, whether directed to himself or other raitonal beings, should always be
treated as an end in themselves, not means to an end""

The idea is to treat all men in equal standing, and treat all men as ends, not means to an end. The idea is that there are some things that are never right and some things that are always right, and that unlike utilitarianism, you cannot simply plug everything into a CBA equation, because there are some actions that even if they result in a greater good for a greater number of people, do harm to the nature of humanity itself.

Yes, and as I said, this runs contrary to evolutionist dogma. It is a mere unsubstantiated claim. You failed to answer "why" we shouldn't treat men as a means to an end. Try again. Saying that some things are never right explains nothing, however well-versed you are in ethics. Please explain the harm eugenics does to the nature of humanity as well.

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Darwin would say that the contingent benefit of eugenics does not make up for the evil of practicing it. Its the same idea behind torture being wrong, even if it may provide a contingent benefit. Some disagree, so do not, but it is certainly well within their ethical theory to do so.

I can also take a utilitarian or values based approach to why we should not practice eugenics, but Darwin seems to be deontological in his ethics, so this is probably best.

Evil in terms of evolution? There is no evil if all we are is a natural reconstruction of molecules. According to evolutionist dogma, the only "evil" would be to thwart the purposes of natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest.

So use a utilitarian or values based approach then, because the deontological method proved useless.

I'll be waiting.

:popcorn:

--------------------

Edited by Mr. Mushrooms (05/12/09 09:41 AM)

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326605 - 05/12/09 09:34 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:

Scientifically, yes, the theory that the earth is round is probably the strongest theory we've ever had, because it was one of the first scientific theories and is as old as the Greeks, and because with our current level of technological advancement, the evidence makes doubting it rather "idiotic" as you would say. However, it is still a THEORY, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are actually some theories that are so well supported, it would be idiotic not to believe they are accurate. The theory of a round earth is one of these theories. I think you are still operating on a non-scientific mindset with your desire to turn a theory into a fact, which does not happen in science, because a fact is less strong than a theory. The facts in the theory of a round earth are: The circumnavigation of the earth, pictures of an earth that appears round, orbit, and the observation of other planets that are also round. They all support the strongest theory we have, a round earth, but because it is a theory does not make it at all weak. Theories occupy the strongest position in the heirarchy of science. I WILL continue to lecture and inform you of science, especially the philosophic components, because you continue to demonstrate an extremely weak understanding of them.

Actually, what you're doing is misreading and misunderstanding my thought and then using it as a springboard to explain what I already understand. A cute trick, no doubt, but meaningless in terms of explanation. You extrapolate far too much. Is this why you call yourself supernovasky?

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326607 - 05/12/09 09:36 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

And please post a source about the theory that explains the shape of the Earth. I want to see that theory.

--------------------

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326611 - 05/12/09 09:38 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Whether we get far is really beside the point. You see the quotes as meaning Darwin had Nazi views. I understand that interpretation, but disagree. I take the quotes on their face, meaning the Nazi's used Darwin's theory to justify their actions. They did and you can't deny it.

And yet the quotes in the movie literally chop out words in the middle of sentences and provide no context for what Darwin was saying, and in the end, it seems incredibly deceitful and misleading to present them in that manner. It would be like me taking this quote above, and turning it into:

Darwin had Nazi views. I understand that. I used Darwin's theory to justify their actions. You can't deny it.

Quote:

Yes, and as I said, this runs contrary to evolutionist dogma. It is a mere unsubstantiated claim. You failed to answer "why" we shouldn't treat men as a means to an end. Try again. Saying that some things are never right explains nothing, however well-versed you are in ethics.

Because according to deontological ethics, men are not to be used as means to an end, but ends themselves. Darwin was a follower of deontological ethics. If you want the utilitarian approach, which is what you seem to be begging for, go look at decypher's line of ethics with respect to this issue.

Quote:

Evil in terms of evolution? There is no evil if all we are is a natural reconstruction of molecules. According to evolutionist dogma, the only "evil" would be to thwart the purposes of natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest.

You seem to be the only one that believes science should be interpreted as leaving no room for morality and ethics. Science by itself is on thing, but we are all human beings living on the same earth, and we temper our science (and what is possible) with our ethics (and what we believe is right.).

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326616 - 05/12/09 09:38 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Evil in terms of evolution? There is no evil if all we are is a natural reconstruction of molecules. According to evolutionist dogma, the only "evil" would be to thwart the purposes of natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest.

"Evolutionist dogma." :lol:

Evolution does not pretend to dictate morality; where are you getting this stuff from?

Even if all we are is but a collection of molecules (I tend to agree with this), we can still classify certain actions as evil if they would lead to pain and suffering on the part of fellow humans (also collections of molecules).

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
So use a utilitarian or values based approach then, because the deontological method proved useless.

Requoted for your convenience:

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: From a philosophic point of view, please tell me why we shouldn't practice eugenics? I asked the same question of deCypher in a roundabout way and he didn't answer it either

The existence of recessive genes makes eugenics very difficult to practice successfully if we're solely judging based on phenotype. If we have the genetic know-how to fully understand our own genome and prevent the birth of organisms with significant defects (ensuring of course that no racially-motivated or evil policies determine what is considered a defect), then by all means let us do so. Moreover, the ethical consequences of a scientific theory have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of that theory.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326647 - 05/12/09 09:49 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

supernovasky said:

Scientifically, yes, the theory that the earth is round is probably the strongest theory we've ever had, because it was one of the first scientific theories and is as old as the Greeks, and because with our current level of technological advancement, the evidence makes doubting it rather "idiotic" as you would say. However, it is still a THEORY, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are actually some theories that are so well supported, it would be idiotic not to believe they are accurate. The theory of a round earth is one of these theories. I think you are still operating on a non-scientific mindset with your desire to turn a theory into a fact, which does not happen in science, because a fact is less strong than a theory. The facts in the theory of a round earth are: The circumnavigation of the earth, pictures of an earth that appears round, orbit, and the observation of other planets that are also round. They all support the strongest theory we have, a round earth, but because it is a theory does not make it at all weak. Theories occupy the strongest position in the heirarchy of science. I WILL continue to lecture and inform you of science, especially the philosophic components, because you continue to demonstrate an extremely weak understanding of them.

Actually, what you're doing is misreading and misunderstanding my thought and then using it as a springboard to explain what I already understand. A cute trick, no doubt, but meaningless in terms of explanation. You extrapolate far too much. Is this why you call yourself supernovasky?

If you already understood this, you wouldnt need to ask for this:

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
And please post a source about the theory that explains the shape of the Earth. I want to see that theory.

The earth being round is a theory supported by bodies of evidence, so much so that any discussion on the "Theory of a round earth" is pretty much finished. You won't find peer reviewed sources examining new evidence that the earth is round, why? Because it's old news! However, the theory of a round earth has a lot of history in our society:

Quote:

The Early Theory of a Round Earth

The truth of the matter is that ever since Pythagoras first postulated that the Earth must be a sphere way back in 570 BC, the theory has been quite alive among scientists, and not nearly as taboo as we may have been led to believe. There were surely some holdouts whose superstitions led them to believe otherwise, but to the scientific elite, there was very little question.

Such famed thinkers as Plato and Aristotle (both performing their work in the third and fourth centuries B.C.) agreed with the Pythagorian theory regarding the shape of the Earth (not to be confused with the Pythagorian theorem regarding right triangles, which is a different story altogether), based on observations of the curved horizon at sea as well as the shape of the Earth when seen casting a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.

In the third century B.C., the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes even measured the circumference of the Earth using the shadows cast by the sun during the summer solstice at different locations and performing a bit of clever geometry. His estimate is thought to be within 10% of today’s value, which is truly remarkable for the time.

From this point on, the shape of the Earth was in constant debate among philosophers, astronomers, Mathematicians and general thinkers alike (during the middle ages, many people fell back into a belief in a flat Earth). While it took Columbus' voyage to finally allow the divergent opinions to mesh together into a unified whole, he wasn't exactly breaking any new ground, scientifically – just proving what had already been theorized for more than two thousand years.

It should also be noted that at this point in history, the size of the Earth was thought to be much smaller than it actually is. This is why Columbus erroneously thought that he could sail all the way to India in order to open up a new shipping lane for the valuable spices and goods from the East. Had he not “accidentally” come across the new world, he surely would have died at sea after such a miscalculation.

Apart from a few ignorant holdouts (for an amusing example of this, click here) who have for one reason or another continued to assert, despite the obvious proofs, that the Earth continues to be flat, after the time of Columbus it was pretty well accepted by all that the Earth was, indeed, round.

Read more: "From a Flat to a Round Earth: The History behind the Determination of the Shape of the Planet | Suite101.com" - http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/from_a_flat_to_a_round_earth#ixzz0FJsZH8Ps&A

And yes, there are still people who believe the flat earth theory. They are quite wrong, but it is another theory of the earth based on a much more limited scope of evidence and clearly contradicted by the stronger theory of the round earth. Just because the earth being round is a theory does not weaken the idea that the earth is round at all, in fact, a theory is the highest position of occupancy in science!

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326656 - 05/12/09 09:51 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Evil in terms of evolution? There is no evil if all we are is a natural reconstruction of molecules. According to evolutionist dogma, the only "evil" would be to thwart the purposes of natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest.

"Evolutionist dogma." Evolution does not pretend to dictate morality; where are you getting this stuff from?

Dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion. Dogma may have nothing to do with ethics.

Quote:

deCypher said:
Even if all we are is but a collection of molecules (I tend to agree with this), we can still classify certain actions as evil if they would lead to pain and suffering on the part of fellow humans (also collections of molecules).

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
So use a utilitarian or values based approach then, because the deontological method proved useless.

Requoted for your convenience:

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: From a philosophic point of view, please tell me why we shouldn't practice eugenics? I asked the same question of deCypher in a roundabout way and he didn't answer it either

The existence of recessive genes makes eugenics very difficult to practice successfully if we're solely judging based on phenotype. If we have the genetic know-how to fully understand our own genome and prevent the birth of organisms with significant defects (ensuring of course that no racially-motivated or evil policies determine what is considered a defect), then by all means let us do so. Moreover, the ethical consequences of a scientific theory have no bearing whatsoever on the truth of that theory.

The last statement is axiomatically true provided we know what science is--descriptive truth sans normative values. You yourself have said we cannot say raping babies is right or wrong. That being the case we cannot assign rightness or wrongness (ethically speaking) to eugenics whether we know and understand our own genome or not.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326680 - 05/12/09 09:59 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Yes, I see your style. Create strawmen, demolish them, declare victory.

:yawn:

As I said, you extrapolate far too much.

Deontological ethics defending Darwinism? Nothing but unsubstantiated claims and referrals to other ethical systems that can't answer the question either.
Request for current theory of the shape of the Earth? No evidence.

Yes, there was a theory of the shape of the Earth. That has been replaced with the fact that the Earth is round (or whatever). Your continual refusal to look at logic and facts is frightening.

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10326684 - 05/12/09 10:00 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

So what's your point? Again, the moral consequences of a theory have nothing to do with that theory's validity.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326723 - 05/12/09 10:12 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts. (by anyone's view)

As I said earlier, if evolution is true, either we treat beasts as men or men as beasts because it makes no difference.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10326736 - 05/12/09 10:16 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Yeah mr. mushroom wtf are you talking about? You're getting intellectually beaten by Cypher and Supernovasly and I'm thoroughly enjoying it, keep up the good work guys :thumbup:

Believing in intelligent design is basically giving up. "Der I don't understand it, must meen it's gotsta be some hiigher powwer!"

The fact is that it is possible for life to spontaneously begin given the right circumstances, alot of time, and lots of space! It's really rare everything will happen right but when the universe is as big as ours it's bound to happen all over the place.

Now if you want to get into where did everything come from, there is no answer. That doesn't mean another conscious being made it. where would the being come from?

I really like this quote from Carl Sagan

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

--------------------

Edited by Glenners (05/12/09 10:22 AM)

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326751 - 05/12/09 10:21 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
That's what I'm saying.

After theories are proven, aren't they like law or fact?

No, they arnt like law or fact. A theory is a bigger deal than a fact. A fact is just one data point, a law is a mathematical relationship. A theory is often made up of many laws and facts, like the theory that the earth is round mentioned above.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10326773 - 05/12/09 10:26 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Boy oh boy did I start some shit.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326814 - 05/12/09 10:37 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Got to run off to two tests guys, based on you know, things that are "only theories" :wink:

I'll be back though. In the meantime, keep up the good work decypher, and anyone else who wants to enter the debate and talk about the theories behind science and ethics, this has become a good thread that I feel will be a good learning experience for many.

Mr. Mushroom, you've got a very flawed understanding of how the scientific method works, and I will return to continue to point out your inconsistencies. Until then, stay cool shroomery :smile:

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10326825 - 05/12/09 10:39 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

I think you all seem very knowledgeable. Just can't agree on things is all.

I suppose it will always be this way until we all die-out or Jesus returns. :shrug:

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10326913 - 05/12/09 11:00 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
After theories are proven, aren't they like law or fact?

Scientific theories can NEVER be proven, they can only be falsified. Observable data agreeing with the predictions of a theory only gives increased credit to the theory. It DOES NOT prove the theory in any way.

Post Extras:

andrewss
precariously aggrandized

Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,672
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 23 hours, 56 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10326980 - 05/12/09 11:16 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

My only problem with science is that many that enjoy it seem to feel like its the end all way to interpret reality. It has its part and place no doubt. I am just not nearly as hopeful as I feel like many are in the sense that some expect science to provide us with a comprehensive world view, meh - science is an ideal, a tool that can result in some knowledge that can let us be creative but the loftiest bits seem to yearn for more imaginative explanation. Perhaps some don't like the fact that something about our existence will never change and that we are condemned to a finite freedom through our ignorance and individuality. You can exercise as an individual your brain by thinking about what you really are, via introspection and maybe bruted by psychedelics we can see how ridiculous the intellect it. Pretty cool stuff that you can do as yourself without any assistance.

How > why if your ideal is utilitarian

Why and how are equals , if your ideal is balanced IMO

but of course the why bit is very shady... and silly really.... but I think its an interesting endeavor to ponder.

Science might say its just by chance life arose. Pretty clean thinking, however the brute fact that it is actualized shows that perhaps the better idea to think about is that something about being is just a mess of possibilities and then there is a sweet spot that is spontaneously actualized here on earth and then in some sense life is fated - well obviously there is something going on with the function of life, no? Pretty wild right?

I need more lucidity with my science :smile:

--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: andrewss]
#10327130 - 05/12/09 11:54 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Ok, well i guess I owe supernovasky his due.

I said it was retarded to warn people away from the movie because nobody reasonable could presume that the merits of eugenics is at all relevant to the evolution debate- I guess I was wrong.

It is hard to believe people are really discussing this as if its relevant- eugenics being nice or not has nothing to do with evolution being a well founded belief.

And MM, misquote or not, that quote was a) irrelevant and b) decietful.

And kudos to decypher for calling out (thought again irrelevant) the flaw in much of the eugenics movement being refrenced- you cannot weed out recessive traits by selecting out those who express such..

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]

1
#10327282 - 05/12/09 12:31 PM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts. (by anyone's view)

As I said earlier, if evolution is true, either we treat beasts as men or men as beasts because it makes no difference.

You have been shown that there are many different ethical ways of looking at the consequences of evolutionary theory and how we should act upon them. I find that in most ethical systems I can think of, eugenics would be considered unethical. We have already provided you the deontological and utilitarian based refutations of eugenics when it comes to applying it to Darwin's theory. My deontological approach (and Darwins) is much less superior than the utilitarian approach that decypher takes. No matter what way you look at it though, Darwin's theory does NOT necessarily lead to eugenics performed by any human being.

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Yes, I see your style. Create strawmen, demolish them, declare victory.

As I said, you extrapolate far too much.

Deontological ethics defending Darwinism? Nothing but unsubstantiated claims and referrals to other ethical systems that can't answer the question either.
Request for current theory of the shape of the Earth? No evidence.

Yes, there was a theory of the shape of the Earth. That has been replaced with the fact that the Earth is round (or whatever). Your continual refusal to look at logic and facts is frightening.

You seem to be confused as to what is actually going on in this debate. You acknowledge that theories cannot become facts after I gave you this explanation:

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

supernovasky said:

Scientifically, yes, the theory that the earth is round is probably the strongest theory we've ever had, because it was one of the first scientific theories and is as old as the Greeks, and because with our current level of technological advancement, the evidence makes doubting it rather "idiotic" as you would say. However, it is still a THEORY, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are actually some theories that are so well supported, it would be idiotic not to believe they are accurate. The theory of a round earth is one of these theories. I think you are still operating on a non-scientific mindset with your desire to turn a theory into a fact, which does not happen in science, because a fact is less strong than a theory. The facts in the theory of a round earth are: The circumnavigation of the earth, pictures of an earth that appears round, orbit, and the observation of other planets that are also round. They all support the strongest theory we have, a round earth, but because it is a theory does not make it at all weak. Theories occupy the strongest position in the heirarchy of science. I WILL continue to lecture and inform you of science, especially the philosophic components, because you continue to demonstrate an extremely weak understanding of them.

Actually, what you're doing is misreading and misunderstanding my thought and then using it as a springboard to explain what I already understand. A cute trick, no doubt, but meaningless in terms of explanation. You extrapolate far too much. Is this why you call yourself supernovasky?

You responded that you already understand the explanation as to why the theory of a round Earth is one of the strongest theories that has ever been developed in science and you also understand that a theory is stronger than a fact and that there is no such principle in science of theory --> fact, rather a body of facts --> theory. These are bedrock principles of science. Yet, just a few posts later, you begin contradicting your claimed understanding:

Quote:

Yes, there was a theory of the shape of the Earth. That has been replaced with the fact that the Earth is round (or whatever). Your continual refusal to look at logic and facts is frightening.

This is categorically wrong, and shows that you do NOT understand how science works. On some level, this is all semantics, but it is very important when you are placing so much weight on the ideas of theory and fact to have the semantics down. A scientific theory does NOT become a fact. Like all theories, the round earth is STILL a theory. This does not take away anything from the idea that the earth is round, though, because it is such a strong theory that it would be categorically ridiculous to deny the round earth explanation for why we can circumnavigate the globe, why pictures from space show a round Earth, and why over large distances, the earth appears curved.

This may seem like a small quibble, but its when we get into debates over other very well supported theories that this distinction makes a huge difference, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is, yes, a theory, just like gravity and a round Earth. Being a theory is not a drawback of evolution, gravity, or a round Earth, but rather a strength. When something has the word "Theory" attached to it in science, it implies that someone has found a lot of evidence that points to a common explanation. In evolution, the body of facts is large. There are endogenous retrovirus insertion points, mitochondrial DNA, fossils and a fossil record, morphology and embryology, and the observation of actual evolution and change over time. These facts all point to the common explanation, the THEORY, of evolution by natural selection. Without the theory, all we would have is a hodgepodge of facts with no explanation. That's where your intelligent designer comes in.

The fundamental difference between your mindset and the mindset of a scientist is that when you see a fact that astounds you or awes you, you declare it must be created and designed. When a scientist sees something that astounds and awes them, they make no such declarations, and instead look to formulate a theory. Perhaps you feel your worldview is stronger, and hell, if thats how you live your life then that's you. However, be ware of falling into the trap of the "God of the gaps." The gaps in knowledge will always be narrowing.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Silversoul
Holon

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10327376 - 05/12/09 12:53 PM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Things don't just suddenly appear.

Right. They don't just suddenly appear. They evolve over time.

--------------------

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10327390 - 05/12/09 12:56 PM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Yes, there was a theory of the shape of the Earth. That has been replaced with the fact that the Earth is round (or whatever). Your continual refusal to look at logic and facts is frightening.

This is categorically wrong, and shows that you do NOT understand how science works.

What of this MM?

I have to say it seems like supernovasky is correct as to this point.

You say you've done all this work looking at intelligent design and claim its supported by flaws in evolutionary theory, but then you stay stuff like this. and this

Quote:

If an observation reaches a new level it becomes a fact or a law. In evolution the Hardy-Weinberg law states: that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant—that is, they are in equilibrium—from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Meaning if nothing changes, nothing changes. A brilliant deduction, wouldn't you say Watson?

It seems you may now know what's really going on at least regarding this point... What's the deal?

And can we stop with the semantical arguments? Whether evolution is called a theory or gorgonzola cheese is irrelevant.

Just like whether evolution brings to light troubling moral questions is irrelevant.

Why are these being discussed? Can we stay on topic? Untill you can show the relevance I don't know why you'd invoke these topics.

It is getting tiring seeing semantical arguments lobbed by people trying to discredit evolution or cast it as weak. 1) its irrelevant, and 2) its wrong.

A fact is just something objective that is true. It has nothing to do with the definition of theory or whatever. How many times must the argument "evolution is just a theory so its not even held to be particularly strong" be shown to be irrelevant and wrong before people stop trying to raise it again?

---

Finally I find it interesting that nobody has shown how we would ever find scientific support for believing in Intelligent Design. When nobody can demonstrate how this would be done it seems a bit silly to discuss these irrelevancies.

---

Quote:

If an observation reaches a new level it becomes a fact or a law. In evolution the Hardy-Weinberg law states: that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant—that is, they are in equilibrium—from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Meaning if nothing changes, nothing changes. A brilliant deduction, wouldn't you say Watson?

natural selection pushes allelle frequency to change so it hardly seems correct to claim it is some "law" that "if nothing changes nothing changes"- it would only be the case with a given allelle population in equilibrium with the environment- which never really exists except in short term perspectives where mutation and selection can be ignored. The presumption of no change is just based on the fact that the mathmatical treatment of allelle frequency and normal reproduction patterns reveals the frequencies shouldn't change- so any change tends to be as a result of a disturbance.

Natural selection is one such disturbance and persists even without a change in the environment. I don't know if your trying to claim that things wouldn't evolve without a changing environment and that this is supported by your "evolutionary law" but its certainly not what is believed.

A better description is found here- this is what I learned as the hardy-weinberg law, it makes much more sense then presuming static allelle populations if the environment doesn't change:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2532296

Edited by johnm214 (05/12/09 01:20 PM)

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10327422 - 05/12/09 01:02 PM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Ok, well i guess I owe supernovasky his due.

I said it was retarded to warn people away from the movie because nobody reasonable could presume that the merits of eugenics is at all relevant to the evolution debate- I guess I was wrong.

It is hard to believe people are really discussing this as if its relevant- eugenics being nice or not has nothing to do with evolution being a well founded belief.

And MM, misquote or not, that quote was a) irrelevant and b) decietful.

And kudos to decypher for calling out (thought again irrelevant) the flaw in much of the eugenics movement being refrenced- you cannot weed out recessive traits by selecting out those who express such..

Thats fine, Johnm, I understood where you were coming from back when you responded to that warning. I hated that I even had to make it, but there are a lot of people out there that simply do not think on a logical level, as well as many who DO think on a logical level but are fed illogical garbage. No matter what system of processing someone uses to acquire data into their minds, no matter how logical, garbage in -> garbage out. I

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10328571 - 05/12/09 04:58 PM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:

You have been shown that there are many different ethical ways of looking at the consequences of evolutionary theory and how we should act upon them. I find that in most ethical systems I can think of, eugenics would be considered unethical. We have already provided you the deontological and utilitarian based refutations of eugenics when it comes to applying it to Darwin's theory. My deontological approach (and Darwins) is much less superior than the utilitarian approach that decypher takes. No matter what way you look at it though, Darwin's theory does NOT necessarily lead to eugenics performed by any human being.

What I was shown were ethical theories without justification for those theories inside the evolutionary paradigm. Repeating statements (that's three time now) does not make them true or provide reason. I'm still waiting.

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Yes, I see your style. Create strawmen, demolish them, declare victory.

As I said, you extrapolate far too much.

Deontological ethics defending Darwinism? Nothing but unsubstantiated claims and referrals to other ethical systems that can't answer the question either.
Request for current theory of the shape of the Earth? No evidence.

Yes, there was a theory of the shape of the Earth. That has been replaced with the fact that the Earth is round (or whatever). Your continual refusal to look at logic and facts is frightening.

Quote:

supernovasky said:
You seem to be confused as to what is actually going on in this debate. You acknowledge that theories cannot become facts after I gave you this explanation:

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

supernovasky said:

Scientifically, yes, the theory that the earth is round is probably the strongest theory we've ever had, because it was one of the first scientific theories and is as old as the Greeks, and because with our current level of technological advancement, the evidence makes doubting it rather "idiotic" as you would say. However, it is still a THEORY, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are actually some theories that are so well supported, it would be idiotic not to believe they are accurate. The theory of a round earth is one of these theories. I think you are still operating on a non-scientific mindset with your desire to turn a theory into a fact, which does not happen in science, because a fact is less strong than a theory. The facts in the theory of a round earth are: The circumnavigation of the earth, pictures of an earth that appears round, orbit, and the observation of other planets that are also round. They all support the strongest theory we have, a round earth, but because it is a theory does not make it at all weak. Theories occupy the strongest position in the heirarchy of science. I WILL continue to lecture and inform you of science, especially the philosophic components, because you continue to demonstrate an extremely weak understanding of them.

Actually, what you're doing is misreading and misunderstanding my thought and then using it as a springboard to explain what I already understand. A cute trick, no doubt, but meaningless in terms of explanation. You extrapolate far too much. Is this why you call yourself supernovasky?

You responded that you already understand the explanation as to why the theory of a round Earth is one of the strongest theories that has ever been developed in science and you also understand that a theory is stronger than a fact and that there is no such principle in science of theory --> fact, rather a body of facts --> theory. These are bedrock principles of science. Yet, just a few posts later, you begin contradicting your claimed understanding:

Quote:

Yes, there was a theory of the shape of the Earth. That has been replaced with the fact that the Earth is round (or whatever). Your continual refusal to look at logic and facts is frightening.

This is categorically wrong, and shows that you do NOT understand how science works. On some level, this is all semantics, but it is very important when you are placing so much weight on the ideas of theory and fact to have the semantics down. A scientific theory does NOT become a fact. Like all theories, the round earth is STILL a theory. This does not take away anything from the idea that the earth is round, though, because it is such a strong theory that it would be categorically ridiculous to deny the round earth explanation for why we can circumnavigate the globe, why pictures from space show a round Earth, and why over large distances, the earth appears curved.

This may seem like a small quibble, but its when we get into debates over other very well supported theories that this distinction makes a huge difference, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is, yes, a theory, just like gravity and a round Earth. Being a theory is not a drawback of evolution, gravity, or a round Earth, but rather a strength. When something has the word "Theory" attached to it in science, it implies that someone has found a lot of evidence that points to a common explanation. In evolution, the body of facts is large. There are endogenous retrovirus insertion points, mitochondrial DNA, fossils and a fossil record, morphology and embryology, and the observation of actual evolution and change over time. These facts all point to the common explanation, the THEORY, of evolution by natural selection. Without the theory, all we would have is a hodgepodge of facts with no explanation. That's where your intelligent designer comes in.

I asked for a link to this "theory of a round Earth." You have repeatedly refused to give one. And you think I'm confused.

:rofl2:

Quote:

supernovasky said:
The fundamental difference between your mindset and the mindset of a scientist is that when you see a fact that astounds you or awes you, you declare it must be created and designed. When a scientist sees something that astounds and awes them, they make no such declarations, and instead look to formulate a theory. Perhaps you feel your worldview is stronger, and hell, if thats how you live your life then that's you. However, be ware of falling into the trap of the "God of the gaps." The gaps in knowledge will always be narrowing.

I am a scientist and a philosopher. When I see a motor, I call it designed. It's that simple and that complex.

When you can actually provide reasons and evidence for your claims, I'll be around. We haven't seen anything yet.

Try this, as you seem to have some education: Type out a claim. Provide the premises. Provide the reasoning for each premise. Then type out the conclusion for the premises. It's called a syllogism.

You're misreading nearly everything I am saying. I surely won't go toe-to-toe with you if I have to explain everything I am saying.

Please give us a link to the "Earth is round" theory.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Silversoul]
#10328951 - 05/12/09 06:32 PM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Things don't just suddenly appear.

Right. They don't just suddenly appear. They evolve over time.

Yes but all of the matter in the Universe evolved? No way. :smile:

Post Extras:

Silversoul
Holon

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10329836 - 05/12/09 08:48 PM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Things don't just suddenly appear.

Right. They don't just suddenly appear. They evolve over time.

Yes but all of the matter in the Universe evolved? No way.

It evolved from formless energy. Even the Bible backs this up. Genesis refers to the world being "empty and without form," out of which God creates. Creatio ex nihilo(creation out of nothing) is NOT a Biblical doctrine.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10330795 - 05/13/09 01:27 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
I asked for a link to this "theory of a round Earth." You have repeatedly refused to give one. And you think I'm confused.

Just because it isn't called "the theory of a round Earth", it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a theory. Any real scientist will tell you that scientific theories cannot be proven, they can only be falsified. Newton's "law of universal gravitation" was of course just a theory, and it has now been falsified by Einstein's "theory of general relativity".

The whole scientific paradigm is built upon inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning cannot give you proofs. It can only give theories more credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Edited by Zanthius (05/13/09 01:41 AM)

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10330838 - 05/13/09 01:52 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Zanthius said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
I asked for a link to this "theory of a round Earth." You have repeatedly refused to give one. And you think I'm confused.

Just because it isn't called "the theory of a round Earth", it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a theory. Any real scientist will tell you that scientific theories cannot be proven, they can only be falsified. Newton's "law of universal gravitation" was of course just a theory, and it has now been falsified by Einstein's "theory of general relativity".

The whole scientific paradigm is built upon inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning cannot give you proofs. It can only give theories more credit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Thanks for the unnecessary links. There may be an unnecessary theory about the Earth's shape, but supernovasky hasn't provided it.

In his haste to poison the well (his opinion that I know nothing of the scientific method) he rushed by the fact that while a fact is subsumed by a theory a stand alone fact does not require a theory, especially if the fact is as obvious as an observation.

"There is a ruler in front of me on the table," does not require a theory and has far more weight than any theory because a theory can be overturned. It is a fact that has far more power than any theory.

But I'm sure I've got it wrong again. Just ask him. Apparently he knows everything.

:whatever:

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Silversoul]
#10331356 - 05/13/09 07:13 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Things don't just suddenly appear.

Right. They don't just suddenly appear. They evolve over time.

Yes but all of the matter in the Universe evolved? No way.

It evolved from formless energy. Even the Bible backs this up. Genesis refers to the world being "empty and without form," out of which God creates. Creatio ex nihilo(creation out of nothing) is NOT a Biblical doctrine.

Yeah I see what you mean. The only explanation would be God... I don't know of any way that something can come from nothing.

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10331508 - 05/13/09 08:14 AM (3 years, 16 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yeah I see what you mean. The only explanation would be God... I don't know of any way that something can come from nothing.

Something CANNOT come from nothing, not even if you involve God.

Suppose that God existed before the universe came into being. Where did God exist then? He must have been somewhere.

Post Extras:

andrewss
precariously aggrandized

Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,672
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 23 hours, 56 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10331681 - 05/13/09 09:23 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

^ Have you studied Spinoza at all? Read up on or read his work The Ethics... pretty good stuff, he was a good thinker... and 17th century westerner too :thumbup:

--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Post Extras:

ObliviousSeeker
Stranger

Registered: 08/25/06
Posts: 182
Last seen: 4 days, 18 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: andrewss]
#10331768 - 05/13/09 09:51 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

oh my gawsh! gaining further knowledge of science is just SOOO damn important meanwhile millions of ppl starve. WE already know enough about fucking science at this point. WE just should've been IMPLEMENTING it a long time ago to, you know, feed the world maybe? But nooo we need to give more money to these lab coat junkies who don't recognize or admit they have a PREJUDICE.

"And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye."

Post Extras:

deimya
tofu and monocle

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: ObliviousSeeker]
#10331820 - 05/13/09 10:11 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

You seem to be completely oblivious to the amount of logistic needed in order to deploy large, or just medium scale solutions. While I somewhat agree with the technocratic feeling, the idea that those "lab coat junkies" are to blame for the slowness of humanitarian progress is at best short-sighted.

Maybe, just maybe the majority of them don't, like you, have any clue how to steer the political and social aggregate, but at least you won't hear them spewing non-constructive and misdirected juvenile angst on internet forum. But by all means, if you feel entitled because you do have a clue then what the heck are you doing here not helping these "lab coat junkies" save the world ? Those who have a clue would certainly know better, wouldn't they ?

I strongly encourage you to watch the following TED talk made by one of them junkie with real humanitarian drive. Hope it pulls that head out of that ass.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/willie_smits_restores_a_rainforest.html

Edited by deimya (05/13/09 10:22 AM)

Post Extras:

ntrdmnsnl
Stranger

Registered: 01/27/09
Posts: 60
Loc: now here

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10331834 - 05/13/09 10:18 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yeah I see what you mean. The only explanation would be God... I don't know of any way that something can come from nothing.

I don't believe something came from nothing.
but--assuming it could--saying that the only explanation would be "god" is lazy and pessimistic.
however, i don't rule out the existence of some sort of "god";
i believe atheists and religious folk are in the same boat.
"i do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure"

--------------------

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: ntrdmnsnl]
#10332102 - 05/13/09 11:24 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

http://www.dailymotion.com/user/totocacapouet/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech

--------------------

Post Extras:

laserpig
Weedmaster_P

Registered: 04/28/09
Posts: 7,468
Last seen: 7 days, 12 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10332201 - 05/13/09 11:44 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Glenners said:
http://www.dailymotion.com/user/totocacapouet/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech

excellent vid

too bad that nobody who actually needs it will be willing to watch past a minute and thirty seconds

--------------------
Weedmaster P knows the truth.

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: laserpig]
#10332206 - 05/13/09 11:46 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Ha, I thought the same thing.

I usually never watch videos, but decided to watch this one for some reason. The M&P crowd could sure use it, to bad they are too close minded to listen to it.

Post Extras:

Silversoul
Holon

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10332346 - 05/13/09 12:12 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Glenners said:
http://www.dailymotion.com/user/totocacapouet/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech

Excellent video, but I think a corresponding film needs to be made about pseudo-skepticism.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Silversoul]
#10332441 - 05/13/09 12:34 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Oh I'm not lazy and pessimistic. I don't know either.

However, signs and people throughout the times indicate a God and afterlife.

Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, The Children of Fatima, Children of Medugorje, people with stigmata (Padre Pio), etc...

For instance, Padre Pio was studied, examined, and nobody could figure out why or how it was happening to him. I think he had them for like fifty years (ouch!).

To me these things are beyond science, and even beyond our comprehension in some cases.

They say all things are answered in death. I guess we'll see. :shrug:

Until then, I'm doing right by what I know as God, and helping my fellow man. I'm not preaching, and not particularly "religious" either, but I believe there is something afterward. Lots of signs throughout the times.

Anyways, I don't want to turn this into a theology thread!

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: ObliviousSeeker]
#10333005 - 05/13/09 02:36 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

ObliviousSeeker said:
oh my gawsh! gaining further knowledge of science is just SOOO damn important meanwhile millions of ppl starve. WE already know enough about fucking science at this point. WE just should've been IMPLEMENTING it a long time ago to, you know, feed the world maybe? But nooo we need to give more money to these lab coat junkies who don't recognize or admit they have a PREJUDICE.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10333041 - 05/13/09 02:43 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

People created the idea of God.

When we die maybe we just die. It's very hard to comprehend, I know! No conciousness? forever and ever?? It's a brutal truth. Sure it makes us feel better to believe after we die we go somewhere, but really I think we just rot in the ground. And the people who believe we go to some magical place are too stubborn/scared to accept that. Could there be an afterlife? Sure I guess, but we can never know for sure since dead people can't talk. Occam's razor comes to mind.

--------------------

Post Extras:

deimya
tofu and monocle

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10333070 - 05/13/09 02:48 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Did I miss a major sarcasm and made of fool of myself by any mean ?

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deimya]
#10333087 - 05/13/09 02:51 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

No I'm laughing at him in lieu of composing an actual response.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10333098 - 05/13/09 02:53 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Glenners said:
People created the idea of God.

When we die maybe we just die. It's very hard to comprehend, I know! No conciousness? forever and ever?? It's a brutal truth. Sure it makes us feel better to believe after we die we go somewhere, but really I think we just rot in the ground. And the people who believe we go to some magical place are too stubborn/scared to accept that. Could there be an afterlife? Sure I guess, but we can never know for sure since dead people can't talk. Occam's razor comes to mind.

Maybe you're right. Hopefully not though.

Post Extras:

deimya
tofu and monocle

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10333114 - 05/13/09 02:55 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

I just went through few of his past posts to be sure. Everything is fine :yesnod:

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deimya]
#10333312 - 05/13/09 03:34 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

There is evidence of an afterlife though. NDE's are strong evidence, and in a LOT of cases it's NOT a release of DMT. People can describe things happening in the room, objects introduced, people walking in and out, etc...

So those are comforting.

Post Extras:

deimya
tofu and monocle

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10333343 - 05/13/09 03:41 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Is there anything more than anecdotal evidences for such ? I didn't think so. The details of NDEs could stem from so many different things it's meaningless, bar for cultural studies maybe. You're free to pick and choose afterlife if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

If really it is certainty in your comfort you seek, then by all mean, for your own good, seek away from philosophy.

Quote:

We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified—how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You only think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don't know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know.

-- Feynman

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deimya]
#10333399 - 05/13/09 03:54 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Ahh but a woman that had to be killed for a surgery could describe the color and shape of machinery brought in AFTER she'd been killed. That's pretty powerful to me, and her doctors were dumbfounded as well.

Post Extras:

deimya
tofu and monocle

Registered: 08/26/04
Posts: 825
Loc: ausländer.ch

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10333432 - 05/13/09 04:01 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Is that all ?

Post Extras:

andrewss
precariously aggrandized

Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,672
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 23 hours, 56 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10333585 - 05/13/09 04:29 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Glenners said:
People created the idea of God.

When we die maybe we just die. It's very hard to comprehend, I know! No conciousness? forever and ever?? It's a brutal truth. Sure it makes us feel better to believe after we die we go somewhere, but really I think we just rot in the ground. And the people who believe we go to some magical place are too stubborn/scared to accept that. Could there be an afterlife? Sure I guess, but we can never know for sure since dead people can't talk. Occam's razor comes to mind.

Yeah, but what about the idea that we all could wake up as some other organism or something? I dunno, having no consciousness is a hard thing to wrap the mind around. That would be to descend to a timeless void, no? Can we really think death is what sleep with no memory is like? But what really happened in the moments that pass, was there a degree of amnesia? But then again death is a unique state which requires a causal process. Hard to really determine what all exactly happens. What if all of our self conceptions are a posteriori but perhaps there is something about the ego that is eternal and a priori - I guess I just wonder if there isn't as much polarity between life and death as we often seem to think. I dunno.

Heaven or something is perhaps a better idea than just "non-existence" or another go on the "harsh" earth - this whole accounting of which is which is pretty odd. But yeah there could be an accusation of comfort in thinking you will just cease to be, well you as in the ego narrating what your body (just another instantiation of the dna we call human) did and perceived but could there be more to the equation? There is really almost no solid ground with the life/death issue when you really think about it. At least so far for me... but yeah what would then be the point??? Well I think its sort of interesting, I know there isnt much headway to really forge due to the nature of this issue though.

But yeah, I know a lot of this topic is pretty much imaginative but maybe there is something to it...

--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Edited by andrewss (05/13/09 05:05 PM)

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deimya]
#10334362 - 05/13/09 06:45 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

deimya said:
Is that all ?

It's pretty compelling considering the fact that she was dead, and didn't wake up until she was out of the surgery room. Remember, these things were brought in AFTER she was dead.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10334714 - 05/13/09 07:49 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Well anyways, let's get this thread back on track.

The Intelligent Designer rules, evolution drools!

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Silversoul]
#10334912 - 05/13/09 08:38 PM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Glenners said:
http://www.dailymotion.com/user/totocacapouet/video/x8uei4_openmindedness_tech

Excellent video, but I think a corresponding film needs to be made about pseudo-skepticism.

Excellent video but one thing niggles:

Statement: I'm an atheist.
Counterclaim: You're close-minded.

Since there can be no evidence for a negative, but plenty of evidence for a positive, a truly open-minded person would be an agnostic. An atheist truly IS close-minded. No one can claim with certitude that God does not exist. God may, or may not, exist. To say God does not exist is the statement of a fool.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10336241 - 05/14/09 02:23 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
The Intelligent Designer rules, evolution drools!

I am not necessarily going to dismiss intelligent design, but even if there is intelligent design in nature, there can also be evolution. I don't understand why there can't be both intelligent design and evolution.

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10336390 - 05/14/09 03:59 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

That's true, that's why I'm agnostic and not athiest. I think however alot of people just get confused in the semantics of it. They don't believe in god, therefore call themselves athiests. Obviously no one KNOWS, but logic and all reason point to there being no God. And if there was a god what a mother fucker he would have to be to throw people into eternal damnation just for not believing in him. Couldn't he understand how illogical it is? I wouldn't want to praise that fucker.

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10336419 - 05/14/09 04:17 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

I wouldn't want to praise that fucker.

Ramen.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10336901 - 05/14/09 08:30 AM (3 years, 15 days ago)

Quote:

Glenners said:
That's true, that's why I'm agnostic and not athiest. I think however alot of people just get confused in the semantics of it. They don't believe in god, therefore call themselves athiests. Obviously no one KNOWS, but logic and all reason point to there being no God. And if there was a god what a mother fucker he would have to be to throw people into eternal damnation just for not believing in him. Couldn't he understand how illogical it is? I wouldn't want to praise that fucker.

Yes, that's a very good point. In philosophy, precision with language is half the game.

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10338415 - 05/14/09 02:12 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts. (by anyone's view)

As I said earlier, if evolution is true, either we treat beasts as men or men as beasts because it makes no difference.

Creationism, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, has led to plenty of bloodshed and death in the world (see: the Crusades and almost any other religious war founded on theist ideologies). But of course, this is utterly irrelevant to its validity.

Can you please elaborate on what precisely you mean by treating beasts as men or vice versa? I believe that evolution is true, but I still treat men as men and beasts as beasts, even if we are just evolved animals. :lol:

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10338657 - 05/14/09 03:05 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts. (by anyone's view)

I suppose that what you mean is that Darwin's theory can lead to eugenics, and you suppose that eugenics is unacceptable and unethical by anyone's view.

I will have to disagree with you here. Certainly eugenics can be looked upon as unethical in a short-term perspective, if you believe that all people should have the same rights.

But what if you look upon what is best for future generations of mankind? Then I think it is possible that eugenics can bring a better future to mankind. We might eliminate genetic diseases with eugenics, and we might breed individuals that are less aggressive and less depressed.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10338813 - 05/14/09 03:36 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

I'd argue that it's never a good idea to carry things to their "logical conclusion" and in practice it rarely happens. The logical conclusion of personal freedom is: no one pays taxes, or goes to jail. The logical conclusion of the bible is: gang rape is better than gay sex (Genesis 19). But very few people really believe that, because, surprise! people in general are quite reasonable. So there's no reason to assume that people are going to carry Darwin's theory to its logical conclusion either. You know, unless they're Hitler, but thankfully there are very few people like him.

Saying that "Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts." is clearly a slippery slope fallacy, MM, and I'm surprised you said it.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10338933 - 05/14/09 03:56 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Im not surprised, it follows directly from the talking points hes parroting from the Discovery Institute...

First attack the scientific theory by attacking the institutions and attempting to discredit evolution as unscientific. Next, appeal to vague mathematical and philosophical arguments about complexity, probability and the necessity of an 'intelligent watch maker'. Finally, attack the theory by associating it with hitler, communism and all the evils of man and materialism. His collection of arguments, including this last one, nearly perfectly mimic that of the creationist museum and the evangelicals that support it (he even presents them in the same order, its almost as though he works there or something... its eerie).

Of course despite his insistence that ID is not religious his arguments are born out of the religious creationist movement, and fall in line with the talking points of religious institutions. They are desperately trying to rebrand these tired old religious arguments about science, creation and morality as 'secular ID' as a means to wedge their religion into our secular culture; thankfully they are not winning.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10340107 - 05/14/09 07:35 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

I just don't see how it would hurt to have both sides of this debate as curriculum. Not necessarily evolution vs. design, but how life came to be.

If nobody knows the real answer then why wouldn't ALL theories be up for discussion?

Origin of Species explains things from the cell, and how the cell became is still up for debate.

I don't see how prominent scientists don't find the aforementioned statement the most logical pursuit. :shrug:

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10340143 - 05/14/09 07:40 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Origin of Species explains things from the cell, and how the cell became is still up for debate.

Not for long...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10340165 - 05/14/09 07:43 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Accidental post...

Edited by mushroomhunter10 (05/14/09 07:45 PM)

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10340290 - 05/14/09 08:04 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

It's a fairly interesting article.

I guess we'll see if this can potentially evolve into something even more complex. The next step would be evolution.

I'm guessing it will be a dud. A hundred bucks says they never even get close to making DNA.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10340607 - 05/14/09 09:05 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts. (by anyone's view)

As I said earlier, if evolution is true, either we treat beasts as men or men as beasts because it makes no difference.

Creationism, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, has led to plenty of bloodshed and death in the world (see: the Crusades and almost any other religious war founded on theist ideologies). But of course, this is utterly irrelevant to its validity.

Can you please elaborate on what precisely you mean by treating beasts as men or vice versa? I believe that evolution is true, but I still treat men as men and beasts as beasts, even if we are just evolved animals.

Actually I would have to review before I could answer. However, on its face the argument has merit. If man only varies in degree from brute beasts, the similarity between us and them should preclude special treatment for man. Otherwise it smacks of Speciesism.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10340619 - 05/14/09 09:08 PM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Zanthius said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts. (by anyone's view)

I suppose that what you mean is that Darwin's theory can lead to eugenics, and you suppose that eugenics is unacceptable and unethical by anyone's view.

I will have to disagree with you here. Certainly eugenics can be looked upon as unethical in a short-term perspective, if you believe that all people should have the same rights.

But what if you look upon what is best for future generations of mankind? Then I think it is possible that eugenics can bring a better future to mankind. We might eliminate genetic diseases with eugenics, and we might breed individuals that are less aggressive and less depressed.

I should have made an exception for Nazi's and Margaret Sanger. I'd be careful who I chose as bedfellows.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Zanthius
Ideologist

Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10341672 - 05/15/09 01:01 AM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
I should have made an exception for Nazi's and Margaret Sanger. I'd be careful who I chose as bedfellows.

Many people say that there will always be war and conflict in the world, because it is in our biological nature to be aggressive towards each other. Well, the aggression in our biological nature can be removed with eugenics.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Zanthius]
#10342621 - 05/15/09 08:09 AM (3 years, 14 days ago)

Perhaps.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Patisotagami
Organism

Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 686
Loc: Everywhere

Last seen: 22 days, 10 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10342882 - 05/15/09 09:21 AM (3 years, 13 days ago)

this movie does bring up interesting points about the nature of scientific inquiry and silencing by the aristocratic elite.

However, can anyone explain how this is any different than the same people silencing and eliminating research on psychoactive drugs?

Stein's documentary has valid arguments about the fact that ID should be, at the least, discussed. I speak as a biologist when I say that it is simply impossible to claim that there is no evidence for EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION. People claiming otherwise simply DO NOT have enough education on the extremely complex subject of evolution to talk about it.

I do think we should be discussing the possibility of a god... but not the judeo-christian god. A man up in the sky who decided how things should be. Rather, imho, we should be talking about the energy that flows through and animates all living things. The Tao, the Chi, whatever you desire to call it. Obviously something can not arise out of nothing, so something has always been present.

--------------------
EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Patisotagami]
#10344402 - 05/15/09 03:01 PM (3 years, 13 days ago)

I was actually going to suggest that things like qi, the soul, and even emotions wouldn't exist without design either.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10344441 - 05/15/09 03:12 PM (3 years, 13 days ago)

Imaginary things like the soul would not exist without an imaginary creator? That is deep!

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10344779 - 05/15/09 04:12 PM (3 years, 13 days ago)

It's just philosophy dude. Relax. :cool:

Post Extras:

Patisotagami
Organism

Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 686
Loc: Everywhere

Last seen: 22 days, 10 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10345168 - 05/15/09 05:34 PM (3 years, 13 days ago)

besides, why does it matter if there is an intelligent designer or not?

--------------------
EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Patisotagami]
#10345705 - 05/15/09 06:45 PM (3 years, 13 days ago)

Because my drapes clash with my furniture. Oh wait, that calls for an Interior Designer. Never mind! :blush:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10346596 - 05/15/09 09:59 PM (3 years, 13 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
I'd argue that it's never a good idea to carry things to their "logical conclusion" and in practice it rarely happens. The logical conclusion of personal freedom is: no one pays taxes, or goes to jail. The logical conclusion of the bible is: gang rape is better than gay sex (Genesis 19). But very few people really believe that, because, surprise! people in general are quite reasonable. So there's no reason to assume that people are going to carry Darwin's theory to its logical conclusion either. You know, unless they're Hitler, but thankfully there are very few people like him.

Saying that "Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts." is clearly a slippery slope fallacy, MM, and I'm surprised you said it.

No, everything should be carried to its logical conclusion. If you theory doesn't work as applied to everything how do you know it works as applied to anything? Personal freedom doesn't lead to no jails, at least not the reasonable models that attempt to delineate what a third party, such as a government, should use to evaluate the propreity of certain actions. Everyone has a right to their body, possesions, and associations- that's it. Doesn't lead to no jail.

Quote:

Qubit said:
Im not surprised, it follows directly from the talking points hes parroting from the Discovery Institute...

First attack the scientific theory by attacking the institutions and attempting to discredit evolution as unscientific. Next, appeal to vague mathematical and philosophical arguments about complexity, probability and the necessity of an 'intelligent watch maker'. Finally, attack the theory by associating it with hitler, communism and all the evils of man and materialism. His collection of arguments, including this last one, nearly perfectly mimic that of the creationist museum and the evangelicals that support it (he even presents them in the same order, its almost as though he works there or something... its eerie).

Of course despite his insistence that ID is not religious his arguments are born out of the religious creationist movement, and fall in line with the talking points of religious institutions. They are desperately trying to rebrand these tired old religious arguments about science, creation and morality as 'secular ID' as a means to wedge their religion into our secular culture; thankfully they are not winning.

Ehh, he changes whether its related to supernatural powers depending on what he's replying to. I've not seen him explain his contradictions in various posts.

Agree as to the method you've stated, it all seems a lot of hand waving and no actual hypothesis that is testable (asides from the if it wasn't a result of chance or natural law it was designed, claim). The claimed math is always quite vague. Huge numbers are cited but no clear basis for them are stated.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I just don't see how it would hurt to have both sides of this debate as curriculum. Not necessarily evolution vs. design, but how life came to be.

If nobody knows the real answer then why wouldn't ALL theories be up for discussion?

Origin of Species explains things from the cell, and how the cell became is still up for debate.

I don't see how prominent scientists don't find the aforementioned statement the most logical pursuit.

Could you please clarify what you mean be thoery? To use scietific words in teh sentance with the word theory seems to suggest some shaky suppositions that ID is a theory in the scientific sense.

And in what curriculum should ID be tought? I've not heard anybody claim that ID should never be taught, so its seems a silly counterargument. I also think swahili shouldn't be banned from classrooms, but don't think its a good thing to be teaching to middle schoolars in america nor to science students.

Are you saying you want it in science classes? Why don't you demonstrate it is science rather than just label it as a debate and use that to shoehorn it in. There's pleny of people that believe all sorts of nonsense, that doesn't mean its a scientific theory worthy of inclusion in curriculum just cuz the popular belief is inconsistant with scientific thought or evidence.

Post Extras:

youbreakyoubuy
Monkey Mouth

Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 2,632
Last seen: 2 years, 16 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10346846 - 05/15/09 10:56 PM (3 years, 13 days ago)

What a mess.

What origin of species is to biology, the big bang is to physics, yes? It seems to me that the big issue in both theories is that of spontaneity. The IDers claim that the initial spark was divine. But, why should we explain the unexplainable away as supernatural? Give me evidence. But if you could give me evidence, I wouldn't be asking, right?

Anyway, we will NEVER know with any great amount of certainty the full truth of these events.
Slapping a label on that spark and calling it "God" is all fine and dandy, but, in the end, all you've done is avoided a few sleepless nights.

It's much like how people get all confused about UFOs. UFOs are unidentified. Unidentified means just that. UFO's aren't proof of aliens. UFOs are proof of unidentified flying objects. It's a mystery with no strong evidence to steer us to solve the riddle.

It's all a mystery. It's all The Mystery.

--------------------
Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: youbreakyoubuy]
#10350256 - 05/16/09 07:52 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Here is another thing that doesn't make sense to me in evolution. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me.

Mimicking species:

For instance, Birds Nest Fungus. It looks like a bird's nest, and even has eggs like a bird's nest.

However, here is the problem I can't understand. How does that fungus know what a bird's nest looks like?? It doesn't have the eyes to see. How the heck do species that imitate something know what to imitate if they can't see what to imitate?

Don't try to tell me it's a slow process that occurred over time, simply because it would not have survived if its mimicry wasn't in place from the beginning. It survives by mimicry, so it had to begin that way, right? So if it only survives by doing so, then how could it have evolved??

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10350317 - 05/16/09 08:09 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

But birds' nest fungi don't try and fool animals into thinking that they are birds' nests. So they aren't imitating them, they just resemble them.

Wikipedia sez:

Quote:

The nests are splash cups. When a raindrop hits one at the right angle, the walls are shaped such that the eggs are expelled a good distance from the nest. Some species have a sticky trailing thread, a funicular cord, attached to the peridiole. If that thread encounters a twig on its flight the egg will swing around and wrap itself around the twig. The spores can then germinate there and start the life cycle over again.

So in fact they are the complete opposite to a birds nest: one tries to keep the eggs safe, the other tries to expel the eggs as far as possible.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10350321 - 05/16/09 08:10 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Can you post a picture of it? I've never heard of it.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10350346 - 05/16/09 08:16 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
But birds' nest fungi don't try and fool animals into thinking that they are birds' nests. So they aren't imitating them, they just resemble them.

Wikipedia sez:

Quote:

The nests are splash cups. When a raindrop hits one at the right angle, the walls are shaped such that the eggs are expelled a good distance from the nest. Some species have a sticky trailing thread, a funicular cord, attached to the peridiole. If that thread encounters a twig on its flight the egg will swing around and wrap itself around the twig. The spores can then germinate there and start the life cycle over again.

So in fact they are the complete opposite to a birds nest: one tries to keep the eggs safe, the other tries to expel the eggs as far as possible.

Okay that's just one example that I thought of. What about other mimicking species that don't have eyes? I can't think of many ATM, but plants have many mimicking species. I just don't get that.

Sventington: Google is your buddy.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Sventington]
#10350348 - 05/16/09 08:17 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidulariaceae

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10350355 - 05/16/09 08:18 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Okay that's just one example that I thought of. What about other mimicking species that don't have eyes? I can't think of many ATM, but plants have many mimicking species. I just don't get that.

Why would eyes matter? You can't evolve to look like something that you see.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10350365 - 05/16/09 08:21 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Okay that's just one example that I thought of. What about other mimicking species that don't have eyes? I can't think of many ATM, but plants have many mimicking species. I just don't get that.

Why would eyes matter? You can't evolve to look like something that you see.

Now that's confusing!!

By the way, awesome pic of that Bird's Nest Fungus, I've never seen so many so close!!

They must be VERY small for a drop of water to knock those "eggs" out man, wow.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10350372 - 05/16/09 08:22 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Yeah I know! Pretty amazing looking fungi. I'd love to find some in person some day :smile:

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10350388 - 05/16/09 08:28 PM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Yeah. Another one shoots spores out, I forgot what it's called. I'll look it up when I have a moment, it's another one I'd like to find.

Isn't it ironic how my name is mushroomhunter but I haven't posted one single find?? LoL!

Post Extras:

Thor
Anti-Theist OVERLORD

Registered: 08/12/98
Posts: 9,775
Loc: Calgary, Canada

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]

1
#10351367 - 05/17/09 12:52 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

I want to delete this website for the stupidity of you ID and creationists people.

How can you ignore the mountains of evidence.

--------------------

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason
http://www.richarddawkins.net/

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10351510 - 05/17/09 01:32 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Okay that's just one example that I thought of. What about other mimicking species that don't have eyes? I can't think of many ATM, but plants have many mimicking species. I just don't get that.

You're forgetting that individual animals don't evolve. Gene pools evolve. An animal can't look at something and then try to resemble it. That may work with mimicking calls, but for phenotypes it wouldn't work. That would be invoking Lamarkism, which has been shown to be false.

The way a species with no eyes can evolve over time to resemble another species has to do with natural selection. The individual animals are not trying to resemble another species, but those who find themselves looking just a little like another organism tend to survive better than those that do not. That is, if there are favorable selection pressures to look like another species. It just so happens that those who look more and more like another species have higher fitness, and over time there will be a trend, a gradient of individuals that look more and more like the species being mimicked.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Thor]
#10351712 - 05/17/09 03:05 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

At the very least, how can they deny the cogency of the Dawkins hip thrust? I mean really now...

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10351723 - 05/17/09 03:11 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Heya Darwinian (and others)! Just a couple quibbles.

Quote:

You're forgetting that individual animals don't evolve. Gene pools evolve. An animal can't look at something and then try to resemble it

Except cuttlefish and other cephalopods. They're pretty great at that.

Your intended point is absolutely correct, though. People often try to think about evolution as animals or populations *trying* to evolve some way. It's even discussed like that *metaphorically* by scientists on occasion. However, evolutionary theory isn't telic. Populations have inherent variation. In the case of straightforward mimicry, the idea is that some of those variations produce phenotypes (appearances) that are similar enough to the mimic-ee that a selective pressure directly for that mimicry kicks in.

This sounds a bit complicated and qualified. That's because it is: selective pressures can and do change over time, the end result of fantastic mimicry doesn't need to have started out with that selective pressure. In the end, however, the mechanism isn't telic, it's the result of differential survival and environmental conditions.

The rest of your explanation is just fine!

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10351740 - 05/17/09 03:22 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Aaaaaaaand... a short intro for why I'm here.

I'm visiting from the dawkins forums. I heard there were too many creationists/creationism sympathizers here :laugh:

D.

The topics are intelligent design, evolution, and the 'Expelled!' movie, yes? I'll do a short summary of each.

Intelligent Design is a creationist movement begun in the 1980s. This is documented and quite obvious, you can literally see the transition from creationist texts and creationist rhetoric into barely-changed Intelligent Design rhetoric. The only difference? Remove the mention of God and remove the apologetics for things like the Flood, keep the poor reasoning and attacks on evolution. This is a general summary, so I won't get into all the specifics, but if you doubt this, look up "cdesignproponentists".

Evolution has a couple different definitions. The important one is that of evolutionary theory: the scientific explanation for how living populations change over time and have changed over time. This includes mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift and encompasses evidence ranging from molecular analysis to fossils.

'Expelled!' is a sensationalist "documentary", with Ben Stein as host, which focuses on a claim of unfairness in biology when it comes to Intelligent Design. This claim is false, as ID has gotten more than its fair share of consideration and has failed to provide evidentiary support, generate specific hypotheses and predictions, or generate any primary research. Some may quibble about that last bit: look up the papers ID claims are 'intelligent design' papers. You'll find that the vast majority barely mention it or are reviews of others' research. The most primary research that you get is a little bit of discussion by mathematicians speaking outside of their fields. Funny, that.

Oh, and Hitler. Bein Stein loves him the fallacious Hitler associations.

Edited by Shirakawasuna (05/17/09 03:24 AM)

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Thor]
#10352386 - 05/17/09 08:14 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Thor said:
I want to delete this website for the stupidity of you ID and creationists people.

How can you ignore the mountains of evidence.

Evidence supports both sides...

Remember, Darwinism begins with the first cell. Everything previous to that is still up for debate and discussion.

Post Extras:

SpaceMadness
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 9
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10352434 - 05/17/09 08:25 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

ID has no evidence going for it. All it has is criticism on actual science, usually in the form of some wild numbers on how improbable it all is and that everything we don't understand is evidence for god.

Feel free to correct me with your evidence for ID.

--------------------
"Cripes, those guys are being illogical! To the Rationality Mobile!"

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10352451 - 05/17/09 08:29 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
Aaaaaaaand... a short intro for why I'm here.

I'm visiting from the dawkins forums. I heard there were too many creationists/creationism sympathizers here D.

The topics are intelligent design, evolution, and the 'Expelled!' movie, yes? I'll do a short summary of each.

Intelligent Design is a creationist movement begun in the 1980s. This is documented and quite obvious, you can literally see the transition from creationist texts and creationist rhetoric into barely-changed Intelligent Design rhetoric. The only difference? Remove the mention of God and remove the apologetics for things like the Flood, keep the poor reasoning and attacks on evolution. This is a general summary, so I won't get into all the specifics, but if you doubt this, look up "cdesignproponentists".

Evolution has a couple different definitions. The important one is that of evolutionary theory: the scientific explanation for how living populations change over time and have changed over time. This includes mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift and encompasses evidence ranging from molecular analysis to fossils.

'Expelled!' is a sensationalist "documentary", with Ben Stein as host, which focuses on a claim of unfairness in biology when it comes to Intelligent Design. This claim is false, as ID has gotten more than its fair share of consideration and has failed to provide evidentiary support, generate specific hypotheses and predictions, or generate any primary research. Some may quibble about that last bit: look up the papers ID claims are 'intelligent design' papers. You'll find that the vast majority barely mention it or are reviews of others' research. The most primary research that you get is a little bit of discussion by mathematicians speaking outside of their fields. Funny, that.

Oh, and Hitler. Bein Stein loves him the fallacious Hitler associations.

Like I stated in the previous post. Darwinism explains only how species change, not how life began.
Nobody knows how life began and it's why this issue is still being debated. There are hypotheses that support both sides of the argument.

Darwinism has zero evidence of how life began as well, and Darwinists seem to be forgetting this very simple statement.

As far as you calling us "creationist sympathizers" it shows that you're immediately throwing stones because you don't have a real argument as to how life began. Trying to prove ID is a science too.

It's not Creationism, or Darwinism. It's science and philosophy. There are many questions that remain unanswered, and dismissing intelligent causation is completely foolhardy unless it's proven that it's not true. Which hasn't happened, and probably never will.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: SpaceMadness]
#10352478 - 05/17/09 08:35 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

SpaceMadness said:
ID has no evidence going for it. All it has is criticism on actual science, usually in the form of some wild numbers on how improbable it all is and that everything we don't understand is evidence for god.

Feel free to correct me with your evidence for ID.

Darwinism has no evidence of how life began either. Only hypotheses. So why throw out other hypotheses simply because they might imply intelligent causation?? Only a fool wouldn't accept this as a possibility. Just because it doesn't involve natural selection it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Edited by mushroomhunter10 (05/17/09 08:36 AM)

Post Extras:

SpaceMadness
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 9
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10352531 - 05/17/09 08:51 AM (3 years, 12 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

SpaceMadness said:
ID has no evidence going for it. All it has is criticism on actual science, usually in the form of some wild numbers on how improbable it all is and that everything we don't understand is evidence for god.

Feel free to correct me with your evidence for ID.

Darwinism has no evidence of how life began either. Only hypotheses. So why throw out other hypotheses simply because they might imply intelligent causation?? Only a fool wouldn't accept this as a possibility. Just because it doesn't involve natural selection it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

I assume you mean the theory of evolution as it exists today(darwins theory was the beginning, it has since changed significantly). It has no evidence of how life began. Obviously it doesn't, it's the theory of evolution and not the theory of Abiogenesis. Also, a theory is the "why and how" of observed reality. Intelligent design fails in this regard because it relies on unobservable things outside of our reality that can never be proven or disproven, only asserted.

There may be an intelligent designer of sorts, but until it can be proven scientifically to be true it is folly to assert it as a likely possibility.

--------------------
"Cripes, those guys are being illogical! To the Rationality Mobile!"

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: SpaceMadness]
#10352561 - 05/17/09 09:03 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

See if it has no evidence of how it began then I don't understand why other hypotheses aren't taught in science, philosophy, and history. :shrug:

ID doesn't make people religious, faith and belief in a deity does.

I can see that you and the other guy were sent over from the Dawkins forum to "set us straight". HeHe

Tell them all we said whazzzaaaa.

We aren't sympathizers in a sense, just curious human beings that would love to know how we came into existence. Disposing of hypotheses that can be possible would not be good science/philosophy IMHO. Unless they are absolutely proven wrong of course. :smile:

Thanks for your reply, and I welcome you both to The Shroomery!

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10352570 - 05/17/09 09:06 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said: Disposing of hypotheses that can be possible would not be good science/philosophy IMHO. Unless they are absolutely proven wrong of course.

That's an illogical criteria to possess. I can claim the hypothesis that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists; it's certainly possible but I doubt you would want to also include this in a science/philosophy class. You can't disprove it, but you can certainly spend your time in better ways than teaching the youth a myriad number of different improbable theories.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10352579 - 05/17/09 09:08 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

I mean plausible ones... lol

I guess I should have clarified!! :grin:

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10352588 - 05/17/09 09:10 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

IMO it is implausible that we were designed. :tongue:

At any rate don't you agree that we should focus on finding naturalistic explanations before appealing to a deus ex machina?

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

SpaceMadness
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 9
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10352598 - 05/17/09 09:13 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

There is evidence for abiogenesis.

There is even more evidence for evolution, it cannot be denied by any rational informed human being, which is why creationism has hijacked it under the guise of ID proclaiming "these genetic mutations are too unlikely, god must have directed it this way!"

For that reason it has nothing of substance to add to the sciences, its not testable, quantifiable, makes no predictions and cannot be falsified. Basically.. it's not science and doesn't belong in science classes.

--------------------
"Cripes, those guys are being illogical! To the Rationality Mobile!"

Post Extras:

Patisotagami
Organism

Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 686
Loc: Everywhere

Last seen: 22 days, 10 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Darwinian]
#10352696 - 05/17/09 09:41 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Darwinian said:
Quote:

Okay that's just one example that I thought of. What about other mimicking species that don't have eyes? I can't think of many ATM, but plants have many mimicking species. I just don't get that.

You're forgetting that individual animals don't evolve. Gene pools evolve. An animal can't look at something and then try to resemble it. That may work with mimicking calls, but for phenotypes it wouldn't work. That would be invoking Lamarkism, which has been shown to be false.

The way a species with no eyes can evolve over time to resemble another species has to do with natural selection. The individual animals are not trying to resemble another species, but those who find themselves looking just a little like another organism tend to survive better than those that do not. That is, if there are favorable selection pressures to look like another species. It just so happens that those who look more and more like another species have higher fitness, and over time there will be a trend, a gradient of individuals that look more and more like the species being mimicked.

Absolutely correct, Darwinian.

And here begins smmu's LESSON ON EVOLUTION:

Evolution IS:

A change in allele frequency in a population over time.
Some alleles become more common relative to other alleles in the population.

A population is: A group of organisms in the same species that breed with each other.

In Natural selection, nature decides which individuals reproduce most.
Therefore, if an individual in a species of fungus gets a mutation in its DNA sequence, and that mutation gives it an advantage to survive and produce more offspring, that mutation will now be passed along more frequently to its offspring. Over BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years, encompassing MILLIONS and MILLIONS of organisms, these mutations allow species to inhabit their environment in a symbiosis that has evolved.

As to the beginning of it all, nobody knows. However, that is why we were given psilocybe mushrooms.

THE END.

--------------------
EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: SpaceMadness]
#10352741 - 05/17/09 09:53 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

There is even more evidence for evolution, it cannot be denied by any rational informed human being

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10353369 - 05/17/09 12:19 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

It's strange one would recruit people from the Dawkins forum over this, as I can see it only two people seem to buy into Intelligent Design.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Sventington]
#10353426 - 05/17/09 12:33 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Never been to the Dawkins forum.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10353445 - 05/17/09 12:38 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to look like an accusation! I should have quoted the poster who indicated they came from the Dawkins forum.

Edited by Sventington (05/17/09 12:39 PM)

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353494 - 05/17/09 12:51 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

[quote="mushroomhunter10"]Like I stated in the previous post. Darwinism explains only how species change, not how life began.
Nobody knows how life began and it's why this issue is still being debated. There are hypotheses that support both sides of the argument.

Darwinism, used appropriately, is a reference to Darwin's postulates or something just natural selection. It is not a term you can just substitute for evolutionary theory - that's something done by dishonest and/or ignorant creationists.

Evolutionary theory explains how life changes, not how life began. In that thinking, you're right! However, Intelligent Design is a very specific movement that focuses on how life changes. It fails to provide a scientific explanation and mostly focuses on fallaciously attacking evolutionary theory. Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity are about saying what evolution can't do. Both are not specific enough to generate testable hypotheses, OR when they do, as with the bacterial flagellum, their reasoning is thoroughly proven to be faulty.

The basic point: intelligent design is not an alternative to abiogenesis, it is a reference to a particular antievolution movement. If you want to talk about some designer that started life originally, there are many different terms you could use which wouldn't confuse the issue, like 'a designer that began life' or something.

Quote:

Darwinism has zero evidence of how life began as well, and Darwinists seem to be forgetting this very simple statement.

"Darwinism" has almost nothing to do with abiogenesis. I have to wonder why you'd expect an explanation for how life changes to have evidence for how it began. Abiogenesis itself doesn't have a ton of forensic evidence, although it does have a philosophical superiority to the 'poof, designed' side (see the Ultimate Boeing 747).

Quote:

As far as you calling us "creationist sympathizers" it shows that you're immediately throwing stones because you don't have a real argument as to how life began. Trying to prove ID is a science too.

Dude, you don't even seem to know what intelligent design is yet you go around attacking "Darwinism", by which I'm sure you mean evolutionary theory. In my book, that counts as (at least) a sympathizer. You aren't going to be able to prove ID is a science unless you can find some direct, testable hypotheses. Go ahead and try :wink:

Quote:

It's not Creationism, or Darwinism. It's science and philosophy. There are many questions that remain unanswered, and dismissing intelligent causation is completely foolhardy unless it's proven that it's not true. Which hasn't happened, and probably never will.

That's an argument from ignorance, friend, and it's a recognized fallacy. It is, in fact, the cornerstone of intelligent design as well and one of the reasons it isn't scientific. Arguments from ignorance rarely give testable hypotheses.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Sventington]
#10353498 - 05/17/09 12:51 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

I had to clarify so a certain someone would not add it to his long list of falsehoods.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10353525 - 05/17/09 12:57 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Like I stated in the previous post. Darwinism explains only how species change, not how life began.

This is a standard Creationist tactic. It's as if they all went to the same school of poor debate.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10353532 - 05/17/09 01:00 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Many many Darwinist believers DO try to explain the beginning of life with that theory though.

How is an argument from truth considered to be ignorance?? I mean, if nobody knows how life began, then how is ID born of ignorance?

Tell me, what the testable parts of Darwinian Theory? I'm curious to know.

Has anybody ever observed one species turn into another species? I'm guessing bacterium would be the fastest method to see a change into another species. I suppose insects could be too, but nowhere near as fast as bacteria.

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353607 - 05/17/09 01:16 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Mushroomhunter, what is your understanding of evolution? Maybe if that's known then things can be cleared up.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Sventington]
#10353625 - 05/17/09 01:19 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Can't you just give him a full four-year college course in two paragraphs? :confused:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353667 - 05/17/09 01:26 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Trying to prove ID is a science too.

No, that is not science. Science gathers facts and derives conclusions FROM the facts. What ID is doing is starting with a conclusion and trying to find facts to support it. That's not science in any way.

Also, Darwinian evolution doesn't start with the first cell. It starts with the first self-replicating molecule.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353718 - 05/17/09 01:36 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Many many Darwinist believers DO try to explain the beginning of life with that theory though.

Darwinist believers? You mean, people who follow the scientific method and place a lot of weight on scientific evidence?

Quote:

How is an argument from truth considered to be ignorance?? I mean, if nobody knows how life began, then how is ID born of ignorance?

Because ID claims to know how life began --- An intelligent designer did it!

Quote:

Tell me, what the testable parts of Darwinian Theory? I'm curious to know.

1) Diseases will become resistant to widely used antibiotics.
Check.

2) All terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
Check, according to the vast body of evidence.

3) Fossils should appear in strata in the order of their evolutionary complexity.
True. There has not been a single homo sapien fossil found before a homo erectus fossil, nor has there been a dinosaur fossil found above a man fossil, nor has there been a trilobite found alongside an Australopithecus fossil, etc.

4) Species which share evolutionary ancestors should, by virtue of separation, share more DNA with one another than with ancestors further removed.
Check. This is actually highly testable with endogenous retroviruses and mitochondrial DNA.

5) We should observe speciation, even in small degree.
Check, which I will show in my next reply to the next quote.

There are many more testable claims that evolution makes, but if that doesnt satisfy you, let me throw out some peer reviewed sources that have tested evolution by natural selection:

K. Kichler Holder and J. J. Bull. "Profiles of Adaptation in Two Similar Viruses". Genetics 2001 159: 1393–1404.

Schemske, D.W. & Bradshaw, H.D., Jr. (1999) Pollinator preference and the evolution of floral traits in monkeyflowers (Mimulus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96(21): 11910-11915.

Evolutionary genomics: Codon bias and selection on single genomes Matthew W. Hahn, Jason G. Mezey, David J. Begun, John H. Gillespie, Andrew D. Kern, Charles H. Langley & Leonie C. Moyle1Nature 433, E5-E6 (20 January 2005).

Of course, there are hundreds more all relating to various tests of evolutionary theory, ranging from fossil evidence to my favorite, endogenous retroviruses. If you want a good reading on ERVs and how strong an evidence they are for evolution, I'd recommend the following:

Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Retroviruses and primate evolution." BioEssays 22: 161-171

ERVs are amazing. Let me do a VERY quick explanation as to how they work... they insert their genes, and using DNA reverse transcriptase, part of the ERV genetic code ends up in the hosts DNA. When that host has an offspring, every offspring beyond that host will have the same exact code in the same exact spot. It is completely random where the genetic code inserts, and there are up to a million insertion locations. Human beings and chimps share around 1000 of these ERV codes at the same exact locations. Human beings and and gorillas share 3 less, 5 less with gibbons, 8 less with old world monkeys... corresponding exactly to fossil evidence and order of emergence. There are a ton of peer reviewed studies on this.

I can give you about 20 more testable predictions too.

Has anybody ever observed one species turn into another species? I'm guessing bacterium would be the fastest method to see a change into another species. I suppose insects could be too, but nowhere near as fast as bacteria.

Observed speciation, straight from talk origins:

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases

So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.
6.0 References

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Darwinian]
#10353723 - 05/17/09 01:37 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

let them come. We will have more people for our mushroom cult. Then we can turn the dawkins forum into a mass of raving hippie lunatics :thumbup:

Quote:

Darwinian said:
Quote:

Trying to prove ID is a science too.

No, that is not science. Science gathers facts and derives conclusions FROM the facts. What ID is doing is starting with a conclusion and trying to find facts to support it. That's not science in any way.

Also, Darwinian evolution doesn't start with the first cell. It starts with the first self-replicating molecule.

Ehh, science can start with a desired result and work towards that, nothing wrong with that.

I don't think its a science because I've seen no testable hypothesis.

Additionally, the definition of intelligent design (what it actually holds as a hypothesis) is vague and seems to change convieniantly to avoid actually nailing it down enough to determine if any data could ever be gathered to prove or disprove it.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]

1
#10353734 - 05/17/09 01:39 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

I would also say this is a huge one:

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.

Multicellularity evolved. Very important for debunking the idea that all we are seeing is microevolution. This is full on speciation, as are all of the other examples above.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10353741 - 05/17/09 01:40 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Can't you just give him a full four-year college course in two paragraphs?

No dice.

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353746 - 05/17/09 01:41 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Tell me, what the testable parts of Darwinian Theory? I'm curious to know.

Every part of evolution is testable. Change in allele frequency, dispersion of organisms, isolation, bottlenecks, allopatric/sympatric speciation, succession of types in fossil record, genetic clocks, comparative anatomy, vestigial structures.

Literally every part of evolutionary theory is testable. That's why it's science. Why don't you show me an area of evolutionary theory that is not testable?

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Darwinian]
#10353749 - 05/17/09 01:41 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Darwinian said:
Quote:

Trying to prove ID is a science too.

No, that is not science. Science gathers facts and derives conclusions FROM the facts. What ID is doing is starting with a conclusion and trying to find facts to support it. That's not science in any way.

Also, Darwinian evolution doesn't start with the first cell. It starts with the first self-replicating molecule.

What kind of molecule self-replicates without DNA or RNA, or is the DNA/RNA the molecule you refer to? Are there self-replicating molecules that exist in the lab or nature (besides cells)?

My understanding of evolution is that we're all (supposedly) descendants from a single ancestor.

Nobody answered my other question either. Has anybody ever observed an organism become another VIABLE species? In a lab or nature? I'm not instigating, I'm asking because I'm not by any means well-versed in Darwinian theory. This movie, however, sparked my interest.

Also, what about this Explanatory Filter that Mr. Mushrooms refers to several times? It seems like a great tool IMHO.

For those of you that don't believe in God, do you believe in an afterlife or consciousness after death?

BTW, I think it's pretty noble of you guys to register here just to defend Darwinism!

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10353759 - 05/17/09 01:43 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
let them come. We will have more people for our mushroom cult. Then we can turn the dawkins forum into a mass of raving hippie lunatics

Quote:

Darwinian said:
Quote:

Trying to prove ID is a science too.

No, that is not science. Science gathers facts and derives conclusions FROM the facts. What ID is doing is starting with a conclusion and trying to find facts to support it. That's not science in any way.

Also, Darwinian evolution doesn't start with the first cell. It starts with the first self-replicating molecule.

Ehh, science can start with a desired result and work towards that, nothing wrong with that.

I don't think its a science because I've seen no testable hypothesis.

Additionally, the definition of intelligent design (what it actually holds as a hypothesis) is vague and seems to change convieniantly to avoid actually nailing it down enough to determine if any data could ever be gathered to prove or disprove it.

*nods*

I fully accept intelligent design as a metaphysical philosophy, but to call it a science, and especially testable, would be very faulty in my opinion. I have my own ideas as to how this universe came into being and how the process started, but I acknowledge that they are my own views and not science in any sense of the word. What I see though among many people who adhere to intelligent design is the continual assertion that somewhere in all of this, we are mandated to include the idea of a god or intelligent creator... so in our science, we should have a nonscientific, non testable, metaphysical entity and we should teach that as fact... I just cant agree with such an idea.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353771 - 05/17/09 01:45 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Okay, I think you answered that question of speciation.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10353791 - 05/17/09 01:49 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

I suppose I should comment on this, too.

[quote="mushroomhunter10"]Darwinism has no evidence of how life began either. Only hypotheses. So why throw out other hypotheses simply because they might imply intelligent causation?? Only a fool wouldn't accept this as a possibility. Just because it doesn't involve natural selection it doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Darwinism doesn't have hypotheses on how life began. Neither does evolutionary theory. The only reason you'd think it does is if you're thoroughly confused about abiogenesis and evolution *or* you've bought into ID/creationist dishonesty.

Quote:

See if it has no evidence of how it began then I don't understand why other hypotheses aren't taught in science, philosophy, and history.

What? Did you willfully ignore the fact that neither Darwinism nor evolutionary theory are *supposed* to explain the origin of life? Do you go around laughing at computer science because it doesn't explain the origin of semiconductors, then demand that alternative 'explanations' of their origin be taught in "science, philosophy, and history"?

Furthermore, there should be science in the science classroom. Abiogenesis is very much a science, even though it's not as well supported as others. ID, creationism, theism, etc, are NOT because they don't generate specific, testable hypotheses. Teaching 'both sides' in a philosophy class seems about right, if by teaching you mean raising both as possibilities. But history? What? The historical method precludes saying all that much about anything archaeology can't investigate and that includes the origin of life, abiogenesis, theistic, or via magical space fairies.

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353808 - 05/17/09 01:52 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

What kind of molecule self-replicates without DNA or RNA, or is the DNA/RNA the molecule you refer to? Are there self-replicating molecules that exist in the lab or nature (besides cells)?

Crystal molecules replicate themselves based on their structure. Also, cells are not molecules. DNA and RNA are not cells, they're molecules, and they replicate in nature and in the lab.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10353831 - 05/17/09 01:57 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote from mushroomhunter10:

Quote:

We aren't sympathizers in a sense, just curious human beings that would love to know how we came into existence. Disposing of hypotheses that can be possible would not be good science/philosophy IMHO.

Luckily, it isn't up to your opinion. Disproving every other possibility is not how science works, it isn't even how philosophy works. If you want to appreciate random guesses with no predictive value, have at it. Just don't expect them to be given scientific worth.

Oh, wait, you said plausible. Well then, establish the plausibility of the 'design origin'. Remember that since this is so vague that it won't even generate a specific hypothesis, we can also say that the designers are unlikely to solve the problem of complexity: they would surely need to be more complex than the basic parts of life. If you get into the supernatural, you would then need to establish the plausibility of how the nonphysical interacts with the physical. Good luck on that. Oh, and science doesn't even work by excluding what they layman considers plausible explanations, as those "explanations" are usually too vague. The vagueness precludes them being inherently plausible, think about it.

Apparently I suck at your quotation system, too :P

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10353877 - 05/17/09 02:05 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Quote:

Darwinian said:
Quote:

Trying to prove ID is a science too.

No, that is not science. Science gathers facts and derives conclusions FROM the facts. What ID is doing is starting with a conclusion and trying to find facts to support it. That's not science in any way.

Also, Darwinian evolution doesn't start with the first cell. It starts with the first self-replicating molecule.

What kind of molecule self-replicates without DNA or RNA, or is the DNA/RNA the molecule you refer to? Are there self-replicating molecules that exist in the lab or nature (besides cells)?

My understanding of evolution is that we're all (supposedly) descendants from a single ancestor.

Nobody answered my other question either. Has anybody ever observed an organism become another VIABLE species? In a lab or nature? I'm not instigating, I'm asking because I'm not by any means well-versed in Darwinian theory. This movie, however, sparked my interest.

Also, what about this Explanatory Filter that Mr. Mushrooms refers to several times? It seems like a great tool IMHO.

For those of you that don't believe in God, do you believe in an afterlife or consciousness after death?

BTW, I think it's pretty noble of you guys to register here just to defend Darwinism!

Molecules can self replicate without DNA or RNA. Actually, simple sugars can self replicate, and there are theories that the replication is even going on as we speak on comets in space!

What is more important though is to focus on the concept of self-organization, rather than self replication. Self replication comes as a natural result from self organization, but self organization is much more handy when we are discussing abiogenesis.

There are several orders of self organization and likewise, replication:

First order processes are simple. They are crystalization and magnetization, which draws elements, molecules, etc to one another in a structured form.

Then there are second order processes, which are slightly more complex, needing chemicals to be in the right spot at the right time to happen. Here are self replicating and organizing systems you may want to research:

1) Molecular self assembly
The self assembly of lipids to form a membrane are a part of this.
It is simple folding built off of the sum of chemical forces.

2) Oscillating reactions/Reaction diffusion
Chemicals can organize in a homogeneous manner that, once reaching a certain point or preturbation, will develop spirals, spots, and attractor points of complexity. This can happen in mineral evolution as well as the evolution of simple sugar systems and proteins.

3) Autocatalytic reactions
Amino adenosine and pentafluorophenyl ester are one of hundreds of examples of this... basically chemicals that catalyze the creation of themselves. Amino adenosine in pentafluorophenyl ester with the autocatalyst amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE) will constantly catalyze more AATE until all of the amino adenosine and PFE is gone. It will turn all of those chemicals into the catalyst. There are lots of other chemicals that do this.

4) Micelle
This is the term used for bilayer formation in a sea of similar molecules. Most of the time, it has to do with hydrophobic head/hydrophilic tail interactions.

5) Proteins
Proteins, when folded, will incite other proteins to fold in a similar manner. This is the way prions work.

Quote:

Nobody answered my other question either. Has anybody ever observed an organism become another VIABLE species? In a lab or nature? I'm not instigating, I'm asking because I'm not by any means well-versed in Darwinian theory. This movie, however, sparked my interest.

You can look above your post, I realize you probably missed my speciation post, for some great examples. :smile:

Quote:

For those of you that don't believe in God, do you believe in an afterlife or consciousness after death?

My metaphysical views are a little notraditional... namely, I believe we are all part of "god" which is the sum of the forces of the universe, and we all are constantly creating god as we evolve and organize. This is not really relevant to the science of evolution, merely my own philosophy. I've posted often here in this forum about my views, which I describe as pandeist, Buddhist, and Taoist in nature. I do not believe that the greater self ever dies, and there is no afterlife like heaven or hell... rather, its all about identification and determining who you are. If you are nothing but your small mind, your individual body, yes, you will die and fail to think evermore. If you identify with the greater mind, the social organism, the collective consciousness, and act in all ways in accordance with furthering the collective good of humanity as a whole, then that greater mind will live far beyond your small self and small mind. I see myself as American before I am myself, Human before I am American, and a child of the universe before I am human.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10353891 - 05/17/09 02:09 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Crystal molecules eh? So, that guy that stated molecules piggybacked on the backs of crystals is seriously taken into consideration? To be honest, that's way more laughable than ID.

There has got to be some test to prove ID, there just has to be.

One example:
Wouldn't scientists that create self-replicating molecules in the laboratory from scratch be considered to be designing things intelligently?? Wouldn't that be a testable form of ID in itself? :shrug:

I understand that evolutionary theory doesn't explain the beginnings of life, but a lot of prominent Darwinists seem to think it does (at least it's how it seems)!

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10353936 - 05/17/09 02:22 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

mushroomhunter10:

Quote:

Many many Darwinist believers DO try to explain the beginning of life with that theory though.

Name a single one and evidence it.

Quote:

How is an argument from truth considered to be ignorance?? I mean, if nobody knows how life began, then how is ID born of ignorance?

An argument from truth? What? Your argument relies on the assumption that without disproof, your position remains fairly strong. Quoting you: "There are many questions that remain unanswered, and dismissing intelligent causation is completely foolhardy unless it's proven that it's not true." In this statement you make it clear that any dismissal is wrong, i.e. you should still consider the explanation worthy, without disproof. This gives far too much consideration to explanations cut from whole cloth and relies only on what we *don't* know, i.e. ignorance.

Quote:

Tell me, what the testable parts of Darwinian Theory? I'm curious to know.

I've already told you the difference between Darwinism and evolutionary theory. I won't be answering questions about whatever you think "Darwinian theory" is until you can make a specific reference to an actual scientific idea rather than vague, ID-instructed nonsense.

Darwinism had many testable hypotheses including the nature of heredity, resource limitations vs. fecundity, environmental impacts on phenotype frequency, etc. The Molecular Revolution overwhelmingly supported natural selection. Keep in mind that natural selection/Darwinism are *not* the sole actors in evolutionary theory and that Darwin never claimed they were. Evolutionary theory is even better-supported as it encompasses not just natural selection but common descent, neutral theories of evolution, exaptation, and other ideas, all of them evidenced. To pick one of them, the fossil recorded generates a nested hierarchy, a phylogeny, as does molecular evidence. And it's the same one!

Quote:

Has anybody ever observed one species turn into another species?

Yes, speciation has been observed in and out of the laboratory. If you try to claim that 'the fly is still a fly', then you have no idea what speciation is and are asking the wrong question.

Quote:

I'm guessing bacterium would be the fastest method to see a change into another species. I suppose insects could be too, but nowhere near as fast as bacteria.

Life is far cooler than you imagine :wink:

. Big, fat, slow plants can speciate very quickly because they can have sex with themselves. Occasionally, a plant will speciate via polyploidy: it will just happen to have an extra chromosome, one of the semi-redundant copies most of us Eukaryotes possess. That chromosome prevents successful interbreeding between the polyploid plant and its relatives and as it can 'have sex' with itself and propogate, speciation has just been witnessed. Again, if you think this isn't one species becoming another, you don't know what that actually means.

Quote:

What kind of molecule self-replicates without DNA or RNA, or is the DNA/RNA the molecule you refer to? Are there self-replicating molecules that exist in the lab or nature (besides cells)?

Yes. Crystals and certain proteins can propagate themselves. I don't know much about other self-replicating molecules, so don't consider my list exhaustive. Note that recently, two of the four bases of RNA were generated from simple precursors in a lab, so it's not like RNA is a hugely unlikely material in general. Scientists studying abiogenesis create all kinds of the molecules of life from *simple* precursors all the time (throw a bunch of stuff in a vat, apply UV radiation/energy, like would exist on earth, and wait). Acting like the basic subunits of these macromolecules are unlikely relies entirely on ignorance and very, very poor probability calculations.

Quote:

My understanding of evolution is that we're all (supposedly) descendants from a single ancestor.

Lateral gene transfer is ubiquitous in prokaryotes and is both evidenced and quite reasonable to have happened extensively at the 'base' of the tree of life. As such, we have a number of single ancestors who swapped genes and particles when you go back far enough. The new term is the 'web of life'.

Quote:

Also, what about this Explanatory Filter that Mr. Mushrooms refers to several times? It seems like a great tool IMHO.

I believe he's referring to the claims by ID advocates, mostly Bill Dembski, that he can identify things which are designed vs. those which aren't designed. He's astoundingly vague and obfuscatory on the topic and has never generated a specific hypothesis let alone tested it. His only 'weapons' are pseudomath, the misrepresentation of information theory, and (of course) fallaciously attacking evolution. If you want to learn more about the unsavory character, google has all the info you'll need :wink:

Quote:

For those of you that don't believe in God, do you believe in an afterlife or consciousness after death?

I'm an atheist and personally, I do not believe in any kind of an afterlife. Since atheism only implies the lack of belief in a god or gods, there's some atheists who do believe in an afterlife.

Quote:

BTW, I think it's pretty noble of you guys to register here just to defend Darwinism!

Why do you insist on using the incorrect, creationist term for evolutionary theory? Their usage is highly dishonest.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10353981 - 05/17/09 02:32 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

mushroomhunter10:

Quote:

Crystal molecules eh? So, that guy that stated molecules piggybacked on the backs of crystals is seriously taken into consideration? To be honest, that's way more laughable than ID.

Why is a testable and evidenced method of catalysis more laughable than pulling an answer out of your rectum and fallaciously attacking an idea in the hopes that it'll make your faecal matter more palatable? I'm not talking about you, of course, but ID, just to be clear :laugh:

. I think you're a bit confused about how one goes about showing plausibility. I have a tough time understanding why people find fantastical inventions easier to believe than ideas based on operational, scientific evidence.

Quote:

There has got to be some test to prove ID, there just has to be.

Whenever practicing scientists actually try to test it, ID fails miserably. It's been tested by mathematicians/computer science people like Jeffrey Shallit and Mark Chu-Carroll, both of whom run very accessible blogs. It's been tested by experts in bacterial flagella. It *failed*. And just like all other hallmarks of pseudoscience, the ID advocates rationalized the results, never once providing their actual, clear, testable hypothesis as an alternative.

Quote:

Wouldn't scientists that create self-replicating molecules in the laboratory from scratch be considered to be designing things intelligently?? Wouldn't that be a testable form of ID in itself?

No. As I keep saying, ID is a very specific creationist movement that began in the 1980s. The only things which come close to hypotheses are irreducible complexity and specified, complex information. The first is an argument from ignorance and has been disproven. The second is vague pseudomath which has never generated a testable hypothesis and in fact misuses terms from information theory. Neither of these ideas would be supported by scientists creating life.

Quote:

I understand that evolutionary theory doesn't explain the beginnings of life, but a lot of prominent Darwinists seem to think it does (at least it's how it seems)!

Name a single one. And don't tell me you've confused any kind of selection process with 'evolutionary theory'.

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10354003 - 05/17/09 02:37 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Crystal molecules eh? So, that guy that stated molecules piggybacked on the backs of crystals is seriously taken into consideration? To be honest, that's way more laughable than ID.

There has got to be some test to prove ID, there just has to be.

One example:
Wouldn't scientists that create self-replicating molecules in the laboratory from scratch be considered to be designing things intelligently?? Wouldn't that be a testable form of ID in itself?

I have never heard of this molecule/crystal "piggybacking" of which you speak. I had merely pointed out that other molecules replicate, and am in no way suggesting that replicating crystals were the precursors to life.

You're stretching the meaning of ID too far. ID clearly postulates a supernatural designer. A scientist creating a replicating molecule in a lab wouldn't be an intelligent designer in that sense, because the scientist exists in the physical world. He can be explained without resorting to the supernatural. I'd say your just playing a word game now.

Also, there is no way to prove a supernatural cause. There is no experiment that you can set up that will tell you yes, there is indeed a supernatural entity. People try to equate something that is unexplained with supernatural causes. They don't realize that things that are unexplained are just that, unexplained. There is a great fallacy to say that if something is unexplained, it's supernatural. In a sense what your saying is that "this is unexplained, therefore, we can explain it." It's the same as thinking a UFO is an alien spaceship. It's saying that "this flying object is unidentified, so it can be identified (as an alien)." Unidentified flying objects are just that, unidentified flying objects! Not evidence for aliens.

Lastly, as an atheist I believe that when you die you go to the same void since before you were born. Where was your consciousness before you were born? It's just lights out. Nothing.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10354022 - 05/17/09 02:41 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Since I always have to be a pedantic jerk, micelles are unilayer. Liposomes are the bilayer correlary.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10354065 - 05/17/09 02:49 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
Since I always have to be a pedantic jerk, micelles are unilayer. Liposomes are the bilayer correlary.

Thanks for the correction! :laugh:

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10354076 - 05/17/09 02:51 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

One example:
Wouldn't scientists that create self-replicating molecules in the laboratory from scratch be considered to be designing things intelligently?? Wouldn't that be a testable form of ID in itself? :shrug:

Not quite. The experiments are done in conditions that are believed to have been present in the early universe. In the case of the RNA nucleotides that were formed, the experiment was done in a prebiotic soup of chemicals that we have evidence existed in the early oceans, and the catalyst that got the whole thing going was a huge burst of energy that simulated a lightning bolt.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10354120 - 05/17/09 02:58 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Crystal molecules eh? So, that guy that stated molecules piggybacked on the backs of crystals is seriously taken into consideration? To be honest, that's way more laughable than ID.

There has got to be some test to prove ID, there just has to be.

One example:
Wouldn't scientists that create self-replicating molecules in the laboratory from scratch be considered to be designing things intelligently?? Wouldn't that be a testable form of ID in itself?

I understand that evolutionary theory doesn't explain the beginnings of life, but a lot of prominent Darwinists seem to think it does (at least it's how it seems)!

There are underlying factors in evolution by the way that are also applicable to non-biological systems. Natural selection works in physics, sociology, psychology, computation... there are tons of applications for it. Perhaps when you say that darwinists think that the theory of evolution explains the origin of life, maybe you are misunderstanding their actual view of the origin of life... namely, the application of natural selection to promote the chemical reactions that can more strongly sustain themselves while the ones that are less able to utilize the elements readily available fail to sustain. Autocatalysis is likely the process abiogenesis started with, and there are hundreds, if not thousands of known autocatalytic reactions. We are coming closer and closer to an understanding of autocatalysis and formation of autocatalytic products, like with the new test where RNA nucleotides were produced in the same conditions the early world is thought to have experienced.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10354288 - 05/17/09 03:31 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

You know, I only see one vaguely ID-sympathetic dude. I heard there were lots of you people who think ID is reasonable! *disappointed*

Post Extras:

SpaceMadness
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 9
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10354410 - 05/17/09 03:50 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

I think many ID laymen who have just heard the propaganda are overwhelmed by the staggering intricacy of evolution theory and are ill prepared to attack it. That's not to say I'm an expert on evolution or anything but i have been around the creo/ID apologetics block enough to detect the fallacies by diving into the subject a bit.

I also realize that the gross % of the population that support evolution have no idea or a fallacious idea of what evolution is and wouldn't be able to defend it either. Thankfully this is not a popularity contest.

--------------------
"Cripes, those guys are being illogical! To the Rationality Mobile!"

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10354415 - 05/17/09 03:52 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
You know, I only see one vaguely ID-sympathetic dude. I heard there were lots of you people who think ID is reasonable! *disappointed*

Mr Mushrooms is out collecting mushrooms, I assume.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10354705 - 05/17/09 04:56 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
You know, I only see one vaguely ID-sympathetic dude. I heard there were lots of you people who think ID is reasonable! *disappointed*

Ehh, I actually beleive in it sorta- I believe god created the world, kind of an einsteinian (or the popular perception of his) god whose exact nature isn't relevant.

I just don't have the misconception that you can ever get ANY evidence for supernatural events- by definition.

Its just impossible and is certainly not science.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10355532 - 05/17/09 07:51 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
You know, I only see one vaguely ID-sympathetic dude. I heard there were lots of you people who think ID is reasonable! *disappointed*

Ehh, I actually beleive in it sorta- I believe god created the world, kind of an einsteinian (or the popular perception of his) god whose exact nature isn't relevant.

I just don't have the misconception that you can ever get ANY evidence for supernatural events- by definition.

Its just impossible and is certainly not science.

I agree johnm24

If religion was kids' tales then it's hard to believe that it has attained such a following.

I totally agree that evolution happens.

On the other end of the spectrum there is evidence that points to an afterlife. NDE's, apparitions and other supernatural events.

I guess we'll never know, but I think it should still be presented somewhere in the curriculum. Design, and non-design.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10355585 - 05/17/09 08:00 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

I have another question though.

For instance:
Cataclysmic life-ending events that took place.

What is the percentage of species estimated to be destroyed by each event? Isn't it like 95% per event?

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10355648 - 05/17/09 08:11 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

See we have some newcomers here. Evidently someone called for backup.

:rofl2:

--------------------

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]

1
#10355755 - 05/17/09 08:39 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
See we have some newcomers here. Evidently someone called for backup.

Well, when ignorance is running amok, someone's got to do something about it.

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10355762 - 05/17/09 08:41 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I have another question though.

For instance:
Cataclysmic life-ending events that took place.

What is the percentage of species estimated to be destroyed by each event? Isn't it like 95% per event?

Some percentages were estimated in the high 90s. Others not so much. Why do you ask?

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10355765 - 05/17/09 08:41 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

[quote=johnm214"]Ehh, I actually beleive in it sorta- I believe god created the world, kind of an einsteinian (or the popular perception of his) god whose exact nature isn't relevant.

Not to be a pedantic jerk again, but Einstein's God was even 'weaker' than a God of deism, a bit ethereal and often equivalent with the universe itself. He appealed to spinoza and all that. I don't think Einstein would've said his god created the world in a telic way.

But we're gettin' a little off-topic. Einstein's God is clearly different from ID and we agree on that! And you're exactly right on methodological naturalism and the nature of the supernatural in science. The way things are considered and defined precludes the *possibility* of the supernatural being measurable or predictive because if it were either thing, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore.

It's a common misunderstanding, which you obviously don't share, that confuses the heck out of people. They think that science just scoffs as the existence of a god of any kind and would pretend it didn't exist no matter what. Rather, they merely have pragmatic and rigorous methods for learning more about the world and coming up with verifiable explanations and God, as an explanation, sucks at adding anything to that.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Darwinian]
#10355772 - 05/17/09 08:43 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

When was the last event?

Wasn't it like less than a hundred-thousand years ago?

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10355797 - 05/17/09 08:49 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Gah, I suck at quotes. I'll stop trying :wink:

.

To mushroomhunter10:

Quote:

I agree johnm24

If religion was kids' tales then it's hard to believe that it has attained such a following.

They're not kids' tales! They're kids' tales for adults with all the complexities, sexuality, violence, pipedreams, and most importantly *rationalization* you'd expect.

I suppose I should try not to derail the thread w/ comments on religion, though. Keep in mind that my comments on science derive from a familiarity with the evidence, actual scientists (I'm just a student, btw), and the reasoning behind it. Everything else I say has a different substantiation (hopefully!).

Quote:

I totally agree that evolution happens.

On the other end of the spectrum there is evidence that points to an afterlife. NDE's, apparitions and other supernatural events.

I've never understood the NDE argument. I mean, the people never died, they're still alive. They may have been *clinically* dead, but their cells were living throughout, their brains (a massive organization of cells) going through various processes. And they see things, but they tend not to be St. Peter or any special information that would give them corroboration, which you'd kinda expect to happen every so often. There's also some cool studies where doctors placed an LED counter facing upwards above the patient. As many NDEs involve the person reportedly looking down at themselves, if they were actually hovering above in some kind of incorporeal form, they'd see the LEDs. Not a person w/ an NDE did, even though many had that 'above the body' experience.

I suck at this whole 'not derailing thing'.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10355818 - 05/17/09 08:54 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Mushroomhunter10 said:

Quote:

I guess we'll never know, but I think it should still be presented somewhere in the curriculum. Design, and non-design.

I'd say, at best, this topic should be in a philosophy classroom. It would be great if the (de)merits of ID could be discussed in the biology classroom so that the students could make an informed decision. Sadly, they simply do not have enough time to do so and maintain our current curriculum. I would say two more years of biology would be necessary, given that each class only does small amounts of information over a long period of time due to students taking 6-8 subjects at a time. This is not because ID is advanced but because refuting their nonsense can often take a strong knowledge of how natural selection works, how mutations work, how populations evolve, common fallacies and why they're fallacious, and of course how predictions and hypotheses in science work. Most students get out of high school knowing almost nothing about any of those things. It's sad :/.

So I'd say put it in philosophy. It's clearly unscientific due to its vagaries, rationalization, and a complete lack of specific hypothesis and prediction. If we have to discuss demonstrably irrational ideas at all, philosophy's a good place. At least they could go over fallacies and have a discussion.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10355846 - 05/17/09 09:00 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Perhaps the LED's are dismissed and you HAVE to experience seeing your body there. Believe it or not, there are things that science will never explain or debunk. The physical things might not be able to block your view or something. :shrug:

You never know.

You're wrong about the people not being dead though, several people were dead for hours and had to be in order for a surgery to be performed (don't ask how), but they were DED DEAD!

One guy in Africa was dead for seven days, witnesses and everything, he came back to life and flipped people out so badly that they ran screaming bloody murder.

To quote somebody you just click "quote" at the top-right of their post, and then once you reply you can add more quotes by clicking another quote link. Try this, click quote once, then click it again, you'll see what I mean. Then just add your comments after all of the text.

Let's not derail this thread though, I've already done it a few times myself!

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10355887 - 05/17/09 09:11 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Mushroomhunter10 said:

Quote:

What is the percentage of species estimated to be destroyed by each event? Isn't it like 95% per event?

It varies, but some are indeed that high. They usually restrict that number to an estimate of the big metazoan species that went extinct based on the disappearance of entire clades from the fossil record following those points in time. I think it's usually measured in terms of genera, however, and those are more like in the 50% range at the highest.

And no, it wasn't merely thousands of years ago. The last extinction event that was anywhere near that huge was the one that wiped out the dinos about 65 million years ago. There have been many smaller extinction events since, though.

Quote:

Perhaps the LED's are dismissed and you HAVE to experience seeing your body there. Believe it or not, there are things that science will never explain or debunk. The physical things might not be able to block your view or something.

The entire reason they were investigating is that the people reported seeing other doctors there, other people, objects, etc, with a significant level of detail. People like yourself were claiming this as evidence for there actually being spirits floating above them! As such, it's not reasonable to say they couldn't see other physical things, since they were testing precisely whether they *could* do that in the first place from a noncorporeal self. In other words, no, they can't, and they don't. Most likely, the reconstruct the room and people in it with their minds, just like we can do in dreams to astounding detail. Otherwise, they would see the LEDs.

Quote:

You're wrong about the people not being dead though, several people were dead for hours and had to be in order for a surgery to be performed (don't ask how), but they were DED DEAD!

Their cells were still functioning, they did not degrade, there was not massive irreparable damage done (hopefully). They were clinically dead, not 'omg they died and came back to life like zombies'. That would actually be more interesting, although I don't know how well it would support the idea of an afterlife. What would be pretty great evidence would be if people communicated after they were dead and gave very specific information that no one else would have known. This is was ESP quacks claim happens and can often do, quite honestly convinced in their own powers, although when controls are introduced they fail without exception. If they did have that power, I'd believe in something like an afterlife.

Quote:

One guy in Africa was dead for seven days, witnesses and everything, he came back to life and flipped people out so badly that they ran screaming bloody murder.

Oh lol, there is a zombie example. I bet he wasn't actually dead. There are many comatose or near-comatose states that have been confused for death and probably were confused for death at certain times. In fact, for a while people were so afraid of only appearing to be dead and being buried that special devices were rigged to their graves so they could ring a bell or buzzer if they "came back to life". Luckily, this can be diagnosed much more easily now. I don't know what your source in Africa is, but I bet his heart was still beating over those days, even if it stopped before and is even true at all.

I'll see if I can be non-retarded with quotes in the future.

Mr. Mushrooms, don't you have a comment? Do you disagree with my statements concerning ID and evolutionary theory? I'm really not interested in wading through 14 pages to comment on old stuff you may not even want to support.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10355888 - 05/17/09 09:11 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Yeah I know, it sounds weird, but hey wtf.

One thing you can't disprove (and doctors and scientists tried) is the stigmata wounds on Father Padre Pio.

Science can't explain it all, because science is only the beginning of wisdom.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10355914 - 05/17/09 09:17 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

So the last life-ending event was 65 million years ago with certainty?

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10356188 - 05/17/09 10:23 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

ALERT: OFF TOPIC POST COMING

Supernovasky and John, would you say you identify with pantheism or one of its derivatives?

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10356206 - 05/17/09 10:28 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

That is the last time such huge numbers of genera are known to have gone extinct. We'll always be discovering more fossils, but I'd say we have a decent picture of the major ones.

Quote:

Yeah I know, it sounds weird, but hey wtf.

One thing you can't disprove (and doctors and scientists tried) is the stigmata wounds on Father Padre Pio.

Science can't explain it all, because science is only the beginning of wisdom.

A dude gets stigmata and church people say, "The soul being inflamed with the love of God which is interiorly attacked by a Seraph, who pierces it through with a fiery dart. This leaves the soul wounded, which causes it to suffer from the overflowing of divine love." (from wikipedia).

Or, you know, the guy's a liar/insane and the wounds are self-inflicted. It's not like people hurting themselves is a radical new idea. If we assume this quite reasonable explanation is false, there's always the possibility that the poor guy was diseased in various ways and only noticed the injuries that were stigmata-ish. The case is rather poorly-documented from what I can tell. As such, an onus on disproving it isn't really there. The church must establish the authenticity of the wounds and rule out other possibilities.

Don't you find it funny that this stuff doesn't occur miraculously in front of crowds of people? It's always when the people are drowsy or sickly, feeling funny.

I suppose someone with a penchant for attacking the person would say that I'm just rationalizing :wink:

. Rather, I'm being a skeptic and noticing both the poor evidence for anything miraculous and the fantastical explanations built into the situation which not only are pretty hilarious but could very well instigate this type of stuff.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10356212 - 05/17/09 10:29 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

So uh, since everyone's talking about random stuff, I can assume that you all agree that ID is unscientific, usually fallacious nonsense, that evolutionary theory is well-established science with mountains of evidence, and that Ben Stein's movie is sensationalistic BS, dishonest to its core?

WOOOOO

Post Extras:

Darwinian
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 10
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10356236 - 05/17/09 10:37 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
So uh, since everyone's talking about random stuff, I can assume that you all agree that ID is unscientific, usually fallacious nonsense, that evolutionary theory is well-established science with mountains of evidence, and that Ben Stein's movie is sensationalistic BS, dishonest to its core?

WOOOOO

Yup, good job. It's amazing what large doses of science and reason can do.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10356247 - 05/17/09 10:41 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
So uh, since everyone's talking about random stuff, I can assume that you all agree that ID is unscientific, usually fallacious nonsense, that evolutionary theory is well-established science with mountains of evidence, and that Ben Stein's movie is sensationalistic BS, dishonest to its core?

WOOOOO

Agreed.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10356293 - 05/17/09 10:55 PM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
So uh, since everyone's talking about random stuff, I can assume that you all agree that ID is unscientific, usually fallacious nonsense, that evolutionary theory is well-established science with mountains of evidence, and that Ben Stein's movie is sensationalistic BS, dishonest to its core?

WOOOOO

I'll agree that intelligent design isn't scientific, and evolutionary is well-established science with mountains of evidence.

Haven't seen much of the Ben Stein movie, so can't comment.

My random question was more or less asked out of astonishment. I thought both parties I addressed were atheists and earlier posts seem to indicate I'm wrong.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]

1
#10356708 - 05/18/09 01:07 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
See we have some newcomers here. Evidently someone called for backup.

Well, don't look at me. I like to imagine that Richard Dawkins himself can just tell when people are dismissing evolution somewhere in the world, with a lack-of-God-given sense that only he and a few other core atheists possess.

I also heard he can smell misguided faith from several kilometres away.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Edited by zouden (05/18/09 01:44 AM)

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10356740 - 05/18/09 01:26 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10356788 - 05/18/09 01:45 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

I might have called for back-up if at least one cogent argument for ID had been presented, but alas...

BTW, gotta love them S-rays. :yesnod:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

yoje
Stranger

Registered: 05/18/09
Posts: 1
Last seen: 3 years, 10 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10356800 - 05/18/09 01:48 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Thor asked for help :P

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=82254

So stop your shenanigans, or he'll row a bout of fisticuffs in your general direction!

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: yoje]
#10356812 - 05/18/09 01:52 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Weird. Thanks for the link though.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Sventington]
#10356887 - 05/18/09 02:20 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Now we know. :thumbup:

Unsurprisingly, a certain unnamed poster pointed towards me as the 'culprit', but seeing as how he loves to accuse others over more serious stuff and yet gets everything wrong, you'd think he might actually learn to quell his negative projections and stop pointing fingers, but noooOOOOoooo!

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10357483 - 05/18/09 07:06 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Blah Blah Blah

ID is still plausible.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10357494 - 05/18/09 07:08 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Sure. But not likely. If we knew that God existed, though, it'd be a different story, but without God it makes sense to go with a naturalistic explanation.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Sventington]
#10357599 - 05/18/09 07:40 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Sventington said:
ALERT: OFF TOPIC POST COMING

Supernovasky and John, would you say you identify with pantheism or one of its derivatives?

From what I understand of it, yeah I would kinda identify with it.

Its not that I neccesarily believe nature and god are equivalent, its that I think a) there is a god; b) god created life or conciousness; c) from our perspective there is no known difference between god and the universe but that doens't mean that their is none, and whether there is a comprehendable distinction (in heaven or whatever, since no evidence is found in this world) between god and the universe kinda is irrelevant.

Basically I believe in god and his creation, but I don't have any reason to beleive in a particular type of god except an omnipotent all powerful being that I'll assume is logical and gave us minds and bodies and doesn't mind if we use them both (cuz if he's illogical and thinks sex is a sin or has weird requirements for salvation, if such exists, he's not worth trying to please anyways as he's illogical and hasn't told us what he wants us to do anyways).

In the end I think the question of god is kind of unimportant. If he cared he'd communicate his will. Both believing in god and believing god doesn't exist are beliefs that can never have logical support or scientific evidence, so we might as well just believe what we want- just so long as we clearly understand that we can never prove his existance or nature or even gather any evidence on these things nor that tend to disprove him. I just :foreheadslap:

when I see folks claim that believing god doesn't exist is logical or that their god belief is better- its all just made up stuff to make sense of the world, lets not get high and mighty about it.

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10357615 - 05/18/09 07:45 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Blah Blah Blah

ID is still plausible.

So what?

The question is whether its a decent thing to convince people to believe in or whether we have any evidence to support it.

Why don't you go over to the CTMU thread and answer my questions about the explanatory filter- defend its plausibility.

People have said we can tell the liklihood of something being designed by calculating the odds that something would have arisen by chance alone and yet have not shown how this can be done. Their is no method put forth to do such, and this appears to be the foundation of ID-as-science movements.

How can we get evidence of ID? How can the "explanatory filter" heuristic or assumption ever be used in practice? Without these questions I don't see how ID could ever be worth teaching to anyone outside of philosophy or sociology.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10357725 - 05/18/09 08:37 AM (3 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Sventington said:
ALERT: OFF TOPIC POST COMING

Supernovasky and John, would you say you identify with pantheism or one of its derivatives?

From what I understand of it, yeah I would kinda identify with it.

Its not that I neccesarily believe nature and god are equivalent, its that I think a) there is a god; b) god created life or conciousness; c) from our perspective there is no known difference between god and the universe but that doens't mean that their is none, and whether there is a comprehendable distinction (in heaven or whatever, since no evidence is found in this world) between god and the universe kinda is irrelevant.

Basically I believe in god and his creation, but I don't have any reason to beleive in a particular type of god except an omnipotent all powerful being that I'll assume is logical and gave us minds and bodies and doesn't mind if we use them both (cuz if he's illogical and thinks sex is a sin or has weird requirements for salvation, if such exists, he's not worth trying to please anyways as he's illogical and hasn't told us what he wants us to do anyways).

In the end I think the question of god is kind of unimportant. If he cared he'd communicate his will. Both believing in god and believing god doesn't exist are beliefs that can never have logical support or scientific evidence, so we might as well just believe what we want- just so long as we clearly understand that we can never prove his existance or nature or even gather any evidence on these things nor that tend to disprove him. I just when I see folks claim that believing god doesn't exist is logical or that their god belief is better- its all just made up stuff to make sense of the world, lets not get high and mighty about it.

I too identify with a derivative of pantheism, namely pandeism. My concept of the utmost holy state of being is that of oneness, singularity, perfection, the potential for everything and yet nothing at the same time, that from which all that we see has sprung forth from. The state of cosmic singularity is all of these things, from which the big bang happened. The universe is the result of that singularity, that perfection, being disturbed in some way or form. It no longer exists, save for the totality of the universe in and of itself. We are what is left of that perfection, and the act of organization and intelligence is fighting natural processes resulting in entropy and breakdown that are working at tearing it apart. In billions of years from now, there will have been so many life forms and so many intelligences to have evolved, who is to say what will be stronger... billions of years of the tearing apart and dying out of the universe, or billions of years of evolution, intelligence, and technology?

But I feel like we are all part of the same sea of influences, actions, ideas, words, causes and effects, and it is that sea of influences that I identify most closely with my idea of God, not some sort of intrinsically intelligent, omnipotent being with a flowing white beard, but rather the collective, blind intelligence of nature (a blind watchmaker of sorts) and collective forces inspired by us, others, and the matter that occupies the physical space we observe. I never really mix this view up right here that I am putting forth with my scientific arguments and thoughts though. I recognize my beliefs as metaphysical and beyond the scope of science.

Durkheim - "God is society, writ large"

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10358755 - 05/18/09 12:55 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Blah Blah Blah

ID is still plausible.

The onus of plausibility falls on the claimant. Go ahead and show it to be plausible.

You do know the difference between possibility and plausibility, right?

Quote:

johnm214 said:

Basically I believe in god and his creation, but I don't have any reason to beleive in a particular type of god except an omnipotent all powerful being that I'll assume is logical and gave us minds and bodies and doesn't mind if we use them both (cuz if he's illogical and thinks sex is a sin or has weird requirements for salvation, if such exists, he's not worth trying to please anyways as he's illogical and hasn't told us what he wants us to do anyways).

You sound just like my uncle! Do you have, perchance, a catholic upbringing? (sorry if you've already told us what your religious upbringing was)

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10358926 - 05/18/09 01:31 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

No. ID is plausible, and possible. Information doesn't just appear, and neither did The Universe. It was ALL made, sure we may be result of ID from the universal perspective. Natural Selection and Evolution could just be a tiny fragment of the overall scheme of things. Things DO NOT come from nothing.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10359083 - 05/18/09 02:02 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Things DO NOT come from nothing.

Then a Mega-God designed our puny God. And a Super-Mega-God designed the Mega-God and...

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10359192 - 05/18/09 02:24 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
No. ID is plausible, and possible. Information doesn't just appear, and neither did The Universe. It was ALL made, sure we may be result of ID from the universal perspective. Natural Selection and Evolution could just be a tiny fragment of the overall scheme of things. Things DO NOT come from nothing.

But now you're confusing ID with the creation of the universe. Evolution says nothing about how the universe formed, so it could just have easily been created by God and evolution comes in later. Fine. But ID specifically argues that evolution did not occur. This is a much more controversial point.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10359251 - 05/18/09 02:33 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
Gah, I suck at quotes. I'll stop trying .

To mushroomhunter10:

Quote:

I agree johnm24

If religion was kids' tales then it's hard to believe that it has attained such a following.

They're not kids' tales! They're kids' tales for adults with all the complexities, sexuality, violence, pipedreams, and most importantly *rationalization* you'd expect.

I suppose I should try not to derail the thread w/ comments on religion, though. Keep in mind that my comments on science derive from a familiarity with the evidence, actual scientists (I'm just a student, btw), and the reasoning behind it. Everything else I say has a different substantiation (hopefully!).

Quote:

I totally agree that evolution happens.

On the other end of the spectrum there is evidence that points to an afterlife. NDE's, apparitions and other supernatural events.

I've never understood the NDE argument. I mean, the people never died, they're still alive. They may have been *clinically* dead, but their cells were living throughout, their brains (a massive organization of cells) going through various processes. And they see things, but they tend not to be St. Peter or any special information that would give them corroboration, which you'd kinda expect to happen every so often. There's also some cool studies where doctors placed an LED counter facing upwards above the patient. As many NDEs involve the person reportedly looking down at themselves, if they were actually hovering above in some kind of incorporeal form, they'd see the LEDs. Not a person w/ an NDE did, even though many had that 'above the body' experience.

I suck at this whole 'not derailing thing'.

Explain how blind people see what's happening in the room when they have NDE's! :smile:

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10359358 - 05/18/09 02:58 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Things DO NOT come from nothing.

Then a Mega-God designed our puny God. And a Super-Mega-God designed the Mega-God and...

Don't forget Ultra-Super-Mega-God!

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10360594 - 05/18/09 06:03 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

And God².

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10361347 - 05/18/09 08:28 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
No. ID is plausible, and possible. Information doesn't just appear, and neither did The Universe.

ID isn't plausible merely because you keep claiming it over and over again. That's a fallacy known as proof by assertion. Like I just told you, literally the only thing I directly said was your job, was that the onus is on you to show it is plausible. That means taking external points and demonstrating the plausibility.

The origin of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with ID. If you're wondering why, you can revisit my clarification on precisely what ID is, when it started, and why.

Saying that 'information doesn't just come from nowhere' is a non-sequitur. It does not demonstrate ID's plausibility in any way and has nothing to do with this topic. The alternative to ID isn't ex nihilo information, assuming you're even interested enough to give a coherent definition of information.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
It was ALL made, sure we may be result of ID from the universal perspective

Information was made, therefore ID is plausible? Another non-sequitur lacking in support even for its tangential point.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said: Natural Selection and Evolution could just be a tiny fragment of the overall scheme of things.

How does this make ID plausible?

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:Things DO NOT come from nothing.

And? Why should anyone conform to your misunderstanding of evolution?

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10361364 - 05/18/09 08:30 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

Explain how blind people see what's happening in the room when they have NDE's!

Demonstrate that blind people see what's happening in the room when they have NDEs. Note that random crap from the internet isn't going to impress anyone but the gullible.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10361730 - 05/18/09 09:49 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

Things DO NOT come from nothing.

Then a Mega-God designed our puny God. And a Super-Mega-God designed the Mega-God and...

This idiotic idea is easily refuted by God being a necessary Being rather than a contingent one. How many times must you be informed before you understand it? Now multiply that by infinity, take that to the depth of forever, and you still will barely have a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

Your ideas are dull; stupidity isn't much of an argument.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10361739 - 05/18/09 09:52 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

You Dawkins members sure are hard-headed.

If information was "made" then of course something intelligent made it... an engineer of sorts.

There are testimonies at many NDE sites about blind people actually seeing during NDE's.

Post Extras:

Mufungo
Coming at ya

Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 2,556
Loc: Knowhere

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10361944 - 05/18/09 10:35 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

There are many testimonials of all manner of things on the web. Do you believe them all?

Sure if an object was "made" then the syntax implies that a subject made the object. But how do you know that "made" is the appropriate word to describe how things got here?

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]

1
#10361974 - 05/18/09 10:43 PM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

This idiotic idea is easily refuted by God being a necessary Being rather than a contingent one.

Word-play doesn't make anything factual and a flat declaration is hardly a refutation - even you know that. I hereby declare the Universe to be necessary rather than contingent. (Even had my statement notarized!) Now there is no room for God.

Quote:

How many times must you be informed before you understand it? Now multiply that by infinity, take that to the depth of forever, and you still will barely have a glimpse of what I'm talking about.

It certainly is true that your arrogant statements do seem to be limitless. No argument here. At least your insults now have a comical, almost poetic quality. :thumbup:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10362380 - 05/19/09 12:35 AM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Word-play doesn't make anything factual and a flat declaration is hardly a refutation - even you know that. I hereby declare the Universe to be necessary rather than contingent. (Even had my statement notarized!) Now there is no room for God.

Beat me to it. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, according to thermodynamics, therefore it would seem to imply that the universe is necessary rather than contingent, because if it were contingent and created, it would violate thermodynamics. I find the universe to be synonymous with god in my own worldview and thus, necessary, not contingent.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10362550 - 05/19/09 01:50 AM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

If information was "made" then of course something intelligent made it... an engineer of sorts.

Saying your conclusion is "obvious" is just repeating it again and pretending you don't need to support it. Again I will refer you to proof by assertion, a fallacy.

If you think we're "hard-headed", it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain why information being "made" requires a designer. Now, I've been assuming that you're using the word "made" in the colloquial sense where it's often a metaphor. If you literally mean it as what designers create, then you haven't demonstrated in any way that information has to be "made".

Do you have a coherent and specific definition of information? You'll be needing that first. Information theorists have done quite a bit of work trying to come up with useful mathematical definitions. Turns out that in all of them, information arises spontaneously from all kinds of natural systems (they're turned into strings first).

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

There are testimonies at many NDE sites about blind people actually seeing during NDE's.

It's still your onus to demonstrate it. Can you name the fallacy of merely repeating an assertion without supporting it?

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

This idiotic idea is easily refuted by God being a necessary Being rather than a contingent one.

Asserting that God is a necessary being does nothing to improve the situation. The 'logic' behind the cosmological argument leads to an infinite recursion no matter what redefining you choose to do after you've jumped to your conclusion.

Let me put it this way: people claim a designer solves the problem of complexity. The counterargument is that designers would surely be very complex in themselves, in fact more complex than the things they're creating, and that designers are also eminently unnecessary as there's already proven natural mechanisms of increasing complexity. Merely asserting that the designer you believe exists is a necessary being is like jumping pieces and yelling "KING ME!" in a chess game. You just lost the point of your argument!

But we can already see that you're suddenly uninterested in ID/evolution, despite repeated refutation and a piss-poor show on your side. Should I assume you'd prefer to whine about the asserted failures of the cosmological argument?

Post Extras:

Chespirito
Stranger

Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,223

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10362622 - 05/19/09 02:23 AM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
I also heard he can smell misguided faith from several kilometres away and convince them to give him money.

These popular scientists are annoying to me. I had a roommate that had all the literature about atheism, a library of it. Do people really need to be convinced of this stuff? He would bring out books and read us passages sermon style, usually Id heckle him drunkenly. Dawkins enjoys the fame, likes the money and is forgettable to me.

Feynman wrote some popular science books but he basically says, 'if you don't believe in what we can test go fuck yourself' My kind of man

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Chespirito]
#10362802 - 05/19/09 04:14 AM (3 years, 10 days ago)

There's a big difference between buying someone's books and just 'giving him money'. It's one thing that separates authors like Dawkins from, say, evangelical Christians and faith healers.

ooh snap

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

orison319
pre op t-squirrel

Registered: 01/19/09
Posts: 2,938
Last seen: 12 days, 15 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10362866 - 05/19/09 04:37 AM (3 years, 10 days ago)

i cant believe I watched the whole thing.. :thumbup:

--------------------

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: orison319]
#10362943 - 05/19/09 05:17 AM (3 years, 10 days ago)

Dawkins said something similar, actually: science is interesting and if you disagree, you can go fuck yourself.

Since Dawkins named his site, foundation, and forums after himself, it's hard not to see a bit of ego there. But in person and in every media appearance I've seen him in, he's anything but strident, arrogant, or quick to call attention to himself.

And I don't even like his ideas on evolution that much :wink:

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10363273 - 05/19/09 07:10 AM (3 years, 10 days ago)

This argument will never end. :smile:

Post Extras:

Mushcatel
Stranger

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 6
Last seen: 2 years, 5 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10363682 - 05/19/09 09:16 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

Sventington said:
ALERT: OFF TOPIC POST COMING

Supernovasky and John, would you say you identify with pantheism or one of its derivatives?

From what I understand of it, yeah I would kinda identify with it.

Its not that I neccesarily believe nature and god are equivalent, its that I think a) there is a god; b) god created life or conciousness; c) from our perspective there is no known difference between god and the universe but that doens't mean that their is none, and whether there is a comprehendable distinction (in heaven or whatever, since no evidence is found in this world) between god and the universe kinda is irrelevant.

Basically I believe in god and his creation, but I don't have any reason to beleive in a particular type of god except an omnipotent all powerful being that I'll assume is logical and gave us minds and bodies and doesn't mind if we use them both (cuz if he's illogical and thinks sex is a sin or has weird requirements for salvation, if such exists, he's not worth trying to please anyways as he's illogical and hasn't told us what he wants us to do anyways).

In the end I think the question of god is kind of unimportant. If he cared he'd communicate his will. Both believing in god and believing god doesn't exist are beliefs that can never have logical support or scientific evidence, so we might as well just believe what we want- just so long as we clearly understand that we can never prove his existance or nature or even gather any evidence on these things nor that tend to disprove him. I just when I see folks claim that believing god doesn't exist is logical or that their god belief is better- its all just made up stuff to make sense of the world, lets not get high and mighty about it.

I too identify with a derivative of pantheism, namely pandeism. My concept of the utmost holy state of being is that of oneness, singularity, perfection, the potential for everything and yet nothing at the same time, that from which all that we see has sprung forth from. The state of cosmic singularity is all of these things, from which the big bang happened. The universe is the result of that singularity, that perfection, being disturbed in some way or form. It no longer exists, save for the totality of the universe in and of itself. We are what is left of that perfection, and the act of organization and intelligence is fighting natural processes resulting in entropy and breakdown that are working at tearing it apart. In billions of years from now, there will have been so many life forms and so many intelligences to have evolved, who is to say what will be stronger... billions of years of the tearing apart and dying out of the universe, or billions of years of evolution, intelligence, and technology?

But I feel like we are all part of the same sea of influences, actions, ideas, words, causes and effects, and it is that sea of influences that I identify most closely with my idea of God, not some sort of intrinsically intelligent, omnipotent being with a flowing white beard, but rather the collective, blind intelligence of nature (a blind watchmaker of sorts) and collective forces inspired by us, others, and the matter that occupies the physical space we observe. I never really mix this view up right here that I am putting forth with my scientific arguments and thoughts though. I recognize my beliefs as metaphysical and beyond the scope of science.

Durkheim - "God is society, writ large"

I can totally agree with that. I'm sure Ben Stein has nothing on it!

Post Extras:

CMACD
The Sto)))ve

Registered: 02/01/07
Posts: 766
Loc: West Coast yo
Last seen: 4 months, 14 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mushcatel]
#10364661 - 05/19/09 01:45 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Heh, all the I.D. iots can watch this:

--------------------

Edited by CMACD (05/19/09 01:46 PM)

Post Extras:

5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast

Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 3,824
Loc: Ohio

Last seen: 22 hours, 19 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: CMACD]
#10365068 - 05/19/09 03:09 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

CMACD said:
Heh, all the I.D. iots can watch this:

Best thing I've seen all day. It's sad this type of shit even needs to be said to so many sheeople. :suicide:

--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
:awecid:

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: 5HTSynaptrip]
#10366048 - 05/19/09 06:31 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

I don't think anybody here is really questioning evolution, it's the beginnings or even design of evolution that's in question.

So calling proponents of ID "I.D.iots" really makes YOU look like the idiot, because you don't know how it started either.

There isn't any evidence that supports either party's side in respect to the absolute beginning of life. Some think science will explain it, and some believe faith will.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366081 - 05/19/09 06:38 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I don't think anybody here is really questioning evolution, it's the beginnings or even design of evolution that's in question.

So calling proponents of ID "I.D.iots" really makes YOU look like the idiot, because you don't know how it started either.

There isn't any evidence that supports either party's side in respect to the absolute beginning of life. Some think science will explain it, and some believe faith will.

Faith doesnt quite work on evidence, and the science DOES have evidence of abiogenesis. Its more limited in nature than evolution, but to say its evidence-less would be incorrect.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10366219 - 05/19/09 06:55 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Actually faith can be supported by evidence.

Eyewitness accounts of apparitions could be considered evidence. Witnesses give testimony in the courtroom all of the time.

There are also supernatural things which science tried to study, but could not answer. I gave one example earlier of St. Padre Pio. His stigmata wounds were studied for a month in a hospital by doctors and scientists, they could never figure it out. The wounds never clotted, always appeared fresh, and never got infected. Some of you claim that he did those to himself, sure, I thought the same thing, but science actually proved that he did NOT commit masochism.

Believe me, I'm not trying to turn anybody to religion or anything but science hasn't answered some questions and it couldn't even when it tried.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366288 - 05/19/09 07:06 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Actually faith can be supported by evidence.

Eyewitness accounts of apparitions could be considered evidence. Witnesses give testimony in the courtroom all of the time.

There are also supernatural things which science tried to study, but could not answer. I gave one example earlier of St. Padre Pio. His stigmata wounds were studied for a month in a hospital by doctors and scientists, they could never figure it out. The wounds never clotted, always appeared fresh, and never got infected. Some of you claim that he did those to himself, sure, I thought the same thing, but science actually proved that he did NOT commit masochism.

Believe me, I'm not trying to turn anybody to religion or anything but science hasn't answered some questions and it couldn't even when it tried.

Show me a peer reviewed journal examining this claim of St. Padre Pio. You say he was studied. If he was studied scientifically, it should be able to pass a vigorous process of peer review, IMO.

As far as faith being supported by evidence, it then no longer is faith, because then it enters the realm of reason.

From American Heritage Dictionary:

faith (fāth)
n.
1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366296 - 05/19/09 07:07 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Actually faith can be supported by evidence.

Eyewitness accounts of apparitions could be considered evidence. Witnesses give testimony in the courtroom all of the time.

There are also supernatural things which science tried to study, but could not answer. I gave one example earlier of St. Padre Pio. His stigmata wounds were studied for a month in a hospital by doctors and scientists, they could never figure it out. The wounds never clotted, always appeared fresh, and never got infected. Some of you claim that he did those to himself, sure, I thought the same thing, but science actually proved that he did NOT commit masochism.

Believe me, I'm not trying to turn anybody to religion or anything but science hasn't answered some questions and it couldn't even when it tried.

What does this have to do with ID? Science has some evidence towards abiogenesis; there is none available for ID.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10366308 - 05/19/09 07:09 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

What's the evidence for abiogenesis?

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366332 - 05/19/09 07:12 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

I didn't say the evidence, I said some evidence. Remember that link I posted a little back? Here it is again:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html

Me, I'm still waiting for any evidence of an intelligent Designer.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10366428 - 05/19/09 07:24 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Oh that's not evidence... it's still speculative.

#1. I bet money it doesn't self-replicate.

#2. I bet money they don't even come close to making DNA.

I think we just have different presuppositions and that's that. :smile:

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366441 - 05/19/09 07:26 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Oh that's not evidence... it's still speculative.

#1. I bet money it doesn't self-replicate.

#2. I bet money they don't even come close to making DNA.

I think we just have different presuppositions and that's that.

What do you mean? Of course that's evidence; it's not proof of abiogenesis but it certainly helps support the naturalistic explanation.

I'll bet good money that within fifty years we'll be able to simulate primordial soup conditions and create self-replicating DNA.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366443 - 05/19/09 07:26 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

22 Amino acids were produced in the Miller experiment, a simulation of early conditions in earths oceans. These are the building blocks of life. This is evidence that organic matter can come from nonorganic matter. It is not that far a step to say that given a billion years, enough organic matter interacting could sustain a chemical/biological reaction.

Catherine Brahic. "Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth — earth — 16 October 2008 — New Scientist Environment". NewScientist.

Nucleotides can be obtained through prebiotic chemistry in conditions similar to Earth's early atmosphere.

Oró J (1967). Fox SW. ed. Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices. New York Academic Press. pp. 137.

Once it is accepted that aminoacids and the RNA nucleotides can be synthesized in natural conditions (A poster earlier in this thread posted a link to a new discovery this week showing that these nucleotides CAN spontaneously form in natural, prebiotic conditions), then it is quite easy to show how it can turn into a self-replicating RNA molecule:

Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris (2006), "One-step, regioselective synthesis of up to 50 mers of RNA oligomers by montmorillonite catalysis", (J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 128, 8914-8919).

Clay works very good for facilitating this self replecation.

There are several hypotheses and this is actually an example of a VERY young science, but there is definitely at least evidence out there that can be used to justify abiogenesis. Namely, A) biology happened, we're here. B) Nucleotides can be formed in natural conditions. C) Nucleotides can organize into simple, self-replicating RNA.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: deCypher]
#10366563 - 05/19/09 07:45 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:

I'll bet good money that within fifty years we'll be able to simulate primordial soup conditions and create self-replicating DNA.

Argument To The Future

Arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.
The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10366568 - 05/19/09 07:47 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Nobody knows what early conditions were. They're merely guessing.

Regardless of what anybody thinks, these "experiments" were man-made.

Evidence is not, "May have" or "Could have". Those are hypotheses... you guys are beginning to sound like "I.D. iots" :rolleyes:

Post Extras:

curtlow
Stranger

Registered: 05/12/09
Posts: 7
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10366646 - 05/19/09 07:57 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis (the origin of life). It simply explains how lifeforms change over time. Evolution is fact, there are fossil records to prove it. Anyone who denies evolution needs to go back to school.
As far as intelligent design, I don't buy it. You would have to figure out what designed it, then what designed that designer, and so on and so on.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: curtlow]
#10366672 - 05/19/09 08:01 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Did you come over from the Dawkins forums too??

Post Extras:

Chespirito
Stranger

Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,223

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366741 - 05/19/09 08:09 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

I'm not sure why people are still discussing this with you, you attack a nonexistent argument as proof of another things falseness. Are you for real?

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Chespirito]
#10366851 - 05/19/09 08:32 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

I'm a figment of your imagination.

Post Extras:

Deekay

Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 2,923
Loc:

Last seen: 4 days, 1 hour

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10366981 - 05/19/09 09:04 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

i watched the movie and i really tried to read through this entire thread but made it as far as page 12 or so, i'm sure it was just more bickering heh . my personal conclusion is along the lines of that evolution (mutation, survival of the fittest) played an enormous role on planet earth but that intelligent design can reasonably account for some of the early and unaccounted for features that evolution neglects. although evolution does not claim to account for the origins of life, let alone matter, it cannot explain how inorganic matter leaped (or evolved if you care) into a living thing which to me is necessary. for me this does not make evolution neither entirely acceptable or invalid, i don't understand how these two conflicting theories cannot be combined? or am i way ahead of the game HAH!

Just trying to add to the discussion, unless this has been covered!

--------------------
Check out my gallery :sun:

Do YOU have The Band's sheet music books? I am paying cash!

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10367352 - 05/19/09 10:29 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

I don't think anybody here is really questioning evolution, it's the beginnings or even design of evolution that's in question.

If you aren't questioning evolution then you aren't even close to discussing intelligent design. Do I need to remind you of exactly what movement we're talking about?

If you're speaking of a "design of evolution", which I'll assume you mean literally, then that *is* antievolution in that it runs contrary to everything in evolutionary theory and is unevidenced.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

So calling proponents of ID "I.D.iots" really makes YOU look like the idiot, because you don't know how it started either.

I try to avoid the namecalling because it distracts people, as you're demonstrating. I don't think it makes them look stupid, though. Just annoyed.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

There isn't any evidence that supports either party's side in respect to the absolute beginning of life. Some think science will explain it, and some believe faith will.

Uh... considering that you still use the word "Darwinist" and think ID has to do with the origin of life, I don't think you can really say much about what the parties even are, let alone what the evidence for them is. The evidence concerning any origin of life is scant although the only explanation with a legitimate research program (and, of course, testable hypotheses) is abiogenesis. The rest is guessing or worse yet fallacious reasoning.

So should I assume from your near-complete lack of reply to my posts which go over everything you say that you now agree with almost everything I've said? :wink:

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

Actually faith can be supported by evidence.

That's not how faith works, dude. A conclusion can be supported by evidence and also be included in someone's opinion based on faith. Faith doesn't need evidence nor would it use it. That's the point of calling it faith. Otherwise, you'd call it inference.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

Eyewitness accounts of apparitions could be considered evidence. Witnesses give testimony in the courtroom all of the time.

And neither of those things are faith. They're eyewitness accounts. Furthermore, 'eyewitness' here biases the story. If we assume they aren't lying, they're experiences/memories. What I'm saying here is that they could very well have 'witnessed' hallucinations or have false memories (you'll notice that stories of paranormal phenomena will often change over time as an individual tells the story).

Quote:

mushroomhunter10:

There are also supernatural things which science tried to study, but could not answer

By 'supernatural' you must mean something fantastic which appears to contradict all laws of nature because the scientific sense of the supernatural would not be studied or even attempted to study by science, by definition.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10:

I gave one example earlier of St. Padre Pio. His stigmata wounds were studied for a month in a hospital by doctors and scientists, they could never figure it out.

What, are you serious? He was called a liar, fraud, and mentally unstable by many of those physicians and became so controversial that there were mini-mobs outside his church. This is all stuff I learned when you mentioned him and I spent about ten minutes looking it up. Why didn't you do that before citing him as an example!?

Quote:

mushroomhunter10

The wounds never clotted, always appeared fresh, and never got infected. Some of you claim that he did those to himself, sure, I thought the same thing, but science actually proved that he did NOT commit masochism.

You know that doctors aren't equivalent to scientists, right? A few do both, but being one doesn't automatically make you the other. Considering that he was publicly decried as a fraud by some of his doctors, you'd think they had an inkling of what he was doing :wink:

. Acid was one suggestion.

I expect that if science had proven any such thing there would be video evidence involved. Rather, even if we assume your other claims are mostly correct, you would have a group of Vatican doctors declaring they didn't know what was up. That is not 'science proved he wasn't a masochist' and you can see why.

Evidence for abiogenesis: life appears on earth ~3.5-4 billion years ago. We have no sign of life dating earlier. This implies a point when life was not on earth, meaning it must have either started here or commuted here at some point. Operational science has proven that all kinds of biological molecules (not saying every type of biological molecule) can be formed from rather simple conditions, lowering the bar as it were for the unlikelihood of abiogenesis.

If you want evidence which supports how abiogenesis would have actually occurred, that's not what you asked for. I'd say the best evidence for that is the different conditions the earth has been subjected to over its existence, which includes a low-oxygen atmosphere and little/no protection from UV rays around the time when abiogenesis is thought to have occurred. This is evidence taken not from abiogenesis research itself but the peer-reviewed geological sciences.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10

Oh that's not evidence... it's still speculative.

#1. I bet money it doesn't self-replicate.

I bet money that you don't know what evidence is.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10

#2. I bet money they don't even come close to making DNA.

Then you'd be wrong. Recent research just showed how two RNA nucleotides can be formed by a simple pathway with precursors shown to be created in those simple experiments I was speaking of earlier. RNA is DNA with one hydroxyl group added.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/05/13/in-the-prebiotic-kitchen/

I'll note that if you try to take his last sentence as support for your ideas, you're very, very wrong.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10

I think we just have different presuppositions and that's that.

No. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you're unaware of the evidence and wouldn't know it even if you saw it! This is true for our discussions of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, and the evidence against ID. I'm not simply trying to attack you here, but you should understand that this fact indicates it is not merely 'presuppositions', but ignorance that differentiates most of the things we've been dsicussing.

Alternatively, the same type of presupposition that would give one a concrete opinion on life's origins would work just as well for denying/confirming evolution. Presuppositions can *always* work even despite the evidence because they are predisposed. A lot of people merely seek to make them internally consistent. But let's not get into a discussion of presuppositions, you can learn all of this stuff on your own.

As I said earlier, do you have replies to my counterarguments? You seem to have given up a bit in terms of ID. Does this mean you think your claims about it before were wrong?

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10367425 - 05/19/09 10:44 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

Argument To The Future

Arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.
The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate.

OH well then it's a good thing he didn't use it as an argument, isn't it? That [edit: definition] does not indicate that it must be an argument, making it also quite inadequate.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

Evidence is not, "May have" or "Could have". Those are hypotheses... you guys are beginning to sound like "I.D. iots"

Like I said before, you have no idea what evidence is. Please give us the scientific definition in your own words.

Quote:

Deekay said:

i watched the movie and i really tried to read through this entire thread but made it as far as page 12 or so, i'm sure it was just more bickering heh . my personal conclusion is along the lines of that evolution (mutation, survival of the fittest) played an enormous role on planet earth but that intelligent design can reasonably account for some of the early and unaccounted for features that evolution neglects.

If you didn't get fairly annoyed when watching it, you weren't watching it right :wink:

.

Could you name one thing that evolution "neglects" which you find ID has an explanation for? Just so I'm being clear, mentioning the flagellum will not get you anywhere even if that is what you're thinking of as there is an evolutionary explanation: it is a feature with an evolutionary history of its own, 'descended' from earlier biological systems and proteins (we're really talking about genes) and modified via mutations, cooption, and natural selection.

What is the ID explanation? Designer did it? Not too dynamic, is it? Nor does it have any support.

And since we haven't talked before, I"m not attacking you personally with this stuff. I'm just being curt!

Quote:

Deekay said:

although evolution does not claim to account for the origins of life, let alone matter, it cannot explain how inorganic matter leaped (or evolved if you care) into a living thing which to me is necessary.

You just said evolution doesn't claim to account for the origins of life. Why do you think it would then explain an 'inorganic -> organic' transition? Do you know of any inorganic life? Your statement is internally inconsistent if your answer to the last question is 'no'.

And just so we're on the same page, when you say inorganic matter to organic, you are talking about a transition from nonliving to living things. That probably seems redundant to you, but in chemistry organic and inorganic molecules are differentiated based on their chemical composition: organic molecules contain C, H, and often O nucleuses + electrons. The separation between organic molecules and inorganic was disproven long ago, look up the word 'vitalism'. But I don't think you were trying to argue for vitalism anyways.

So if we're saying evolution doesn't provide an explanation for a non-life -> life transition, you're both wrong and right. Evolutionary theory is outside of that explanation as it by definition is working with life. However, many parts of evolutionary theory are used to explain the ways in which abiogenetic systems would have arisen. I'm speaking of self-catalysis and natural selection.

Quote:

Deekay said:

for me this does not make evolution neither entirely acceptable or invalid, i don't understand how these two conflicting theories cannot be combined?

Why can't ID and evolutionary theory be combined? ID is itself an attack on evolutionary theory, coming in the form of an argument from ignorance about what evolution cannot do, another coming in the form of a bunch of obfuscation and pseudomath and a declaration of what evolution cannot do, and then a bunch of typically creationist attacks on evolution itself which you can find in every one of their "textbooks".

Welcome to the discussion! You're like me, skipping a bunch of the stuff that looks boring :wink:

Edited by Shirakawasuna (05/19/09 10:59 PM)

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10367447 - 05/19/09 10:48 PM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Actually faith can be supported by evidence.

Eyewitness accounts of apparitions could be considered evidence. Witnesses give testimony in the courtroom all of the time.

There are also supernatural things which science tried to study, but could not answer. I gave one example earlier of St. Padre Pio. His stigmata wounds were studied for a month in a hospital by doctors and scientists, they could never figure it out. The wounds never clotted, always appeared fresh, and never got infected. Some of you claim that he did those to himself, sure, I thought the same thing, but science actually proved that he did NOT commit masochism.

Believe me, I'm not trying to turn anybody to religion or anything but science hasn't answered some questions and it couldn't even when it tried.

For the love of god, could we stick to to ID?

All these threads seem to go like:

a) ID is totally scientific and logical
b) what is it? What evidence is their for it? How can we test and prove or falsify it?
c) *commence equivocations, conversation forks, and slew of random jibber jabber that shifts the discussion away from the fundamental haziness and the failure of ID to present a testable hypothesis and replaces it with bare assertions and arguments about irrelevant issues only to have a) be repeated somewhere down the line in the next thread or after five pages of c)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I don't think anybody here is really questioning evolution, it's the beginnings or even design of evolution that's in question.

So calling proponents of ID "I.D.iots" really makes YOU look like the idiot, because you don't know how it started either.

There isn't any evidence that supports either party's side in respect to the absolute beginning of life. Some think science will explain it, and some believe faith will.

Lovely. Then why don't you define what ID is and what its holdings are so that we know WTF your talking about rather than having to read pages of silliness? If you'd define what ID is such that we may test it we wouldn't have these problems of "misunderstanding"

How is evolution's begining problematic? its the same then as it was now. Natural selection directing changes in life

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10367717 - 05/20/09 12:09 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Actually faith can be supported by evidence.

Eyewitness accounts of apparitions could be considered evidence. Witnesses give testimony in the courtroom all of the time.

There are also supernatural things which science tried to study, but could not answer. I gave one example earlier of St. Padre Pio. His stigmata wounds were studied for a month in a hospital by doctors and scientists, they could never figure it out. The wounds never clotted, always appeared fresh, and never got infected. Some of you claim that he did those to himself, sure, I thought the same thing, but science actually proved that he did NOT commit masochism.

Believe me, I'm not trying to turn anybody to religion or anything but science hasn't answered some questions and it couldn't even when it tried.

Stigmata aren't evidence for ID though are they? And neither are NDEs. They might be evidence for the Christian God, which can be considered evidence for creationism, but Intelligent Design is "supposed" to be agnostic to the Designer. In other words, ID is supposed to stand on its own merits and be plausible without invoking God.

I say these are separate issues, which just confuse the thread.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

learningtofly
Ancient Aliens

Registered: 05/21/07
Posts: 15,105
Loc: Out of this world
Last seen: 9 months, 19 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10367730 - 05/20/09 12:12 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/19/2009-05-19_missing_link_found_fossil_of_47_millionyearold_primate_sheds_light_on_.html

missing link?

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: learningtofly]
#10367746 - 05/20/09 12:20 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Funny how we keep finding more evidence for evolution. When was the last time there was a major breakthrough in the search for intelligent design?

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10368325 - 05/20/09 05:04 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Stigmata aren't evidence for ID though are they? And neither are NDEs.

Agreed. I'll try to restrain myself. mushroomhunter10, if you want to discuss the merits of Christianity, NDEs, etc, we should start a new thread. This thread is about intelligent design, which as I've said is a very specific outgrowth of creationism, originating in the United States. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with abiogenesis.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10368472 - 05/20/09 06:19 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

Argument To The Future

Arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.
The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate.

OH well then it's a good thing he didn't use it as an argument, isn't it? That [edit: definition] does not indicate that it must be an argument, making it also quite inadequate.

Yes, I'm supposed to debate someone who cannot tell an argument from a statement.

:whatever:

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Deekay]
#10368481 - 05/20/09 06:23 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Deekay said:
i watched the movie and i really tried to read through this entire thread but made it as far as page 12 or so, i'm sure it was just more bickering heh . my personal conclusion is along the lines of that evolution (mutation, survival of the fittest) played an enormous role on planet earth but that intelligent design can reasonably account for some of the early and unaccounted for features that evolution neglects. although evolution does not claim to account for the origins of life, let alone matter, it cannot explain how inorganic matter leaped (or evolved if you care) into a living thing which to me is necessary. for me this does not make evolution neither entirely acceptable or invalid, i don't understand how these two conflicting theories cannot be combined? or am i way ahead of the game HAH!

Just trying to add to the discussion, unless this has been covered!

That's a fair assessment, Deekay. Many ID theorists hold that intelligent design is combined with certain aspects of natural selection. Michael Behe, for example, thinks that man and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor. People that do not submit their minds to the literature would have no way of knowing that.

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10368486 - 05/20/09 06:26 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Where do you draw the line, though?

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10368509 - 05/20/09 06:37 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Where do you draw the line, though?

Well, personally I draw the line at things that are so similar to manmade creations they would, under normal circumstances, automatically lead us to say an object was designed. That's why I am fixated on the flagellum.

I don't have time to post a decent reply right now (overdue to pick morels), but I will come back to this thread and give a more complete explanation.

If you remember long ago I said I agreed with evolution. I just didn't think it explained everything.

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10368529 - 05/20/09 06:47 AM (3 years, 9 days ago)

Well then, would you say that one man's ID is different from another's? Do you believe in a different kind of ID than, say, Dembski, or Dawkins? (this ties in with the CTMU thread).

Just trying to ensure we are talking about the same ideas here :smile:

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10370707 - 05/20/09 03:28 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

Yes, I'm supposed to debate someone who cannot tell an argument from a statement.

What? deCypher expressed a personal opinion about what he expects. It in no way constitutes an argument or an attempt at one, so citing a fallacy in response is inappropriate.

If you disagree, you can do what you seem utterly afraid to do: provide a cogent counterargument.

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom

Many ID theorists hold that intelligent design is combined with certain aspects of natural selection. Michael Behe, for example, thinks that man and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor.

An example of an ID theorist combining ID with natural selection is Michael Behe supporting common descent? I'd ask you a leading question, but it seems all you can handle is vacuous vitriol. (verily!).

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, proposed 150 years ago, for how populations can become so 'fit' to their environments and change over time. While common descent is both part of evolutionary theory and one of Darwin's proposals, it was both not a new proposal nor is it a part of the idea of natural selection. You need to stop going to Dembski for your biological information (lol).

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

People that do not submit their minds to the literature would have no way of knowing that.

Actually, Behe's acceptance of common descent is pretty common knowledge for anyone with slight familiarity with ID. All it takes is reading a newspaper article.

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom

Well, personally I draw the line at things that are so similar to manmade creations they would, under normal circumstances, automatically lead us to say an object was designed. That's why I am fixated on the flagellum.

What similarities of the flagellum to manmade creations lead you to this conclusion? Is it based on that pseudomath you listed earlier? Also, how many outboard motors have you seen which are fueled by a proton gradient? How many use massive whips? How many rely on the emergent properties of gene regulation to come about? How many are part of a living organism with billions and billions of ancestors?

If you're just going off of a vague 'it think it kinda looks designed, yuh', your ignorance is showing.

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom

If you remember long ago I said I agreed with evolution. I just didn't think it explained everything.

It's very, very obvious that you don't understand even the most basic concepts of evolutionary theory (natural selection, anyone?). It's one of the reasons your ideas about ID fails, as so far every single ID 'argument' relies on fallaciously excluding evolution. I'd go on, but I've already explained many of the reasons why and we'll all be waiting on Your Highness to address the damaging questions and counterarguments which await you.

I will wait until you are not too busy to write something coherent. Feel free to leave in the snark, but remember that you'll just look stupid if it's accompanied by hot air.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10370760 - 05/20/09 03:36 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

What similarities of the flagellum to manmade creations lead you to this conclusion? Is it based on that pseudomath you listed earlier? Also, how many outboard motors have you seen which are fueled by a proton gradient? How many use massive whips? How many rely on the emergent properties of gene regulation to come about? How many are part of a living organism with billions and billions of ancestors?

A very good point. The flagellum looks like a man-made motor only superficially. Because it rotates. Other than that it has very little in common with a motor, and much more in common with other things found in nature.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Quarryman
Stranger

Registered: 07/29/07
Posts: 806
Loc: Tennessee

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10371525 - 05/20/09 05:34 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Ok I just watched that movie and it was terrible.

Most of it revolved around freedom, America, Darwinian Nazis, and evil scientists.

The part about scientific authority firing people who talk about ID sounds unfortunate, but is its own topic and if that's what Ben Stein wanted to talk about he shouldn't have bothered visiting concentration camps. The part about Nazis is irrelevant to a scientific discussion, and the movie doesn't even explain what ID is. Its a parade of happy ID scientists, angry Darwinian scientists, clips from some other film about censorship, pictures of American flags, and Ben Stein's terrible choices for 'fight the man' music. Can someone please explain to me what the hell intelligent design is? What would you teach kids in school?

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10371561 - 05/20/09 05:39 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Well then, would you say that one man's ID is different from another's? Do you believe in a different kind of ID than, say, Dembski, or Dawkins? (this ties in with the CTMU thread).

Just trying to ensure we are talking about the same ideas here

Well, to get to what I was saying before I picked these:

That makes 1,776 morels weighing in at 34 lbs. 0.5 oz for the season.

This portion of the script from Unlocking the Mystery of Life by Behe pretty much summarizes my path with ID.

Quote:

For the longest time I believed that Darwinian evolution explains what we saw in biology. Not because I saw how it could actually explain it but because I was told that it did explain it. In schools I was taught Darwinian biology and through college and graduate school I was in an atmosphere which just assumed that Darwinian evolution explained biology. And again, I didn't have any reason to doubt it. It wasn't until oh about 10 years or more ago that I read a book called, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by a geneticist by the name of Michael Denton, an Australian, and he put forward a lot of scientific arguments against Darwinian theory that I have never heard before and the arguments were pretty convincing. [Please notice here the actual genesis of intelligent design by one of its two founders. Denton isn't a Creationist nor is Behe.] At that point I started to get pretty angry because I thought I was being led down the primrose path. Here were a number of very good arguments and I had gone through a doctoral program in biochemistry and became a faculty member and I had never even heard of these things.

From that point on I became very interested in the question of evolution and since have decided that Darwinian processes are not the whole explanation for life.

To answer your question: there are a few factions inside intelligent design. Some are members of the Discovery Institute and others are "outside the camp." There are discussions within the camp where not all members agree, just like any organization. Notice the schism between punk-eekers and Dawkins. Within ID you will find a parallel. Except for the Creationist crowd (notice the large "C") most intelligent design theorists I know believe in common descent (descent with modification) and an old Earth. In fact, there are a few Creationists that despise intelligent design theorists as a group of people that sold out.

Here is the branch of intelligent design I am somewhat affilated with.

http://telicthoughts.com/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/highlights-from-mike-genes-the-design-matrix/

Remember I said a friend of mine was responsible for the hypothesis that the secretory system came after the flagellum? Mike Gene is a personal friend of mine and has been for about a decade. Here's his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Design-Matrix-Consilience-Clues/dp/0978631404

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Quarryman]
#10371578 - 05/20/09 05:41 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Quarryman said:
Can someone please explain to me what the hell intelligent design is?

Oh boy, here comes another one. :rolleyes:

Tell me, do they have Google in your country?

--------------------

Post Extras:

Quarryman
Stranger

Registered: 07/29/07
Posts: 806
Loc: Tennessee

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10371590 - 05/20/09 05:44 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Ok, you say creationism doesn't explain everything. What other hypothesis would you like us to consider? What do you want added to the books?

Post Extras:

Quarryman
Stranger

Registered: 07/29/07
Posts: 806
Loc: Tennessee

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10371613 - 05/20/09 05:49 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Wiki :"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

I already knew this much, but thinking of it in scientific terms, there's nothing there but an unsupported hypothesis.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10371618 - 05/20/09 05:50 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:

The flagellum looks like a man-made motor only superficially. Because it rotates. Other than that it has very little in common with a motor, and much more in common with other things found in nature.

You couldn't be more wrong. The flagellum isn't like a motor, it is a motor.

In fact, peer-reviewed articles in professional biological journals conceded that point long ago.

Quote:

The bacterial flagellar motor harnesses ion flow to drive rotary motion, at speeds reaching 100000 rpm and with apparently tight coupling. The functional properties of the motor are quite well understood, but its molecular mechanism remains unknown. Studies of motor physiology, together with mutational and biochemical studies of the components, place significant constraints on the mechanism. Rotation is probably driven by conformational changes in membrane-protein complexes that form the stator. These conformational changes occur as protons move on and off a critical aspartate residue in the stator protein MotB, and the resulting forces are applied to the rotor protein FliG. The bacterial flagellum is a complex structure built from about two dozen proteins. Its construction requires an apparatus at the base that exports many flagellar components to their sites of installation by way of an axial channel through the structure. The sequence of events in assembly is understood in general terms, but not yet at the molecular level. A fuller understanding of motor rotation and flagellar assembly will require more data on the structures and organization of the constituent proteins.

The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. Int Rev Cytol. 2004;233:93-134.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Quarryman]
#10371645 - 05/20/09 05:54 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Quarryman said:
Wiki :"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

I already knew this much, but thinking of it in scientific terms, there's nothing there but an unsupported hypothesis.

Here's a better one. And by the way, you're WAY late to the argument.

Quote:

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. 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 as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

There's more if you like that:

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

--------------------

Post Extras:

Quarryman
Stranger

Registered: 07/29/07
Posts: 806
Loc: Tennessee

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10371756 - 05/20/09 06:13 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Yeah I know I'm late to an argument that wasn't going anywhere in the first place, but nevertheless I was curious. Comparisons cannot by themselves prove anything. I don't see how the similarity between human inventions and biological structures shows anything more than the forces of nature make certain solutions successful. Like a motor design is good for what it does, so two different problem solving methods "came up" with the same "idea".

Post Extras:

Deekay

Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 2,923
Loc:

Last seen: 4 days, 1 hour

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10373075 - 05/20/09 10:13 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

Deekay said:
i watched the movie and i really tried to read through this entire thread but made it as far as page 12 or so, i'm sure it was just more bickering heh . my personal conclusion is along the lines of that evolution (mutation, survival of the fittest) played an enormous role on planet earth but that intelligent design can reasonably account for some of the early and unaccounted for features that evolution neglects. although evolution does not claim to account for the origins of life, let alone matter, it cannot explain how inorganic matter leaped (or evolved if you care) into a living thing which to me is necessary. for me this does not make evolution neither entirely acceptable or invalid, i don't understand how these two conflicting theories cannot be combined? or am i way ahead of the game HAH!

Just trying to add to the discussion, unless this has been covered!

That's a fair assessment, Deekay. Many ID theorists hold that intelligent design is combined with certain aspects of natural selection. Michael Behe, for example, thinks that man and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor. People that do not submit their minds to the literature would have no way of knowing that.

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
Quote:

Deekay said:

i watched the movie and i really tried to read through this entire thread but made it as far as page 12 or so, i'm sure it was just more bickering heh . my personal conclusion is along the lines of that evolution (mutation, survival of the fittest) played an enormous role on planet earth but that intelligent design can reasonably account for some of the early and unaccounted for features that evolution neglects.

If you didn't get fairly annoyed when watching it, you weren't watching it right .

Could you name one thing that evolution "neglects" which you find ID has an explanation for? Just so I'm being clear, mentioning the flagellum will not get you anywhere even if that is what you're thinking of as there is an evolutionary explanation: it is a feature with an evolutionary history of its own, 'descended' from earlier biological systems and proteins (we're really talking about genes) and modified via mutations, cooption, and natural selection.

What is the ID explanation? Designer did it? Not too dynamic, is it? Nor does it have any support.

And since we haven't talked before, I"m not attacking you personally with this stuff. I'm just being curt!

Quote:

Deekay said:

although evolution does not claim to account for the origins of life, let alone matter, it cannot explain how inorganic matter leaped (or evolved if you care) into a living thing which to me is necessary.

You just said evolution doesn't claim to account for the origins of life. Why do you think it would then explain an 'inorganic -> organic' transition? Do you know of any inorganic life? Your statement is internally inconsistent if your answer to the last question is 'no'.

And just so we're on the same page, when you say inorganic matter to organic, you are talking about a transition from nonliving to living things. That probably seems redundant to you, but in chemistry organic and inorganic molecules are differentiated based on their chemical composition: organic molecules contain C, H, and often O nucleuses + electrons. The separation between organic molecules and inorganic was disproven long ago, look up the word 'vitalism'. But I don't think you were trying to argue for vitalism anyways.

So if we're saying evolution doesn't provide an explanation for a non-life -> life transition, you're both wrong and right. Evolutionary theory is outside of that explanation as it by definition is working with life. However, many parts of evolutionary theory are used to explain the ways in which abiogenetic systems would have arisen. I'm speaking of self-catalysis and natural selection.

Quote:

Deekay said:

for me this does not make evolution neither entirely acceptable or invalid, i don't understand how these two conflicting theories cannot be combined?

Why can't ID and evolutionary theory be combined? ID is itself an attack on evolutionary theory, coming in the form of an argument from ignorance about what evolution cannot do, another coming in the form of a bunch of obfuscation and pseudomath and a declaration of what evolution cannot do, and then a bunch of typically creationist attacks on evolution itself which you can find in every one of their "textbooks".

Welcome to the discussion! You're like me, skipping a bunch of the stuff that looks boring .

I do not believe the idea or theory of ID should not be explored because it is not dynamic, no matter what else it may be lacking. Also, my idea of unaccounted features of evolution is centered largely around the transition to inorganic matter to 'living matter', and while I am amazed and intrigued at the sophistication of living organisms I cannot begin to justify the flagellum let alone any other example.

As my major gripe with evolution is said transition from non living to living, can evolution duplicate the ways that this transition would have occurred? My impression is that "the ways in which abiogenetic systems would have arisen" are just as theoretical as ID. I still disagree, at least from my personal perspective, that ID is a direct attack on evolution. Evolution accounts for living things and their mutation and survival from the first living cell, wouldn't making unproven claims about what evolution can or has done be just as deceitful? Thanks for taking the time to respond to me, I know many others have asked similar questions but I'm just trying to get a handle on things.

--------------------
Check out my gallery :sun:

Do YOU have The Band's sheet music books? I am paying cash!

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Quarryman]
#10373400 - 05/20/09 11:11 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Hello Quarryman!

Quote:

The part about scientific authority firing people who talk about ID sounds unfortunate, but is its own topic and if that's what Ben Stein wanted to talk about he shouldn't have bothered visiting concentration camps. The part about Nazis is irrelevant to a scientific discussion, and the movie doesn't even explain what ID is. Its a parade of happy ID scientists, angry Darwinian scientists, clips from some other film about censorship, pictures of American flags, and Ben Stein's terrible choices for 'fight the man' music. Can someone please explain to me what the hell intelligent design is? What would you teach kids in school?

The Nazi stuff was thrown in fairly late in the game, from what I scrapped together. You can tell partially since it's so amateurish but mostly because it's so inconsistent with the other message of the "documentary": ID advocates are getting treated unfairly! Pity them! Know that they are right, Ben Stein has shown you the way!

Intelligent Design is a movement which began in the 1980s after creationism was soundly thrown out of schools by the Supreme Court. You can see a clear transition of textbooks, writings, rhetoric, etc, from creationist to intelligent design. This is best exemplified in the "cdesign proponentists" quote made famous in the Dover, PA case but you can also figure it out pretty easily just by looking at their rhetoric. A short intro: ID has three main tacks: Behe's irreducible complexity, Dembski's various pseudomathematical claims, and plain old attacks on evolution. The latter is obviously borrowed from antievolution creationism, the claims are exactly the same.

Irreducible complexity is the claim that some biological structures would lose function if one of their parts was removed so therefore the gradual forces of evolution could not be responsible for their existence. They then say that design is. This is also an attack on evolutionary theory and requires significant ignorance of one of its original and quite well-supported ideas: natural selection. It's also an argument from ignorance: no proposition by ID will ever become stronger by excluding evolution, even if they weren't so incompetent at doing so.

Dembski has many claims, but they all deal with information, complexity, "specificity", etc. He uses terms inconsistently, as you'll find if you read through his books, but his basic claim is that he has a way to identify which things are designed and which are not. The simplified version is specified, complex information, which he says indicates apparent design: he appeals, vaguely and in different ways, to complexity as something with a 'low probability of occurrence'. Hopefully you can see how vague this is and if you're familiar with information theory, either a reference to a lack of compressibility or simply meaningless. He then goes into specificity, often claimed as 'patterns' but, in my opinion, largely an appeal to intuition concerning order. He uses books and such as examples. His ideas are largely muddled and you can see by the performances of acolytes that even they don't understand *how* their numbers conform to the definitions mathematically in order to model a real situation. After doing all of that, he excludes evolution by doing some rather stupid probability calculations and attacking a straw man version of it. A hallmark of creationism. That bit might seem niggling, but you can read Dembski's "textbooks" to see just how bad he is at evolution. Well, either that or he's dishonest :wink:

.

Mr. Mushroom appeals to a definition claiming it to be scientific. This is false. Intelligent design makes no testable predictions, it doesn't even have coherent hypotheses most of the time. When actual, practicing scientists attempt to find a testable hypothesis in it, ID fails the test. Behe's ideas are simply an appeal to fallacious thinking. Dembski's are obfuscated in the language, used both appropriately and inappropriately, of mathematics and information theory, but they do not check out. You can find far too many critiques of his ideas, given that the people who work on legitimate project tend to ignore the cranks. Even if we pretend most of his ideas are coherent and applicable, they do not provide any kind of predictions, they are merely a claim of how to classify objects, not learn new information. And he even fails at that >_<.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Deekay]
#10373464 - 05/20/09 11:21 PM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Deekay said:

I do not believe the idea or theory of ID should not be explored because it is not dynamic, no matter what else it may be lacking. Also, my idea of unaccounted features of evolution is centered largely around the transition to inorganic matter to 'living matter', and while I am amazed and intrigued at the sophistication of living organisms I cannot begin to justify the flagellum let alone any other example.

Right, but abiogenesis isn't a problem for evolution, like I said... abiogenesis is a problem for evolution like the origin of the cosmos is a problem for geology. The realms of the explanations don't overlap much.

Quote:

Deekay said:

As my major gripe with evolution is said transition from non living to living, can evolution duplicate the ways that this transition would have occurred? My impression is that "the ways in which abiogenetic systems would have arisen" are just as theoretical as ID.

This is not true. Abiogenesis has an active research program with competing, predictive hypotheses. While there isn't a ton of direct evidence for what exactly happened in the past, there's quite a big difference between a realm of theoretical science which tests plausible explanations and how they correlate with forensic data contrasted with a collection of fallacies and philosophy which can't even handle the rather minimal task of coming up with something to test.

If we're talking about legitimacy, that's the proper comparison. Keep in mind that I'm not saying abiogenesis is anywhere near as well supported as evolutionary theory. I'm saying that ID is really that pitiful.

Quote:

Deekay said:

I still disagree, at least from my personal perspective, that ID is a direct attack on evolution

Yet the evidence is there. Read up a little bit (it doesn't take much) on evolutionary theory and compare it to what ID advocates say. Notice that every single one of their ideas relies on denying that evolution could produce something.

Quote:

Deekay said:

Evolution accounts for living things and their mutation and survival from the first living cell, wouldn't making unproven claims about what evolution can or has done be just as deceitful?

No, as the power of natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated and been highly predictive. ID has not and relies on fallacies, lying about evolutionary theory, and the gullibility of their audience. Notice that they appeal to school boards and the media, not academics. They can only compete in the minds of laymen and small children and they're know it quite well.

I'm also not positive that I know what you're saying is deceitful, so I made a guess :wink:

. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Don't worry about boring me or wasting my time :wink:

. If I didn't feel it was worthwhile to discuss this stuff I wouldn't be here!

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10374067 - 05/21/09 01:53 AM (3 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

zouden said:

The flagellum looks like a man-made motor only superficially. Because it rotates. Other than that it has very little in common with a motor, and much more in common with other things found in nature.

You couldn't be more wrong. The flagellum isn't like a motor, it is a motor.

In fact, peer-reviewed articles in professional biological journals conceded that point long ago.

Notice I said man-made motor. A motor is something that provides motive force. Of course the flagellum is a motor. But is it like a man-made motor? Because no artificial motor that I'm aware of uses a chemical gradient and modifies its shape as the chemical crosses. It's almost entirely unlike any motor we've ever built.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10375365 - 05/21/09 08:59 AM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

zouden said:

The flagellum looks like a man-made motor only superficially. Because it rotates. Other than that it has very little in common with a motor, and much more in common with other things found in nature.

You couldn't be more wrong. The flagellum isn't like a motor, it is a motor.

In fact, peer-reviewed articles in professional biological journals conceded that point long ago.

Notice I said man-made motor. A motor is something that provides motive force. Of course the flagellum is a motor. But is it like a man-made motor? Because no artificial motor that I'm aware of uses a chemical gradient and modifies its shape as the chemical crosses. It's almost entirely unlike any motor we've ever built.

Yes, that is a point. It is unlike any motor we've yet to build, yet it is precisely a motor. It's not an "artificial" motor, zouden. It IS a motor. It is a molecular machine far beyond our current capabilities. Which means, in all likelihood, it's designer/creator is far beyond our intelligence.

I look at it in terms of a flying saucer from outer space. If one were to land and the news cameras were broadcasting it around the globe, we would assume two things:

1) The race that designed and built it were far above us in technology and intelligence.
2) Natural forces didn't build or design it.

Whatever blatherings Shira :blah:

coughs up, it won't be a reasonable hypothesis of how the flagellum was constructed. Behe quipped in 1996 "Publish or perish" and all the evolutionists have come up with is the secretory system that occurred after the flagellum had been created. We're still waiting for one reasonable hypothesis and my guess is we'll be waiting forever.

--------------------

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10376434 - 05/21/09 12:42 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

Well, personally I draw the line at things that are so similar to manmade creations they would, under normal circumstances, automatically lead us to say an object was designed. That's why I am fixated on the flagellum.

That's what you originally said ^.

This is your response now:

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

Yes, that is a point. It is unlike any motor we've yet to build, yet it is precisely a motor. It's not an "artificial" motor, zouden. It IS a motor. It is a molecular machine far beyond our current capabilities. Which means, in all likelihood, it's designer/creator is far beyond our intelligence.

The point is that there are more than a few dissimilarities. Your specification of the flagellum as 'so similar' that we'd call it designed is specious on its face, as bacterial flagella act in no way familiar to everyday experience. If you saw a man-sized flagellum in action, you'd be confused as hell because there would be chemicals *everywhere* smashing around and a few of them would be generating its motions, fits and starts. The production of the flagellum would be quite similar in its stochastic action as would the origin of the proteins which construct and and constitute it.

It's pretty easy to see that it is bias which leads you to make such a strong statement. Molecular biologists are quite capable of using and understanding metaphors which are appropriate for many biological systems, which I consider to be a rather important distinction when discussing these "molecular machines". The people who do the research, who use the metaphors, disagree with you completely while you use (some of) their ideas and even terms as evidence against them. It's inconsistent and unsupported.

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

I look at it in terms of a flying saucer from outer space. If one were to land and the news cameras were broadcasting it around the globe, we would assume two things:

1) The race that designed and built it were far above us in technology and intelligence.
2) Natural forces didn't build or design it.

I think you're under the false impression that we don't understand what you are attempting to say, which couldn't be further from the truth. We are explaining that your expansion of an analogy is specious. Rather than a 'flying saucer', for example, something more appropriate would be finding a mini-saucer which moved with brownian motion but managed to stay at the same uniform concentration via specific chemical mechanisms.

As you can see, the better example is also more complicated and far less convenient for your point. We don't have flying saucers hovering or crashing into things in biochemical systems. We have stochastic systems with evolutionary relationships.

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

Whatever blatherings Shira coughs up, it won't be a reasonable hypothesis of how the flagellum was constructed. Behe quipped in 1996 "Publish or perish" and all the evolutionists have come up with is the secretory system that occurred after the flagellum had been created.

Particularly ironic, given that Behe has never published support for ID in peer-reviewed journals and completely shut down scientifically when he became an advocate. He writes books intended for popular audiences instead.

You can see my reply to this creationist rhetoric above. It involves fossils, if you're not sure to what I'm referring.

Quote:

Mr. Mushroom said:

We're still waiting for one reasonable hypothesis and my guess is we'll be waiting forever.

It's already been given: common descent, natural selection, and historical contingency. It's been around since the beginning. The misunderstandings and miseducation of ID acolytes of the power of these forces and their overwhelming evidence is not a deficiency in the scientific explanation.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10376479 - 05/21/09 12:49 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Publish or perish, Babe. We're still waiting.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10376978 - 05/21/09 02:22 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

I don't think Behe's papers would pass review anyways. Not because he's wrong, but because he'd be "rocking the boat", and that would constitute a "bad comrade". If the papers passed review then they'd basically be admitting they might be wrong, and it seems to me, are too stubborn to do such a thing.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10377023 - 05/21/09 02:29 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Yes, that is a point. It is unlike any motor we've yet to build, yet it is precisely a motor. It's not an "artificial" motor, zouden. It IS a motor. It is a molecular machine far beyond our current capabilities. Which means, in all likelihood, it's designer/creator is far beyond our intelligence.

You must be joking. Do you think everything in nature that's complex beyond our technology must have been designed by a superior being? Nature produces complex things all the time.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Chespirito
Stranger

Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,223

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10378173 - 05/21/09 05:32 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Publish or perish, Babe. We're still waiting.

Im amazed anyone thinks they can argue with this guy. He is not in this to have a real discussion where he refutes points, look at the length of his posts. He has barely responded to anything anyone has said and instead likes short quips rooted in passive aggression. :yawn:

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10378373 - 05/21/09 06:50 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
I don't think Behe's papers would pass review anyways. Not because he's wrong, but because he'd be "rocking the boat", and that would constitute a "bad comrade". If the papers passed review then they'd basically be admitting they might be wrong, and it seems to me, are too stubborn to do such a thing.

Yeah, you've done a lot of discussing about the scientific culture and views and what you think is reasonable, but you've never posited how ID actually means anything, produces an actual hypothesis as necesary to it, and how that hypothesis could be tested and therefore find ID evidentiary support or find it to be false.

I don't know why you keep saying stuff like this when you are entirely unable to put forth ANYTHING in the way of an actual testable hypothesis of ID and explained how it may be tested.

Its the same old stuff. People talk about scientific culture and oppression and blah blah blah, but they refuse to take the simple step of writing a short description that could establish ID as actually MEANING ANYTHING TESTABLE.

It seems to me you need to get to it or stop claiming that ID is a reasonable belief system premised on the real world rather than suppositions. Any scientific hypothesis or set of theory I'm familiar with can be broken down to these simple elements to demonstrate it is more than just philosophy premised upon unfounded presumptions- why can't you do the same with ID? It would make more sense then complaining that science is such an exclusive institution or alleging some vague reasonableness of ID.

Quote:

Chespirito said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Publish or perish, Babe. We're still waiting.

Im amazed anyone thinks they can argue with this guy. He is not in this to have a real discussion where he refutes points, look at the length of his posts. He has barely responded to anything anyone has said and instead likes short quips rooted in passive aggression.

Sorry, your wrong. I've already posted in this thread how wrong you are, and everyone agreed with me that you were wrong. I'm not going to do your homework for you and point out where this happened. If you'd read an ID book you'd realize I was right. I bet you've never even done that, have you?

Unlike some people, I have a deeply meaningful life and have been out winning deer hunting competitions.

See? Look at my picture! This proves I have a deeply meaningful and rewarding life!

Because I have such a meaningful life (see picture above) I am right and you are a wretched peon who has been clearly demonstrated incorrect earlier in this thread.

I've answered all your objections many times over, and everyone agreed with me, so there's nothing else I can do, I'm not about to list where in this thread I've answered and defeated your objections and proved the riemann hypothessis if you refuse to read the thread

I'm off to enjoy my awesome life! (Look at my picture if you don't believe me! Honestly, its a very nice and deeply meaningful life. I've got more pictures if you don't believe me)

Edited by johnm214 (05/21/09 07:02 PM)

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: johnm214]
#10378581 - 05/21/09 07:42 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

What picture?

Johnm, believe me. I'm no expert in biology, I'm a computer expert. So I won't claim to know how ID works, and I wouldn't know how to test ID.

I think with more and more advances in nanotechnology we'll begin to appreciate how things can be designed, and perhaps even be designed to improve themselves (via code). Perhaps...

I think Mr. Mushrooms has some valid arguments, and he can't be totally wrong either. There are some very big questions that are still unanswered and respected doctors, which are extremely intelligent, pose these questions, not just Mr. Mushrooms (not to say he's not smart either!). I mean, isn't he right about the flagellum NOT being explained by evolution properly in any papers?

I just liked the movie really, and I like Ben Stein a lot, he's a total genius that I've admired for a long time.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10378667 - 05/21/09 08:00 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Mr. Mushrooms, I can see that you didn't go back to figure out what I was saying, but thought that the next course of action should be to repeat the specious canard of an ID advocate. I'll wait for a semi-thoughtful answer, if one is to be expected.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10378670 - 05/21/09 08:01 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

I just liked the movie really, and I like Ben Stein a lot, he's a total genius that I've admired for a long time.

Holy crap.

Edited by Shirakawasuna (05/21/09 08:02 PM)

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10378686 - 05/21/09 08:05 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Yes, that is a point. It is unlike any motor we've yet to build, yet it is precisely a motor. It's not an "artificial" motor, zouden. It IS a motor. It is a molecular machine far beyond our current capabilities. Which means, in all likelihood, it's designer/creator is far beyond our intelligence.

You must be joking. Do you think everything in nature that's complex beyond our technology must have been designed by a superior being? Nature produces complex things all the time.

I never said that. But I am waiting now for you to concede a point.

Is the flagellum a motor or isn't it?

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Chespirito]
#10378696 - 05/21/09 08:07 PM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Publish or perish, Babe. We're still waiting.

Im amazed anyone thinks they can argue with this guy. He is not in this to have a real discussion where he refutes points, look at the length of his posts. He has barely responded to anything anyone has said and instead likes short quips rooted in passive aggression.

You need to read a bit more before condemning my posts outright. Try the CTMU thread from page 3 or so. It'll be right up your alley. :thumbup:

--------------------

Post Extras:

youbreakyoubuy
Monkey Mouth

Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 2,632
Last seen: 2 years, 16 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10380516 - 05/22/09 05:41 AM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
Holy crap.

--------------------
Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: youbreakyoubuy]
#10380941 - 05/22/09 07:53 AM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Why does a natural thing that acts like a motor have to have been intelligently designed? We've been over this.

--------------------

Post Extras:

5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast

Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 3,824
Loc: Ohio

Last seen: 22 hours, 19 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10381002 - 05/22/09 08:02 AM (3 years, 7 days ago)

Quote:

Glenners said:
Why does a natural thing that acts like a motor have to have been intelligently designed? We've been over this.

Because people are a bunch of Silly-Sallies. Fuck the flagella for fuck's sake, look at the cephalopod eye and the human eye. Just consider vision vs a bacteriums flagella... complexity x1092190823982398.

ID fanbois have been using the flagella argument for years. My first year bio professor joked about it when we had that lecture. Nothing new or original, same crap regurgitated. I'd say DNA/RNA polymerase is more magnificent than the flagellum. We can easily understand the mechanism and cell signaling behind what makes a flagellum rotate clockwise/counter based off of receptor inputs. It isn't that fantastic so using it in any argument that it must be intelligently designed is always a hoot.

--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
:awecid:

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10381289 - 05/22/09 09:06 AM (3 years, 6 days ago)

--------------------

Post Extras:

Silversoul
Holon

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Glenners]
#10381676 - 05/22/09 10:59 AM (3 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

Glenners said:

As funny as that is, it's not quite an accurate representation of the scientific method. Scientists don't start with the facts. They start with a hypothesis, and then test it to see if it's borne out by the facts.

--------------------

Post Extras:

fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,663
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 13 minutes, 49 seconds

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Silversoul]
#10381706 - 05/22/09 11:07 AM (3 years, 6 days ago)

They don't start with a hypothesis, but rather an observation, from which they form their hypothesis. :wink:

--------------------

If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump:

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Silversoul]
#10381736 - 05/22/09 11:14 AM (3 years, 6 days ago)

The flagellum and the eye are NOT irreducibly complex. I know that some here are fond of irreducible complexity, so I may as well post as to why they are not irreducible. By the way, irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance. We cannot know if something absolutely, positively cannot form in nature, but we can at least knock out a few of the major irreducible complexity arguments outright, because all one has to do to destroy irreducible complexity, is find a POSSIBLE mechanism of evolution:

The Flagellum:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

This uses 100 peer reviewed sources, historical evidence, evolutionary logic, and other scientific tools to show exactly why there is NO reason for a bacterial flagellum to be considered irreducibly complex.

The progression is as follows: (export --> secretion --> adhesion --> pilus, and dispersal --> taxis)

Where the very original function was exporting, and the final function is taxis.

The eye is an easy one to debunk. I can give you plenty of peer reviewed studies for the evolution of the eye, but just because the eye does not function as it does now does not mean it has no evolutionary advantage. Even if all the eye was, was a bunch of retinal cells in some fish in the ocean, the fish would be able to detect light levels, which would confer an evolutionary advantage.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10383770 - 05/22/09 07:15 PM (3 years, 6 days ago)

It's amazing how people think that science can answer all questions, when in reality, we know jack-shit about existence.

We probably know .00001% of all knowledge available on this planet, let alone the Universe.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10383802 - 05/22/09 07:27 PM (3 years, 6 days ago)

Well, there's a difference between being able to answer all questions, and being able to answer all questions now. I don't think anyone is claiming that we have all the answers, but we're getting there :thumbup:

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Silversoul
Holon

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10383836 - 05/22/09 07:35 PM (3 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
It's amazing how people think that science can answer all questions, when in reality, we know jack-shit about existence.

We probably know .00001% of all knowledge available on this planet, let alone the Universe.

Yeah, so why don't just give up, right? I mean, we'll never know anything, so why bother looking into any questions?

Science has the advantage of advancing our knowledge so that we know more now than we once did. Just because no truth is ever final doesn't mean that all truths are equal.

--------------------

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10384741 - 05/23/09 12:34 AM (3 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
It's amazing how people think that science can answer all questions, when in reality, we know jack-shit about existence.

We probably know .00001% of all knowledge available on this planet, let alone the Universe.

What does what we know have to do with what we can know? I don't understand your point.

And what does this have to do with I.D.? Its fine as an idea or a philosophical thought (with premises presumed rather than demonstrated). But when you start claiming its science or it can be logically supported by reality you start to get into trouble, as you've done in the past, defining it and showing how it has anything at all to say about the world, or how it could ever be demonstrated wrong.

This doesn't have much to do with science. The whole point is that ID doesn't even put forth an actual idea relevant to the physical world that could be tested so as to support or disprove it. When something means nothing more than "if we assume this, and this, and this, and this.... then this unobservable phenomena should exist" its connection to reality is pretty tangential. That's not the fault of science- its implicit in an idea that's so vague or so physically meaningless that it can't be investigated.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10385100 - 05/23/09 03:54 AM (3 years, 6 days ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

It's amazing how people think that science can answer all questions, when in reality, we know jack-shit about existence.

I've actually met a few people who think science can/will answer all questions, but they only really seem to exist on the internet :wink:

. In any case, they're wrong and I see no sign that anyone in this thread agrees with them.

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:

We probably know .00001% of all knowledge available on this planet, let alone the Universe.

I'm sure we know very little compared to all of material existence. On the other hand, that we know a small fraction does not make our certainty any lower, as many of the explanations are explicitly focused on a small subset of the universe or subset of time, etc. I'm not sure what you'd be implying other than that people on this thread are being arrogant or casting some aspersions on a scientific explanation that you doubt.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10399782 - 05/25/09 11:43 PM (3 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Yes, that is a point. It is unlike any motor we've yet to build, yet it is precisely a motor. It's not an "artificial" motor, zouden. It IS a motor. It is a molecular machine far beyond our current capabilities. Which means, in all likelihood, it's designer/creator is far beyond our intelligence.

You must be joking. Do you think everything in nature that's complex beyond our technology must have been designed by a superior being? Nature produces complex things all the time.

I never said that. But I am waiting now for you to concede a point.

Is the flagellum a motor or isn't it?

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10400052 - 05/26/09 12:42 AM (3 years, 3 days ago)

Yes, since it provides motive power. But it's not a man-made motor. It's not even anything like a man-made motor.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Glenners
Rhymenosaurus

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 1,913
Last seen: 9 months, 20 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10400348 - 05/26/09 03:18 AM (3 years, 3 days ago)

Yeah so shut up and let this thread die already

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10400753 - 05/26/09 07:09 AM (3 years, 3 days ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Yes, since it provides motive power. But it's not a man-made motor. It's not even anything like a man-made motor.

Then I'm afraid you are disagreeing with not only me, but most biologists that study the flagellum. Right now I am reading Super's most excellent link that describes possible evolutionary pathways for the flagellum. I'll be studying it before I reply to Ghengis Kahn. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. :thumbup:

It says:

Quote:

Biologists find it almost inescapable to compare the bacterial flagellum to human designs: DeRosier remarks, "More so than other structures, the bacterial flagellum resembles a human machine" (DeRosier, 1998).

1) It's a motor.
2) It's similarity to human machines is striking. :justdontknow:

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10400771 - 05/26/09 07:16 AM (3 years, 3 days ago)

Hardly a contentious issue. What we call it is irrelevant. What's your point?

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10400987 - 05/26/09 08:23 AM (3 years, 3 days ago)

When a non-point is the best one has, one must keep harping on it.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am

Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 3 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10402174 - 05/26/09 12:50 PM (3 years, 2 days ago)

what's the longest thread in the history of this subforum?

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Sventington]
#10402189 - 05/26/09 12:54 PM (3 years, 2 days ago)

Quote:

Sventington said:
what's the longest thread in the history of this subforum?

I'm hoping to achieve this record. :thumbup:

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Sventington]
#10402558 - 05/26/09 02:12 PM (3 years, 2 days ago)

The beauty of this thread is that you can turn to any page and read nearly the exact same exchange.

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10402653 - 05/26/09 02:37 PM (3 years, 2 days ago)

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10405243 - 05/26/09 10:33 PM (3 years, 2 days ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:1) It's a motor.
2) It's similarity to human machines is striking.

Of course it's a motor. It converts electrical potential (in this case a proton gradient) to rotational energy. Many things do that and I suspect you're playing off most peoples' conception of a motor as that thing in your car that makes it go.

I have to disagree with the biologists Matzke cites here. Its similarity to human machines is *not* striking, but I would say its rotational symmetry is. When you get used to seeing embedded proteins that are big blobs of goo (at least if you look at it just as a stick model), things like channels or flagella would certainly be a nice, more-ordered (simple) change. I already gave a nice example of the obvious differences between a man-made machine and the flagellum. How many motors do you find which operate stochastically with a gradient of particle comparable to the size of the motor itself (within an order of magnitude)? How many do you find which operate by fits and starts, a jaggedy motion due not to an imbalance but its very nature?

I'm going to assume that since you can find time to pick these nits, you have the time to actually, you know, do the tiniest bit of defense of your points about ID but are merely avoiding doing so. I had taken your previous silence as a good sign: hey, maybe he realized the idiocy of his prioritization and excuses about not having enough time. Alas!

Post Extras:

johnm214

Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,292
Loc: Americas

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10405514 - 05/26/09 11:27 PM (3 years, 2 days ago)

I doubt it man. People have been asking him to show one actual consequence of ID necessary to its truth that can be detected and found present or absent, and he's repeatedly ignored them and instead argued side issues- in every thread I've seen. (the only exception is bare conclusory statements that he refuses to back up- so the truth of his assertions or the way in which they are derived cannot be verified nor applied to other phenomena to see if the hypothesis is false)

It seems dishonest to me at this point. Either he needs to back off claiming that ID has any measurable thing to say about the world or he needs to verify that it is so.

On this showing ID is nothing more than a vague conglomerate of ideas with premises that rest clearly in the imagination. Its nothing more than a thought experiment (an apparently incomplete one) that cannot be translated to the real world as its very premises cannot be demonstrated, let alone the actual consequences measured.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: johnm214]
#10408058 - 05/27/09 02:02 PM (3 years, 1 day ago)

johnm214, you put it much better than I could :smile:

. I second your summary and the simple request that must accompany it: if someone claims to have a verifiable, scientific point, they should be able to demonstrate that it's both.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10408316 - 05/27/09 02:35 PM (3 years, 1 day ago)

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10409121 - 05/27/09 04:42 PM (3 years, 1 day ago)

Sarcasm is definitely your forte...

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10417959 - 05/29/09 04:32 AM (3 years, 4 hours ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Hardly a contentious issue. What we call it is irrelevant. What's your point?

Actually, no. It is what you choose to call irrelevant. The obvious point is that it is a motor. You can run from the word, deny it or call it irrelevant. Doesn't matter. It is a motor. Deal with it.

By the law of induction we would logically conclude that a motor is designed by someone, built by someone.

The link continues:

Quote:

The impression is heightened by electron micrograph images (Figure 1) reminiscent of a engine turbine (e.g., Whitesides, 2001), and the scientific literature on the flagellum is filled with analogies to human-designed motors. There is no shortage of authorities willing to express mystification on the question of the evolutionary origin of flagella. In a 1978 review, Macnab concluded,

As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy, in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a "preflagellum" (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of "simultaneous" development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?" (Macnab, 1978).

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10417967 - 05/29/09 04:39 AM (3 years, 4 hours ago)

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:1) It's a motor.
2) It's similarity to human machines is striking.

Of course it's a motor. <snip>

Bravo!

A point of agreement.

Quote:

Shirakawasuna said:
I have to disagree with the biologists Matzke cites here.

So now we have slipped from professional opinions from tenured biologists writing in peer-reviewed journals to YOUR opinion?

:rofl2:

dude

Here's the micrograph from the link.

Nah, that doesn't look anything like a motor. :rolleyes:

--------------------

Edited by Mr. Mushrooms (05/29/09 04:47 AM)

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10417976 - 05/29/09 04:46 AM (3 years, 4 hours ago)

It's either pretty fucking sad or highlarious when you have to drag people over the finish line to admit a motor is a motor.

Could this be intransigence?

Nah, not with such a bunch of open minded folks like atheist evolutionists. We all know they're all about the evidence. :rolleyes:

--------------------

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10418229 - 05/29/09 06:47 AM (3 years, 2 hours ago)

MM, this the worst argument you've ever made. By far. I'm not even sure it dignifies a response. Do you honestly think, after all we've discussed, that you can just show a picture of something and smugly declare that it's designed? Are you high?

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Nah, that doesn't look anything like a motor.

No, it looks like the Monument to the Great Fire of London. Was the flagellum designed by Christopher Wren?

Quote:

Nah, not with such a bunch of open minded folks like atheist evolutionists.

I'm not sure what you think is worse - evolutionists, or atheists. It's interesting that you mention them in the same sentence, since you've made such an effort in the past to maintain the illusion that ID has nothing to do with religion.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10418441 - 05/29/09 07:52 AM (3 years, 1 hour ago)

Let's tear this post apart piece by piece.

Quote:

zouden said:
MM, this the worst argument you've ever made. By far. I'm not even sure it dignifies a response.

A subjective opinion worth nothing.

Quote:

zouden said:
Do you honestly think, after all we've discussed, that you can just show a picture of something and smugly declare that it's designed?

I didn't "just show a picture," I posted substantial evidence and opinion about the motor which you ignored. It's in the post above.

Quote:

zouden said:
Are you high?

I don't do drugs but I assume you do. Wouldn't that question fit better the other way around?

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Nah, that doesn't look anything like a motor.

No, it looks like the Monument to the Great Fire of London. Was the flagellum designed by Christopher Wren?

And you know what x-ray photographs of motors look like? I didn't know that was part of neurophysics. It's just another idiotic red herring when a poster can't respond to the substantive portions of my posts. I did respond to you, yet you choose to respond to this post instead. Would you like to explain to the other kiddies why you chose to do that? I know I'm pretty curious.

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Nah, not with such a bunch of open minded folks like atheist evolutionists.

I'm not sure what you think is worse - evolutionists, or atheists. It's interesting that you mention them in the same sentence, since you've made such an effort in the past to maintain the illusion that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Misunderstanding my posts again? I never said ID had nothing to do with religion. In fact I said it was obvious it had theological implications. I created a thread on it.

Let me break this side issue down for you:

Intelligent design=theological implications
Evolution=theological implications

And for the record (again), I think atheists are by far worse because they are fools. They claim to know with certitude that which cannot be known.

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10418712 - 05/29/09 08:54 AM (3 years, 1 minute ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: The obvious point is that it is a motor. You can run from the word, deny it or call it irrelevant. Doesn't matter. It is a motor. Deal with it.

By the law of induction we would logically conclude that a motor is designed by someone, built by someone.

I see no substantiation for this inference. OK, so it's a motor. What's your point? Will you at least admit that it is possible for a motor to occur through natural selection and mutation?

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10418736 - 05/29/09 09:00 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Will you at least admit that it is possible for a motor to occur through natural selection and mutation?

Well, let's see. I must have seen or known of thousands of motors in my life and ALL of them were designed and built by someone. So, do I think it's possible for a motor to occur naturally? I think it's as likely as the Pope being an atheist. That doesn't rule out EVERY possibility, just most of them.

Hey, how do we know the Pope isn't lying about his faith? Maybe he's a closet atheist and just wanted a good paycheck. :justdontknow:

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10418752 - 05/29/09 09:06 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: So, do I think it's possible for a motor to occur naturally? I think it's as likely as the Pope being an atheist.

IYO, what then created the motor? If it's another material being, then they had to come from somewhere, or they in turn were designed. Following this line of logic, we must either conclude that at some point a material being evolved purely from natural selection and mutation, or that a supernatural, immaterial being created them.

Let's explore these two options:

In the first case, we are claiming that a material being capable of designing other beings came from natural selection and mutation. Wouldn't an ontologically simpler theory be that instead of us being designed by species X, which was in turn designed by species Y, which in turn came from natural selection and mutation, that it was our species which came from natural selection and mutation? I see no reason to invent additional steps in the chain of creation when Occam's Razor suffices and when we have no tangible evidence of these other species.

In the second case, we are claiming that a supernatural being capable of designing other beings exists, or at least existed at some point. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up?

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs

Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 21 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10418820 - 05/29/09 09:20 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:

In the second case, we are claiming that a supernatural being capable of designing other beings exists, or at least existed at some point. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up?

Deep desire. :failboat:

--------------------

All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs
:bunnyhug:

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: MushroomTrip]
#10418833 - 05/29/09 09:22 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10419048 - 05/29/09 10:11 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

There is evidence of supernatural things.

One VERY strong thing is Medjugorje. When people go to pilgrimages there and take photographs, a lot of times the photographs come out looking like nothing they'd photographed.

For instance, a member here told me about his aunt. She went to Medjugorje, took a picture of some grapes on a vine, when the photo was developed it was a picture of a rosary instead.

Call me crazy, but I call that evidence of something else that's beyond our realm.

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10419167 - 05/29/09 10:32 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

There may be evidence of spirits but this is not the same thing as evidence of spirits that are directing evolution or who designed humanity.

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs

Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 21 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10419283 - 05/29/09 10:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
There is evidence of supernatural things.

One VERY strong thing is Medjugorje. When people go to pilgrimages there and take photographs, a lot of times the photographs come out looking like nothing they'd photographed.

For instance, a member here told me about his aunt. She went to Medjugorje, took a picture of some grapes on a vine, when the photo was developed it was a picture of a rosary instead.

Call me crazy, but I call that evidence of something else that's beyond our realm.

Is there any documentation for this, or just people saying stuff in the same way I can say that I killed two people?

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: MushroomTrip]
#10419312 - 05/29/09 11:00 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Yes. Miracles at Medjugorje are documented. As a matter of fact one happened to my Mother's photograph too.

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: MushroomTrip]
#10419417 - 05/29/09 11:17 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

I once took a picture of an alien space probe prior to the invasion. With their advanced technology my photo merely showed a streetlamp. :mad2:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10419442 - 05/29/09 11:20 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Always with the sarcasm...

Edited by mushroomhunter10 (05/29/09 11:29 AM)

Post Extras:

MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs

Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 21 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10419455 - 05/29/09 11:22 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Yes. Miracles at Medjugorje are documented. As a matter of fact one happened to my Mother's photograph too.

Ahhh, your mother's photograph. :lol:

No, I meant real documentation, along with real evidence that this is actually happening.
Like I said before, a few people saying that this actually happened doesn't mean anything.

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: MushroomTrip]
#10419459 - 05/29/09 11:23 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Dude... It was just one example.

Stuff like that happens a LOT there for some reason.

You're right about people saying it happened doesn't mean anything, but when they have proof in pictures it means a lot. :smile:

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10419471 - 05/29/09 11:26 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Mushroomhunter10, please avoid speculating about a poster's motivations in this forum as this counts as a personalism.

The mere thought of billions of people thinking they have to answer to an imaginary being scares the crap out of me, BTW. :grin:

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10419490 - 05/29/09 11:28 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Acknowledged.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10419637 - 05/29/09 11:54 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Bravo! A point of agreement.

Oh hey lemme help you there. Looks like a snip monster ate up the relevant rebuke: It converts electrical potential (in this case a proton gradient) to rotational energy. Many things do that and I suspect you're playing off most peoples' conception of a motor as that thing in your car that makes it go.

As in: duh it's a motor and it's not exactly helpful to your point.

As for the rest of the nonsense you post: no, it doesn't look like a man-made motor. Have you even seen a man-made motor? Do you confuse anything with radial symmetry with man-made motors? Can I throw a pineapple at you and expect 'hey, it's a motor!'?

But hey, feel free to try and give the misapprehension that there wasn't a pertinent contradiction of your claims. Yeah, just highlight a point of minimal agreement and ignore the rest, right? Oh, and how about that testable hypothesis deriving from ID? Too much to ask? Rather spend (apparently precious) time quibbling? Got it.

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10419658 - 05/29/09 11:57 AM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said
Mr. Mushrooms said: The obvious point is that it is a motor. You can run from the word, deny it or call it irrelevant. Doesn't matter. It is a motor. Deal with it.

By the law of induction we would logically conclude that a motor is designed by someone, built by someone.

Holy crap that's hilarious.

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10419679 - 05/29/09 12:01 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Looks like a man-made drive train to me. :shrug:

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10419706 - 05/29/09 12:05 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
Let's tear this post apart piece by piece.

Quote:

zouden said:
MM, this the worst argument you've ever made. By far. I'm not even sure it dignifies a response.

A subjective opinion worth nothing.

Quote:

zouden said:
Do you honestly think, after all we've discussed, that you can just show a picture of something and smugly declare that it's designed?

I didn't "just show a picture," I posted substantial evidence and opinion about the motor which you ignored. It's in the post above.

Quote:

zouden said:
Are you high?

I don't do drugs but I assume you do. Wouldn't that question fit better the other way around?

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

Nah, that doesn't look anything like a motor.

No, it looks like the Monument to the Great Fire of London. Was the flagellum designed by Christopher Wren?

And you know what x-ray photographs of motors look like? I didn't know that was part of neurophysics. It's just another idiotic red herring when a poster can't respond to the substantive portions of my posts. I did respond to you, yet you choose to respond to this post instead. Would you like to explain to the other kiddies why you chose to do that? I know I'm pretty curious.

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Nah, not with such a bunch of open minded folks like atheist evolutionists.

I'm not sure what you think is worse - evolutionists, or atheists. It's interesting that you mention them in the same sentence, since you've made such an effort in the past to maintain the illusion that ID has nothing to do with religion.

Misunderstanding my posts again? I never said ID had nothing to do with religion. In fact I said it was obvious it had theological implications. I created a thread on it.

Let me break this side issue down for you:

Intelligent design=theological implications
Evolution=theological implications

And for the record (again), I think atheists are by far worse because they are fools. They claim to know with certitude that which cannot be known.

Since you didn't read the link last time, I'm just going to copy and paste an article with about 100 peer reviewed journal sources on how the flagellum could have easily evolved in a stepwise fashion:

1. Introduction

1.1. A complex contrivance

The bacterial flagellum is one of the most striking organelles found in biology. In Escherichia coli the flagellum is about 10 μm long, but the helical filament is only 20 nm wide and the basal body about 45 nm wide. The flagellum is made up of approximately 20 major protein parts with another 20-30 proteins with roles in construction and taxis (Berg, 2003; Macnab, 2003). Many but not all of these proteins are required for assembly and function, with modest variation between species. Over several decades, thousands of papers have gradually elucidated the structure, construction, and detailed workings of the flagellum. The conclusions have often been surprising. Berg and Anderson (1973) made the first convincing case that the flagellar filament was powered by a rotary motor. This hypothesis was dramatically confirmed when flagellar filaments were attached to coverslips and the rotation of cells was directly observed (Silverman and Simon, 1974). The energy source for the motor is proton motive force rather than ATP (Manson et al., 1977). The flagellar filament is assembled from the inside out, with flagellin monomers added at the distal tip after export through a hollow channel inside the flagellar filament (Emerson et al., 1970). The flagella of E. coli rotate bidirectionally at about 100 Hz, propelling the rod-shaped cell (dimensions 1x2 μm) 10-30 μm/sec. The flagella of other species, powered by sodium ions rather than hydrogen ions, can rotate at over 1500 Hz and move cells at speeds of several hundred μm/sec. The efficiency of energy conversion from ion gradient to rotation may approach 100% (DeRosier, 1998). The bacterial flagellum is now one of the best understood molecular complexes, although numerous detailed questions remain concerning the function of various protein components and the exact mechanism of torque generation. However, the origins of this remarkable system have hardly been examined. This article will propose a detailed model for the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum, along with an assessment of the available evidence and proposal of further tests. That the time is ripe for a serious consideration of this question is discussed below.

1.2. An evolutionary puzzle

Biologists find it almost inescapable to compare the bacterial flagellum to human designs: DeRosier remarks, “More so than other structures, the bacterial flagellum resembles a human machine” (DeRosier, 1998). The impression is heightened by electron micrograph images (Figure 1) reminiscent of a engine turbine (e.g., Whitesides, 2001), and the scientific literature on the flagellum is filled with analogies to human-designed motors. There is no shortage of authorities willing to express mystification on the question of the evolutionary origin of flagella. In a 1978 review, Macnab concluded,

As a final comment, one can only marvel at the intricacy, in a simple bacterium, of the total motor and sensory system which has been the subject of this review and remark that our concept of evolution by selective advantage must surely be an oversimplification. What advantage could derive, for example, from a “preflagellum” (meaning a subset of its components), and yet what is the probability of “simultaneous” development of the organelle at a level where it becomes advantageous?” (Macnab, 1978).

The basic puzzle is that the flagellum is made up of dozens of protein components, and deletion experiments show that the flagellum will not assemble and/or function if any one of these components is removed (with some exceptions). How, then, could this system emerge in a gradual evolutionary fashion, if function is only achieved when all of the required parts are available?

1.3. Theory: the evolution of systems with multiple required components

The standard answer to this question was put forward by Darwin. Mivart (1871) argued that the “incipient stages of useful structures” could not have evolved gradually by variation and natural selection, because the intermediate stages of complex systems would have been nonfunctional. Darwin replied in the 6th edition of Origin of Species (Darwin, 1872) by emphasizing the importance of change of function in evolution. Although Darwin’s most famous discussion of the evolution of a complex system, the eye, was an example of massive improvement of function from a rudimentary ancestor (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr, 1977; Nilsson and Pelger, 1994), Darwin gave equal weight to examples of functional shift in evolution. These included the complex reproductive devices of orchids and barnacles, groups with which he was particularly familiar (Darwin, 1851, 1854, 1862). Intricate multi-component systems such as these could not have originated by gradual improvement of a single function, but if systems and components underwent functional shift, then selection could have preserved intermediates for a function different from the final one. The equal importance of improvement of function and change of function for understanding the evolutionary origin of novel complex systems has been similarly emphasized by later workers (Maynard Smith, 1975; Mayr, 1976). Recent studies give cooption of structures a key role in the origin of feathers (Prum and Brush, 2002), and novel organs (Pellmyr and Krenn, 2002); Mayr (1976) gives many other examples. Computer simulations also show the importance of cooption for the origin of complex systems with multiple required parts (Lenski et al., 2003).

Do these common insights from classical, organismal evolutionary biology help us to understand the solution to the puzzle Macnab put forward regarding the origin of flagellum? Cooption at the molecular level is in fact as well-documented at it is at the macroscopic level (Ganfornina and Sanchez, 1999; Thornhill and Ussery, 2000; True and Carroll, 2002). It has been implicated in origin of ancient multi-component molecular systems such as the Krebs cycle (Melendez-Hevia et al., 1996) as well as the rapid origin of multi-component catabolic pathways for abiotic toxins that humans have recently introduced into the environment, such as pentachlorophenol (Anandarajah et al., 2000; Copley, 2000), atrazine (de Souza et al., 1998; Sadowsky et al., 1998; Seffernick and Wackett, 2001), and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (Johnson et al., 2002); many other cases of catabolic pathway evolution exist (Mortlock, 1992). All of these systems absolutely require multiple protein species for proper function. Even for some molecular systems equaling the flagellum in complexity, reasonably detailed reconstructions of evolutionary origins exist. Generally these are available for systems which originated relatively recently in geological history, which are well-studied due to medical importance, and where phylogeny is relatively well resolved; examples include the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade (Doolittle and Feng, 1987; Hanumanthaiah et al., 2002; Jiang and Doolittle, 2003) and the vertebrate immune system (Muller et al., 1999; Pasquier and Litman, 2000).

Thornhill and Ussery (2000) summarized the general pathways by which systems with multiple required components may evolve. They delineate three gradual routes to such systems: parallel direct evolution (coevolution of components), elimination of functional redundancy (“scaffolding,” the loss of once necessary but now unnecessary components) and adoption from a different function (“cooption,” functional shift of components); a fourth route, serial direct evolution (change along a single axis), could not produce multiple-components-required systems. However, Thornhill and Ussery’s analysis did not distinguish between the various levels of biological organization at which these pathways might operate. The above-cited literature on the evolution of complex molecular systems indicates that complex systems usually originate by a key shift in function of an ancestral system, followed by an intensive period of improvement of the originally crudely functioning design. At the level of the system, cooption is usually the key event in the origin of the modern system with the function of interest. However, a great deal of the complexity in terms of numbers of parts is added to the system after origination. These accessory parts get added by duplication and cooption of novel genes (for reviews of gene duplication in evolution, see Long, 2001; Chothia et al., 2003; Hooper and Berg, 2003) and/or duplication and subfunctionalization (Force et al., 1999) of genes already involved in the crudely-functioning system. Cooption of whole subsystems, linking them to the “core” system, may also occur.

Therefore, improvement of function at the system level might be implemented by cooption at the level of a protein or subsystem. Change of function at the system level might occur without any lower level cooption of new components. Thornhill and Ussery’s four routes can be reduced to the two major pathways proposed by Darwin: improvement of current function (optimization) and shift of function (cooption). Cooption remains its own category, while the other three routes (serial direct evolution, parallel direct evolution, and elimination of functional redundancy) can be considered as three versions of functional improvement, with the lower-level components undergoing optimization, coevolutionary optimization, or loss, respectively. This conceptual framework is basically equivalent to the patchwork model for the evolution of metabolic pathways (Melendez-Hevia et al., 1996; Copley, 2000), where components are recruited from diverse sources and functional improvement or functional shift might occur at any organizational level, e.g. system, subsystem, protein, or protein domain.

1.4. Constructing and testing evolutionary models

In order to explain the origin of a specific system such as the flagellum, the general theory discussed above must be combined with the available evidence in order to produce a detailed, testable model. Detail in evolutionary scenarios makes them more testable, not less: Cavalier-Smith argues that “Specifying transitional stages in considerable detail is not unwarranted speculation, but a way of making the ideas sufficiently explicit to be more easily tested and rigorously evaluated” (Cavalier-Smith, 2001b). Obviously “detailed” cannot mean that every mutation and substitution event be recorded – for events that occurred billions of years ago this is impossible. A detailed evolutionary model should reduce a puzzling event like the origin of the flagellum into a series of events that occur by well-understood processes.

In an ideal model, the origin of every protein component will fulfill three criteria. First, a putative ancestral protein with a different function (a homolog that can reasonably be suspected to precede the flagellum) should be identified. Second, the cooption of the protein should occur by a reasonably probable mutation event -- e.g., a mutation produces a single new binding site enabling one protein to act on another. Initially this new complex functions crudely, but can gradually be perfected by coevolutionary optimization of the two proteins. Third, the selective regime favoring retention of the coopted protein should be identified. Each of these three criteria encourages further testing against new data. Hypothesized homologies can be assessed by new data, for example by detailed sequence analysis or the comparison of protein structures. The plausibility of mutational steps can be investigated by examination of similar mutations observed today; and the selective forces invoked can be assessed by study of analogies and by mathematical modeling. Furthermore, an evolutionary model might have testable implications for other fields: for example, if a biological system is hypothesized to be derived from a homologous system, similarities in mechanism between the two systems would be suspected. The fact that we do not have all of the data that we would like, and that uncertainty is high, are not problems unique to evolutionary models; rather, these problems are commonplace in any advancing science. For example, many contradictory models have been published for the mechanism of motor action in the flagellum, and most (or all) of them must be wrong, but this has not stopped anyone from proposing new models (Schmitt, 2003). Science is advanced by proposing and testing hypotheses, not by declaring questions unsolvable.

2. Background

2.1. Modern flagella

The canonical flagellum of E. coli is shown in Figure 2. Descriptions of the structural components are given in Table 1. Cytoplasmic components involved in regulation and assembly, as well as the chemotaxis components, are listed in Table 2. Excellent overviews of flagellar function and assembly are available elsewhere (Berg, 2003; Macnab, 2003) and so will not be discussed further here.

2.2. Previous attempts to explain flagellar origins

2.2.1. Short discussions

Occasional examples of very general suggestions about the evolutionary origin of flagella can be found in the literature, for example in discussions of how various aspects of the chemotaxis system are optimized (Berry, 2000); in the suggestion that prokaryote flagella may have been a relatively late invention, after biofilms and microbial mats had become well-developed and crowding on surface habitats became a problem (Stoodley et al., 2002); or in the alleged common ancestry of archaeal and bacterial flagella (Harshey and Toguchi, 1996). Archaeal and bacterial flagella were indeed once thought to be homologous (Jones et al., 1987), but they are actually totally distinct motility systems (Jarrell et al., 1996; Faguy and Jarrell, 1999; Thomas et al., 2001). Although both kinds of flagella rotate and are superficially similar, archaeal flagella are fundamentally different in many respects (Table 3). In archaeal flagella, the filaments are thinner, lack a central channel, and subunits are added from the base rather than the tip. Forward movement is typically attained by clockwise rather than counterclockwise motion. Additionally, archaeal flagella are probably powered by ATP rather than protonmotive force (suggested by homologies of FlaI to PilT/U (Jarrell et al., 1999; Thomas et al., 2001; Merz and Forest, 2002, although the literature is contradictory: Bardy et al. (2003) assert that archaeal flagella use protonmotive force, but cite no supporting evidence). Finally, the homologies of the two flagella to nonflagellar secretion systems are different. The bacterial and archaeal flagella are therefore a classic case of analogy, not homology (Faguy et al., 1994; Jarrell et al., 1996; Bayley and Jarrell, 1998; Faguy and Jarrell, 1999; Thomas et al., 2001; Thomas et al., 2002; Bardy et al., 2003). However, the misperception persists in the assumption that the flagella (Harshey and Toguchi, 1996; Campos-Garcia et al., 2000; Rizzotti, 2000) or their basal bodies (Cavalier-Smith, 2002a, 2002c) are homologous. On the other hand, the chemotaxis systems are indeed homologous, and are shared with nonflagellar motility systems as well (Faguy and Jarrell, 1999; Koretke et al., 2000).

A slightly more detailed attempt at explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum was made by de Duve (1995), who apparently got the bacterial flagellum confused with the completely different eukaryotic cilium (also known as the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium in an interminable terminological dispute; see Corliss, 1980; Margulis, 1980; Cavalier-Smith, 1982). He suggested that the flagellum, which he acknowledges is rotary, was somehow descended from a simpler ATP-powered filament-bending motor. In a more reasonable vein, de Duve then gave a brief scenario for the gradual origin of chemotactic behavior from random swimming, but was again puzzling in postulating that essentially fully functional, bidirectional-switching flagella with specific positioning on the cell surface existed before the signal transduction system was coupled to the flagellum. What the purpose of switching would be without a chemotaxis system was not explained. De Duve furthermore stated that these well-developed but non-chemotactic flagella gave “little advantage” until they were chemotactically enabled, leaving unexplained the selective reason for the origin of the whole nearly-complete system in the first place.

Finally, Goodenough (1998; 2002) offers a short account deriving a flagellum from a proton-transducing membrane channel. She postulates that a coopted protein increased the efficiency of proton transport, and rotated the channel as a by-product. Later binding of a filament to the outside of this rotating channel produced primitive motility which increased food gathering ability. However, the original function of proton transport (which, uncoupled to another process, would simply de-energize the cytoplasmic membrane) is not specified. In her 2002 account Goodenough suggested that a fibrous protein binding to the F1F0-ATP synthetase produced the proto-flagellum. Presumably she meant that the proto-filament would bind to the distal side of a c-subunit of F0. As recent work indicates that F0-c and F1-εγ rotate inside the F0-ab and F1-αβδ complex (Weber and Senior, 2003), Goodenough’s suggestion is not immediately impossible, but suffers difficulties similar to those discussed for Rizzotti (2000), below.

2.2.2. Cavalier-Smith (1987)

Cavalier-Smith is one of the few who has proposed detailed hypotheses for the origin of many fundamental features of eukaryotes and prokaryotes (Cavalier-Smith, 1987a, 1987b, 2001a, 2002b, 2002a, 2002c). He bases his work on a refreshingly clearly-stated philosophy for reconstructing the origin of complex systems, advocating a holistic approach considering environment, organism, mutation, and selection all together and emphasizing testability (Cavalier-Smith, 2001a). Although Cavalier-Smith has addressed the origin of the eukaryotic cilium on several occasions (Cavalier-Smith, 1978, 1982, 1987b, 2002b), Cavalier-Smith’s only treatment of the origin of the bacterial flagellum is found in a 1987 article (Cavalier-Smith, 1987a). He makes two suggestions: first, that a mutant version of an outer membrane protein pore formed a tubular polymer extending through the outer membrane into the extracellular medium. Linking this to proton-conducting proteins in the cytoplasmic membrane provided the primitive motor. In this scheme, spirochete axial filaments were derived from regular flagella. His second suggestion was that flagella evolved from gliding motility systems, which are also widespread and powered by protonmotive force. Some early models of gliding motility postulated a spirochete-like mechanism, with rotating filaments in the periplasmic space, and on this basis spirochetes might represent a transitional stage. Motility would develop from rotating filaments first used just to stir the fluid in the periplasmic space and increase diffusion of nutrients. On either scenario, the rotary mechanism existed from the beginning of the evolutionary sequence, and the first crude motility function would have been selected for because it increased random dispersal, useful in overcrowded regions depleted in nutrients. Much of the complexity could have post-dated the original crudely functioning motility.

Cavalier-Smith was hampered by the relatively primitive state of knowledge at the time, and he conceded that the actual evolutionary process must have been much more complicated than his suggestions. The linkage between the filament and motor is very complex, mediated by about ten proteins, and the filament subunits are secreted through the base of the flagellum via a type III export pathway, rather than via a type II pathway as might be expected for a protein derived from an outer membrane pore; type III virulence systems do utilize an outer membrane secretin secreted by the type II pathway, and the flagella P- and L-ring proteins FlgI and FlgH are similarly secreted via the type II pathway (Macnab, 2003). A secretin might therefore be more likely posited as the source for FlgH; this will be discussed in more detail below.

Regarding the postulated homology between gliding motility and the axial filaments of spirochetes, today it is apparent that gliding motility is not a matter of rotating periplasmic filaments. Two mechanisms for gliding motility have been clearly identified (Merz and Forest, 2002; Bardy et al., 2003). First, the social gliding of Myxococcus xanthus occurs via retraction of type IV pili, sometimes also called twitching motility (Merz and Forest, 2002). Second, the adventurous motility of M. xanthus is driven by the secretion of a polysaccharide gel (slime) via the junctional pore complex; a similar complex is found in gliding cyanobacteria. The mechanism of the gliding motility of Cytophaga and Flavobacterium is still a matter of speculation (McBride, 2001), but may involve a ratchet structure and slime secretion (Bardy et al., 2003). These latter forms of gliding motility inspired the comparison between flagella and gliding motility as they are powered by protonmotive force, and beads attached to the cell surface of Cytophaga will rotate (Eisenbach, 2000). Thus, it is occasionally suggested (Cavalier-Smith, 2002a), even in textbooks (e.g. Campbell, 1993), that flagella and gliding motility are homologous, and the gliding motility apparatus may be some version of the flagellum basal body without the flagellar filament. As our understanding of slime-related gliding motility is still limited (the relevant genes are still being identified, much less detailed mechanism or structure), the possibility of any connection between type III protein secretion and polysaccharide secretion is difficult to evaluate. However, the study of gliding motility bears close watching: the recent discovery of homology between M. xanthus gliding motility proteins AglS/AglV to TolR and of AglR/AglX to TolQ (Youderian et al., 2003) which are in turn homologs of the flagellar motor proteins MotA and MotB (Cascales et al., 2001) suggests that there may be a common mechanism for coupling proton flow to motility. If the general similarity between the junctional pore complex and type III secretion systems (Spormann, 1999; Merz and Forest, 2002) turns out to be more than skin deep, then the common descent of gliding motility and flagella from an ancestral motility organelle will have to be seriously considered. Cavalier-Smith’s suggestion that stirring the periplasmic fluid may have been a precursor to primitive motility is similar to Rizzotti’s main suggestion and will be discussed in the next section.

2.2.3. Rizzotti (2000)

The only major recent attempt at explaining the origin of the flagellum is that of Rizzotti (2000), which, like Goodenough, proposes that the flagellum was derived from the F1F0 ATP synthetase. The initial appeal of this hypothesis derives from the spate of recent comparisons between the flagellum and ATP synthetase as proton-driven, rotary motors (Block, 1997; Boyer, 1997; Khan, 1997; Sabbert and Junge, 1997; Berg, 1998; Oplatka, 1998a, 1998b; Berry, 2000; Walz and Caplan, 2002), sometimes leading to the suggestion of homology (Oster and Wang, 2003). These comparisons go back at least to Cox et al.’s (1984) proposal that the ATP synthetase had a rotary mechanism, and continued through the testing and refinement of this hypothesis (Mitchell, 1985; Sabbert and Junge, 1997; Weber and Senior, 2003), followed by the conclusive demonstration of rotation by direct observation of an actin filament tethered to the gamma subunit of F1-ATPase (Noji et al., 1997). A relationship between the F1F0 ATP synthetase and the flagellum is further suggested by homology between the flagellar ATPase FliI and the β subunit of F1-ATPase, indicated by ~30% sequence similarity (Albertini et al., 1991; Vogler et al., 1991). The α and β subunit ATP synthetase subunits are themselves paralogous, with only the β subunit retaining catalytic activity (Gogarten et al., 1989; Gogarten and Kibak, 1992).

In a creative scenario (Figure 3), Rizzotti imagined that an accidental insertion in the middle of the F1-γ subunit created a short filament outside the cytoplasmic membrane, between the membrane and the cell wall. As the synthetase subunits rotated, this protofilament served to mix the nearby fluid, increasing the diffusion of molecules in and out of the cell. This provided sufficient selective benefit to retain the mutation. Production of a more sophisticated mixing instrument occurred via duplication and modification of the mutant γ subunit, so that branches of the filament extended above the cell wall. In the process, the ε and δ subunits were lost, along with ATPase activity, resulting in a proton-powered stirring mechanism with incipient motility function. From here, a process of optimization ensued. Selection first favored random motion of the cell that further improved nearby fluid mixing and diffusion. More powerful motility followed by extension of the filament and by duplications of the proton-transmitting proteins of the stator (in this scenario, derived from the c subunit of the F0 structure). The F1-αβ complex apparently became the rotor inside the stator ring. Rizzotti concluded by discussing a number of other steps that must have happened along the way, although the order is not specified. However, it seems that he considered the origin of the export apparatus a relatively late event. Rizzotti hypothesized that once the central cavity became large enough, a secretion complex (presumably a type III export apparatus already functioning elsewhere) was patched in at the base of the rotor, allowing the secretion of a more complex filament.

Rizzotti argued that bacteria with a single membrane were simpler and therefore probably ancestral to gram-negative bacteria with both an inner and outer membrane. He hypothesized that the outer membrane arose as an alimentary adaptation from extensions of the inner membrane. The L- and P-rings arose as the developing outer membrane encroached on the flagellum (gram positive bacteria, lacking outer membranes, have no requirement for the L- and P-rings and lack them altogether). Rizzotti discounted the alternative scenario, whereby the flagellum arose in a bacterium already possessing a double membrane, because he deemed the simultaneous origin of the rings and filament too difficult.

This scenario is considerably more detailed than any other available, but remains vague on the specific origin of almost all of the proteins that make up the flagellum. Although Rizzotti does make use of some interesting similarities between the flagellum and ATP synthetase, and he is able to come up with a proposal that includes rotary motion from the beginning, there are major flaws which shall be discussed shortly. Before the critique, however, it is worth noting that Rizzotti’s scenario has been cited by Cavalier-Smith (2001a) as well as others (Rosenhouse, 2002), apparently for lack of anything better.

Rizzotti’s suggestion that stirring might be a primitive function of a proto-flagellum is intuitively appealing, but intuition is a poor guide to life at a low Reynolds number (Purcell, 1977; Vogel, 1994; Purcell, 1997). Bacteria live in a world dominated by Brownian motion, where viscous forces overwhelm inertia and small molecules spread much faster by diffusion than by bulk movement of fluid. The scale at which moving fluid (stirring) or moving through fluid (swimming) will increase diffusion into the cell is determined by comparing the time for transport by diffusion (td) versus the time for transport by bulk flow such as stirring (ts) (Purcell, 1977). For diffusion, the average time td for transport of a particle a distance l, with diffusion coefficient D is (Berg, 1993):

while the corresponding time for bulk flow transport via stirring (ts) is approximately (Purcell, 1977):

that is, the distance l divided by the fluid velocity v induced by stirring. Stirring “works” only if the transport time using stirring is less than the transport time from simple diffusion:

The ratio in equation (5) gives the Péclet number, Pé, which must be greater than unity for bulk flow to have substantial impact on diffusion (Vogel, 1994). For a typical small molecule (e.g. sucrose) in water, D=10-10 m2s-1. For a typical-length bacterium (1 μm) moving fluid past itself with the swimming velocity of a typical fully functional flagellum (30 μm/s), Pé = 0.06 << 1 (Vogel, 1994). For Rizzotti’s primitive stirrer, Pé would be even lower. As Purcell (1977) noted, in the world of low Reynolds number, “stirring isn’t any good”. Bacteria that do induce currents for their benefit (e.g., Thar and Kuhl, 2002) probably succeed because of the large number of bacteria cooperating in the effort, in effect increasing body size. Another postulated function of primitive motility, swimming for the sake of running into more molecules, also does not work: Purcell calculated that a bacterium would have to swim 700 μm/sec in order to gather only 10% more food molecules. Thus, if diffusion of molecules into the cell is the only matter of concern, a bacterium will do just as well by sitting still as it will by stirring or swimming. The reason bacteria swim is not to increase diffusion but to find locations with a higher local concentration of nutrient molecules (Purcell, 1977; Berg, 1993; Vogel, 1994). Purcell’s argument breaks down in situations where the uptake rate parameter, a, representing the fraction of available molecules being consumed each second, is greater than 1 s-1. However, a typical value for a is 0.01, where uptake is considered negligible (Dillon et al., 1995; Mitchell, 2002). Thus, fundamental physical considerations make the hypothesized stirring filament an unlikely intermediate.

Additional difficulties with Rizzotti’s model exist. While it is unrealistic to expect sequence similarity to give evidence for the ancestry of every component of the 3+ billion year old flagellum, considering the time lapse and large nature of some of the changes that must be postulated on any scenario, a scenario certainly should not contradict those homologies that have been identified. The Rizzotti scenario (Figure 3) implies homology between the synthetase F1-αβ subunits and FliF/FliG (the flagellar rotor), but the homology that inspired the scenario is between F1-αβ and FliI (the ATPase that energizes export of rod, hook, and filament). Similarly, Rizzotti (2000) implies that the F0-c subunit is homologous with the flagellar motor proteins MotAB, but sequence homology has instead been discovered homology between MotAB and a phylogenetically widespread family of proteins that couple protonmotive force to diverse membrane transport processes. These homologs, namely ExbBD (Kojima and Blair, 2001) and TolQR (Cascales et al., 2001), provide a simpler and much more direct ancestor for MotAB. The homologies could be explained by invoking additional independent cooption events, but this would require a rather more complex scenario than that presented by Rizzotti.

As Rizzotti’s scenario fails on the twin tests of homology and a simple model of stirring at a low Reynolds number, it is now time to see if Rizzotti can be improved upon. It should be noted that although published proposals about flagellar evolution are very limited, the topic is a popular one as the flagellum is the icon of the antievolutionary “Intelligent Design” movement. Therefore several of the ideas proposed here have been previously raised in informal debates about flagellar evolution. Miller (2003, 2004) and Musgrave (2004) review this aspect of the debate in detail, and Musgrave proposes a model that is similar in outline to that presented here, although his account is more general.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

Shirakawasuna
Stranger

Registered: 05/17/09
Posts: 66
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Shirakawasuna]
#10419705 - 05/29/09 12:05 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

OMG only mans can makes resistors apples are designed!

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10419714 - 05/29/09 12:08 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

3. The Model

3.1. Phylogenetic context and assumed starting organism

The paradigm for prokaryote phylogeny, if there is one, is the universal rRNA tree. This shows a number of widely separated bacterial lineages, with archaea and eukaryotes separated from them all by a very long branch. This tree is unrooted, and many possible rootings have been proposed in the literature. As these are the most remote and difficult phylogenetic events it is possible to study, and as there is by definition no outgroup to life in general, the debate can be expected to continue for some time. For current purposes the most important point is that flagella are widespread across the bacterial phylogenetic tree, with losses in various taxa and no clearly primitive nonflagellate taxa. It is therefore assumed that flagella evolved near the base of the bacterial tree.

Rizzotti (2000) and others (e.g., Koch, 2003) have suggested that the last common ancestor of bacteria was gram positive. However, the very general consideration that most of the bacterial phyla are gram negative, including the many different taxa that come out as basal on different analyses, weighs against this hypothesis. Therefore, we shall side with Cavalier-Smith, who argues that the last common ancestor was gram-negative. He has put forward the most detailed model for the origin of bacteria and the double membrane (Cavalier-Smith, 2001a, 2002a). The model thus begins with a generic double-membraned, gram-negative bacterium. Whether or not archaea are an outgroup to extant bacteria (the most common opinion), or a relatively late group derived from actinobacteria (high G+C content gram-positive bacteria), in turn derived from endobacteria (low G+C-content gram-positives) and cyanobacteria (Cavalier-Smith, 2002a) shall be left unresolved, although implications of flagellar evolution for Cavalier-Smith’s scheme will be highlighted. The present model will begin with a reasonably complex bacterium, already possessing the general secretory pathway and type II secretion system, as well as signal transduction, a peptidoglycan cell wall, and F1F0-ATP synthetase. As these components are ubiquitous, almost certainly predating the cenancestor, whereas many bacteria (perhaps 50% of species) lack flagella entirely, this seems plausible. These assumptions are consistent with Cavalier-Smith’s position that the cenancestor was a bacterium similar in complexity to modern bacteria (Cavalier-Smith, 2001a, 2002a). Cavalier-Smith (2002a) hypothesizes that chlorobacteria may be the most basal offshoot of the tree and be primitively nonflagellate.

3.2. Starting point: protein export system

3.2.1. Type III secretion systems

The model begins with a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus. As terminology is sometimes inconsistently used, following Hueck (1998), the term “secretion” is reserved for the transport of proteins from the cytoplasm to the cell surface or the extracellular medium. “Export” refers to the transport of proteins from the cytoplasm to the periplasmic space. An export system plus a mechanism to cross the outer membrane forms a secretion system. Bacteria make use of a number of distinct secretion systems, reviewed as a group elsewhere (Hueck, 1998; Thanassi and Hultgren, 2000a; van Wely et al., 2001). Six major well-characterized secretion systems (Figure 4a, Figure 5) are reviewed by Thanassi and Hultgren (2000a). These are: (1) autotransporters (Henderson et al., 1998), (2) the chaperone/usher pathway (Thanassi et al., 1998), (3) type I secretion or the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter (Buchanan, 2001), (4) type II secretion or general secretory pathway (Pugsley, 1993; Sandkvist, 2001; Cao and Saier, 2003), (5) type III secretion systems of flagellar export and some infectious systems (Hueck, 1998; Cornelis and Van Gijsegem, 2000), and (6) type IV secretion (Christie and Vogel, 2000; Christie, 2001), homologous to type II secretion, conjugation pili, twitching motility systems, and archaeal flagella (Jarrell et al., 1996; Bayley and Jarrell, 1998; Sandkvist, 2001; Peabody et al., 2003). It is likely that systems will be added to the list in time.

About 10 well-conserved protein species make up the core of the type III export apparatus, which is used to export the axial components of bacterial flagella (rod, hook, filament, adaptor, and cap proteins). In 1994 it was discovered that homologs of these proteins are also used to secret virulence factors in a diverse array of proteobacterial pathogens, such as Yersinia pestis, Salmonella typhimurium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and enteropathogenic E. coli (Hueck, 1998). The term “type III secretion system” is commonly used to refer to the virulence systems, but here it will be used to denote the class of secretion systems that make use of the type III export pathway. This includes the two currently known members (virulence and flagellar secretion systems) and any unknown homologs.

The existence of a nonflagellar type III export apparatus falsifies the argument that flagellar components are useless if they are not part of a fully functioning flagellum. One answer to Macnab’s (1978) query, “What advantage could derive…from a ‘preflagellum’ (meaning a subset of its components)” is now obvious: a subset of flagellar components could serve as an export system. Thus, the model for the origin of flagella begins with the hypothesis of a primitive type III export system. This hypothesis, however, requires justification on several grounds in order to ameliorate obvious objections.

3.2.2. Are nonflagellar type III secretion systems derived from flagella?

The fact that known nonflagellar type III secretion systems are restricted to proteobacteria, and that these systems are mostly virulence systems specializing on eukaryotes (which are probably far younger than flagella), lead Macnab (1999) as well as others (He, 1998; Kim, 2001; Plano et al., 2001) to conclude that the flagellar pathway is probably the older one, and that type III virulence systems are derived from flagella. Although some apparently avirulent type III secretion systems have been discovered (e.g., in the legume symbiote Rhizobium; see Marie et al., 2001), and the phylogenetic distribution of type III secretion systems has been widened somewhat by their discovery in Chlamydiales (Kim, 2001), these data still support the conclusion that type III virulence systems are derived eukaryote-interaction systems, rather than phylogenetically basal homologs. Phylogenetic analysis of type III secretion systems seemed to confirm the case (Nguyen et al., 2000). Aizawa (2001) was one of the few dissenting opinions, arguing that flagella and virulence systems might have diverged in parallel from a common nonflagellar ancestor, pointing out that there are bacteria that parasitize or prey on other bacteria, a point with some merit although predatory bacteria are poorly studied (Guerrero et al., 1987).

Nguyen et al.’s (2000) conclusion has recently been challenged by Gophna et al. (2003), who demonstrated with phylogenetic trees of FlhA, FliI, FliP, and FliO homologs that type III virulence system sequences do not nest within flagellar sequences. This supports the view that the two systems diverged from a common ancestor, which could plausibly have been a type III export system functioning in a nonflagellar, nonpathogenic context. However, Gophna et al. (2003) are not able to exclude the possibility that virulence systems evolve more rapidly, or that the frequent lateral transfer of type III virulence system genes (Nguyen et al., 2000; Gophna et al., 2003) might have increased the rate of sequence divergence. Gophna et al. also cite for support the progressionist notion that evolution disfavors events such as the simplification of complex systems like the flagellum, a dubious proposition in modern evolutionary theory, especially considering the common evolutionary trend of simplification in pathogens and parasites. As long as known nonflagellar type III secretion systems are phylogenetically restricted and only function as specialized systems for eukaryote penetration, the suspicion will remain that they are derived from flagella. For the purposes of the current discussion it will be assumed that type III virulence systems are derived, although they still give valuable insights about the possible traits of a hypothetical ancestral type III secretion system.

3.2.3. An ancestral type III secretion system is plausible

If type III virulence systems are derived from flagella, what is the basis for hypothesizing a type III secretion system ancestral to flagella? The question would be resolved if nonflagellar homologs of the type III export apparatus were to be discovered in other bacterial phyla, performing functions that would be useful in a pre-eukaryote world. That such an observation has not yet been made is a valid point against the present model, but at the same time serves as a prediction: the model will be considerably strengthened if a such a homolog is discovered. For the moment, it is easy enough to explain the lack of discovery of such a homolog on the basis of lack of data. Knowledge of microbial diversity is quite poor (Whitman et al., 1998): far less than 1% of bacteria extant in a particular environment are readily culturable (Hayward, 2000). Cultivation-independent surveys of prokaryote diversity based on environmental rRNA sequencing commonly discover deeply-branching microbes previously unknown to science (DeLong and Pace, 2001), and that certain groups are unexpectedly ubiquitous (Karner et al., 2001). In addition, only a fraction of cultured microbes have been studied in any substantial biochemical or genetic detail, and this subsample is heavily skewed towards pathogens and convenient model organisms. Of the ~112 complete bacterial genomes sequenced as of July 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMGifs/Genomes/eub_g.html), at least two-thirds are pathogens, mutualists, or commensals of multicellular eukaryotes. Many of the free-living bacteria that have been sequenced are extremophiles or are used in industrial applications.

Even with such a skewed dataset, a general argument for the plausibility of a primitive type III export system can be constructed on the basis of analogy. Each of the six secretion systems described above has been coopted to serve diverse functions by prokaryotes (Table 4). The thoroughness of some of the observed convergences is remarkable – notably, all of the systems have been adapted for eukaryotic virulence, five secrete surface structures, at least four are used for adhesion, three or four form pili, and two perform motility-related functions. That pili and adhesion often play a role in virulence in well-studied organisms is not particularly significant, as such functions are useful in free-living contexts as well (Kennedy, 1987). The overall picture is that any secretion system that exists will sooner or later get coopted for diverse functions, including virulence, in various lineages. The commonality of the virulence function in known systems almost certainly reflects human interests rather than the situation in the wild.

It might be objected that with so many available secretion systems, postulating the existence of an additional system is superfluous. However, many bacteria have multiple secretion systems. An illustrative case is Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which has all of the above-listed systems (Bitter, 2003). Furthermore, many bacteria will have two or more copies of certain types of secretion systems, with mildly to strongly divergent functions: e.g., E. coli can have both P-pili and type 1 pili (Thanassi and Hultgren, 2000a); Salmonella and Yersinia have two type III virulence systems each (Cornelis and Van Gijsegem, 2000); and Pseudomonas aeruginosa has at least two type II secretion systems and probably two kinds of type IV pili (Bitter, 2003).

3.2.4. The origin of a primitive type III export system

Type III virulence systems have well-conserved homologs of the following flagellar components (Plano et al., 2001): FliF (the membrane-embedded MS-ring); FlhA, FlhB, FliP, FliQ, FliR (integral membrane export components inside the MS-ring); FliI and FliH (ATPase and regulator); and FliG and FliM/N (the switch complex). The primitive type III secretion system would not necessarily have had all of the components that are conserved in the possibly derived virulence systems. In particular, if the type III virulence systems are derived, the homologs of the switch complex proteins (FliN/M, FliG) are probably retained only in order to stabilize/support the coadapted secretion complex and FliF ring, and are otherwise vestigial.

FliF is fundamentally a membrane pore and so its origin must lie with the origin of transport proteins in general, a question explored by Saier (2003). FlhA and FlhB are larger than FliOPQR, and have large cytoplasmic C-terminal domains that appear to bind the export substrates. FlhA interacts with FliF and the soluble components of the type III secretion system but its exact function is unknown. FlhB plays a key role in determining whether rod/hook or filament axial proteins are secreted, and therefore controls the length of the hook by a poorly-understood mechanism (Macnab, 2003). Substrate switching would not have been a necessary feature of a primitive type III secretion system, but perhaps the association of proto-FlhA and/or FlhB with the proto-FliF pore turned it from a somewhat general passive transporter into a substrate-specific passive transporter. One of the differences between type II and type III secretion systems is that type II systems recognize their substrates by a N-terminal signal peptide that is removed during transport. The signal sequences for type III secretion substrates are also in the N-terminal regions but they are not cleaved (Büttner and Bonas, 2002). Perhaps this difference allowed the primitive type III secretion system to export an important substrate on a different control circuit independent of the sec pathway, and this finer control was the selective basis for the retention of the system.

3.2.5. The relationship between type III export and the F1F0-ATP synthetase

That a phylogenetically basal type III export apparatus must have existed is supported by several additional facts. As discussed previously, the protein that powers protein export in type III secretion, FliI, has long been considered homologous to the F1 subunit of F1F0-ATP synthetase on the basis of about 30% amino acid identity to the active F1-β subunit (Albertini et al., 1991; Vogler et al., 1991; Gogarten et al., 1992). The F1-αβ ATPase is a heterohexamer made up of alternating α-subunits (noncatalytic) and β-subunits (catalytic). This pattern is shared by all bacteria and is also found in the archaeal A-ATP synthase and eukaryote V-ATP synthase, so F1-α and F1-β are thought to have diverged before the cenancestor (Gogarten and Kibak, 1992). FliI, on the other hand, probably consists of a homohexamer of catalytic subunits (FliI’s hexameric nature was only recognized very recently: Blocker et al., 2003; Claret et al., 2003). It diverges before the F1-α and F1-β split in sequence similarity trees, and thus probably also diverged prior to the cenancestor (Gogarten and Kibak, 1992). However, it is more similar to the F1 subunits than the more distantly related hexameric ATPases such as the RNA/DNA helicase termination factor rho (Boyer, 1997), and therefore Gogarten and Kibak (1992) conclude that the FliI family diverged specifically from a primitive F1-ATPase prior to the cenancestor. There is not similar evidence that flagella specifically evolved before the cenancestor, so this is a point in favor of the primitive type III export system hypothesis.

In light of the long-established homology between FliI and F1-αβ, it is surprising that there have been few searches for further homologies between the F1F0-ATP synthetase and type III export system. Sequence similarity searches do not turn up significant hits, but considering the timespan and divergence in function this is not necessarily surprising. As discussed above, homology between the F1F0-ATP synthetase and flagellum is commonly suggested, but explicit protein-protein homologies are never proposed, and the assumption that the rotational mechanisms of the two systems are homologous implies a quite radical transformation of ATP synthetase components. However, several recent discoveries suggest specific homologies that are much more conservative than those implied by previous workers. First, FliH forms a (FliH)2FliI heterotrimer with FliI (Minamino and Macnab, 2000; Minamino et al., 2001). FliH has an elongated shape (Minamino et al., 2001), and both FliI and FliH are soluble cytoplasmic components that associate intrinsically with the membrane and with lipid vesicles (Auvray et al., 2002). If the FliH2 homodimer associates with the FliI6 complex in vivo, all of this begins to look suspiciously similar to the association (Figure 4b) between the F1F0-ATP synthetase F1-α3β3 and F0-b subunits: two elongated F0-b subunits form a dimer and interact with F1-α3β3. In F0-b it is the N-terminal region that associates with the membrane, and the C-terminal region with the N-terminal regions of F1-α3β3 (Boyer, 1997; Weber and Senior, 2003). In FliH it is known that the C-terminal region associates with N-terminal region of FliI (Gonzalez-Pedrajo et al., 2002), but the region responsible for membrane association is undetermined (Auvray et al., 2002); F0-b – FliH homology would predict that the FliH N-terminus associates with the membrane. Although BLAST searches on FliH only return F0-b as a non-significant hit, a search of NCBI’s CDART (Geer et al., 2002) based on FliH does retrieve F0-b as a result with similar domain architecture (using the default e-value cutoff of 0.01), another point in favor of the hypothesis of homology. Jackson and Plano (2000) report that the Yersinia pestis FliH homolog YscL (corresponding to SctL/HrpE in Figure 4a) has low but significant sequence similarity with the e subunit of the archaeal ATPase of Methanococcus jannaschii and the e subunit of the vacuolar ATPase of Desulfurococcus spp.; these subunits are the homologs of the b subunit of the F1F0-ATP synthetase. Thus the present scenario predicts that careful multiple alignment of FliH sequences with bacterial F0-b and the corresponding archaeal and eukaryotic homologs (all of which would be equally related to FliH) will confirm homology.

Can further homologies between flagella and the F1F0-ATP synthetase be discerned? In the F1F0-ATP synthetase, an F1-δ monomer associates with the proximal end of F1-α3β3 and F0-b2. In the type III export apparatus, it is FliJ that interacts with FliI and FliH2. FliJ seems to be required for the export of all flagellar components, and so has been interpreted as a general chaperone in the cytoplasm (Macnab, 2003). However, this observation is equally well explained if FliJ is a required part of a FliI6FliH2 complex essential for export. Both FliJ and F1-δ have a similar size and N-terminal binding sites to the N-terminal regions of FliI/F1-α. There may also be a structural similarity: FliJ has a high probability of exhibiting an N-terminal α-helical coiled-coil arrangement (Macnab, 2003), using sequence-based predictions (Lupas et al., 1991, method implemented at http://www.ch.embnet.org/software/COILS_form.html). ; F1-δ has several conserved α-helices at its N-terminal binding site to F1 (Weber et al., 2003b). Although predictions do not generally yield a high probability of coiled-coil structure for F1-δ, a cursory non-exhaustive sampling of orthologs shows that at least one FliJ protein does not show a high probability prediction of coiled-coil structure either (Buchnera aphidicola, accession no. P57179) while at least one F1-δ protein does (Rhodopseudomonas blastica, accession no. P05437). It appears that the C-terminal region of F1-δ associates with the C-terminal region of F0-b2, although the details remain to be worked out (Weber and Senior, 2003). Regarding the FliJ-FliH2 interaction, Fraser et al. (2003) favor a model where FliJ interacts with the N-terminal region of FliH2, but their data (Gonzalez-Pedrajo et al., 2002) shows that deletions in either the N-terminus (perhaps the region that associates with the membrane) or middle (dimerization region) of FliH preclude FliJ binding; thus failure of FliJ binding could be due to general malformation of FliH2 due to the failure of FliH to dimerize (middle deletion) or associate with the membrane (N-terminal deletion). Homology between F1-δ and FliJ would predict that FliJ-FliH interaction is actually mediated through the C-terminal regions of each, but that the association may be rather weak, as it is between F0-b2 and F1-δ (Weber and Senior, 2003).

Similarities in F1F0-δca, the integral membrane proteins FliPQR of the type III export apparatus, and the proteins SecFEY of type II secretion proteins were pointed out by Aizawa (2001), who calls these triplets the “proto-channel” and suggests homology. His evidence is of a general nature (calculated similarities in molecular size, aliphatic index, instability index, and isoelectric point) and so cannot be accepted uncritically. In particular, it is no longer thought that F1-δ (or its eukaryote homolog OSCP) is associated with the membrane or ATP synthetase stalk (Weber et al., 2003a), and the evidence discussed above points to a different homology for F1-δ. However, the proposed matches between FliQ--F0-c and FliR--F0-a are decent in terms of protein size and also the number of transmembrane helices of the respective proteins (Table 5). And surprisingly, extrapolating the homology hypothesis to match the two remaining type III secretion components (FliO and FliP) to the two remaining synthetase components (F1-ε and F1-γ, respectively) also seems to provide plausible matches in terms of size. When the similarities between F1F0-ATP synthetase and type III export components are tabulated (Table 5), it is apparent that that each component of the F1F0-ATP synthetase can be matched to a component of the type III export apparatus with a similar size and topology, as far as evidence is available (the function and structure of the flagellar proteins FliOPQR are poorly understood).

Individually, the cited similarities are easily attributable to chance, but together they are at least suggestive. Although detectable sequence similarity may be too much to hope for given the already very low similarity between FliI--F1-α3β3 and FliH--F0-b, the postulated homologies would be further testable by Aizawa’s technique. Table 5 also shows that there are some apparent dissimilarities. Notably, while both F0-c and FliQ have 2 transmembrane helices, the loop between the helices is exposed to the cytoplasm in F0-c (Birkenhager et al., 1999), while the loop between the helices in FliQ was predicted to be periplasmic (Ohnishi et al., 1997); a reversal of this finding would support the homology hypothesis. The weakest case for homology is between F1-ε and FliO; FliO is predicted (Ohnishi et al., 1997) to have a single transmembrane helix, while the structure of F1-ε has been solved (Wilkens and Capaldi, 1998) as a two-domain protein that binds to the stalk. However, both proteins tolerate substantial variability; F1-ε functions with large deletions (Wilkens and Capaldi, 1998) and clear homologs of FliO have not even been identified in type III virulence systems (Gophna et al., 2003).

The hypothesis that the entirety of a primitive F1F0-ATP synthetase may have been coopted in toto into a primitive gated pore (proto-FliF and proto-FlhA/B) is certainly provocative; it would explain at a stroke the origin of most of the type III export apparatus and provide a phylogenetically basal precursor to the flagellum even though clearly basal type III secretion systems remain undiscovered. The complex would fit well in the FliF ring; using the stoichiometry of FlhA2FlhB2 proposed by Macnab (2003), and the equivalent stoichiometry of an ATP synthetase for the other integral membrane components, FliO1P1Q~12R1, the total number of transmembrane helices is 60, well within the approximate MS-ring capacity of about 70 transmembrane alpha-helices (Fan et al., 1997). Fan et al. estimate <3 copies of FliR per flagellum, which is consistent with the ATP synthase homology hypothesis, but also estimate 4-5 copies for FliP, which is not, so if the ATP synthetase hypothesis is true it would be expected that the FliP finding is in error.

Macnab (1999) called the homology between FliI and F1-αβ “inexplicabl[e]”. However, there may be a relatively simple explanation. If the postulated homology between the ATP synthetase and type III export is correct, then the key event in the origin of type III export was the association of a primitive F1F0-ATP synthetase with a proto-FlhA or FlhB inside the proto-FliF ring, converting it from a passive to active transporter. Since little is known about the details of the coupling of ATPase activity to protein export in Type III export, this step remains speculative. Probably motion in the synthetase was linked to a conformational change in FlhA and/or FlhB, with the proton pumping function of the synthetase lost soon afterwards. Currently there are several documented associations between FlhAB and the rest of the type III export apparatus (Macnab, 2003). These associations include proteins in both the “F0” and “F1” regions of the type III export apparatus. FlhA or FlhB may thus take over some of the linker role that is played by F0-b in the ATP synthetase and (on the homology hypothesis) by FliH in the type III export apparatus; this would help to explain why FliH is not absolutely required for successful construction of flagella, and FliH null mutants can be compensated by mutations in FlhA and FlhB (Minamino et al., 2003).

Other possible hypotheses for the origin of the type III export apparatus are not currently ruled out, such as the idea that much of apparatus is descended from a passive channel and that only a portion of the F1F0-ATP synthetase was coopted to power transport, or that there is an ancient, obscured homology between the various secretion systems. Alternatives are currently disfavored because they are more complex and explain the origin of fewer components. However, even if FliI remains the only confirmed homolog to the F1F0-ATP synthetase, general considerations indicate that the evolution of an export system is not very difficult. A diversity of export systems of varying complexity exist, and there is a functional continuum of membrane complexes ranging from single proteins and passive pores through to active, gated export systems, indicating that there are no major evolutionary puzzles to solve. The cataloguing and categorizing of transport proteins is already yielding insights into their origin (Saier, 2003).

The ATP synthetase homology hypothesis has the advantage of numerous testable implications for the structure and function of FliHIJOPQR. The ATP synthetase is relatively well-understood; structures have been determined for most of the components and a number of sophisticated techniques for studying the complex as a whole have been developed. If the homology hypothesis is correct, then similar structures would be expected for the corresponding type III export components, and many of the techniques applied to the ATP synthetase should apply to the export apparatus. It is worth noting in passing that if a significant portion of the type III export apparatus is indeed homologous to the ATP synthetase, then it becomes fairly likely that the rotary flagellum contains within it a second rotary motor powering protein export. This is a fairly incredible notion, but would merely be the latest in a long line of surprising discoveries yielded by the study of the flagellum. This possibility might mean that the proto-flagellar secretion system was rotating from the start (echoing the rotation-early hypotheses of Cavalier-Smith, Goodenough, and Rizzotti), although this is not a necessary postulate for the rest of the scenario to proceed.

3.3. Type III secretion system

For the remainder, the hypothesis of a primitive type III export system will be taken for granted. This complex would have transported proteins manufactured in the cytoplasm into the periplasmic space. If secretins were already available from the type II secretion system, as they probably were given the universal distribution of type II secretion, then from the start the type III export system would have been a primitive kind of type III secretion system, as small proteins could diffuse in the periplasmic space until they found an outer membrane pore and diffused out. Digestive proteases or antibiotic molecules are likely candidates for the secreted proteins. Alternatively, the export system could have originally secreted proteins destined for the periplasm, and later cooption of a secretin converted the export system into a secretion system.

The association of an outer membrane channel with the type III export apparatus would improve the efficiency of secretion. This advantage would increase as exported substrates became larger, because the peptidoglycan cell wall only allows the diffusion of globular proteins with a size less than about 50 kDa (Young, 2001); as protein size increased, diffusion would be increasingly impeded. Once a new single-step secretion channel was available it would be possible to secrete larger proteins and proteins that would be harmful if left to wander about the periplasmic space. These are selective forces that would favor the spread and diversification of the channel, after its origin as an efficiency-improving measure.

Outer membrane secretins have been coopted repeatedly by various versions of the secretion systems discussed above (Hueck, 1998; Thanassi, 2002; Bitter, 2003); if the type III virulence system is derived from the flagellum, it probably originated in part by replacing the flagellar L- and P-ring proteins with a secretin. The first association of a secretin with a primitive type III export apparatus was probably mediated by the simultaneous cooption of a secretin and its outer membrane lipoprotein chaperone (Dailey and Macnab, 2002). Both of these proteins are secreted by the type II secretion pathway. The channel to the extracellular medium could be recruited in a single step if a mutation caused the secretin to associate with the type III export apparatus. The secretin appears to cross both the cell wall and outer membrane in the Hrp pilus, and to associate with the FliF homolog (SctJ/HrcJ; Figure 4a) in the cytoplasmic membrane (Blocker et al., 2003), so having two ring proteins (the L- and P-rings in flagella) does not appear to be a prerequisite for secretion. Thus the double ring may have been a later addition to the system, perhaps even coinciding with the early stages of improvement of the proto-flagellum and the loss or modification of the secretin (see below).

3.4. Origin of a type III pilus

In the model, flagellin and all of the proteins of the axial structure – FlgBCFG (rod), FlgE (hook), FlgKL (adaptor), FlgD and FliD (caps), in addition to FliC (flagellin) -- are descended from a common ancestral pilin secreted from the primitive type III secretion system. All of these proteins are placed in the axial protein family (Homma et al., 1990a; Hirano et al., 2001). Homma et al. (1990a) put the rod, hook, and first adaptor (FlgK) proteins into a closely-related subfamily. The divergence of the axial filament family probably occurred mostly after the origin of a functioning protoflagellum; this will be discussed in a later section. First, the origin of the pilus must be considered.

The diversity of surface structures based on secretion systems was documented in Table 4; modern flagella retain many of these functions (Moens and Vanderleyden, 1996). To expand on a likely function of a primitive pilus, successfully adhering to a surface can be a problem for a floating bacterium: at a low Reynolds number, the boundary layer near a surface can be a significant barrier (Vogel, 1994). A bacterium can increase its chances of attachment by secreting adhesins with an affinity for the desired surface, ensuring successive attachment if it happens to get near a surface (e.g., the adhesins secreted by autotransporters, independent of pili (Henderson et al., 1998)). It can increase its chances still further either by putting the adhesin at the end of a filament (e.g., the PapG adhesin located at the tip of the P pilus fibrillum (Sauer et al., 2000); the flagellar cap FliD of Pseudomonas aeruginosa doubles as an adhesin (Scharfman et al., 2001)) and/or by making the filament adhesive along its whole length, which is a common occurrence in modern bacterial flagella as well as many other surface structures (Kennedy, 1987; Moens and Vanderleyden, 1996; Fernandez and Berenguer, 2000; Giron et al., 2002). Probably any filament, adhesins or no, will have some utility in attaching to inorganic surfaces, simply by expanding effective size and surface area available for adhesion. Even in the absence of specific adhesins, charge, hydrophobicity, and/or van der Waals forces can be exploited for more general surface adhesion (Vogel, 1988), particularly at the small scale of bacteria.

Three hypotheses present themselves as to how the ancestral pilus originated: filament-first, cap-first, and modified filament-first. The latter hypothesis combines the best features of the filament-first and cap-first hypotheses.

3.4.1. Filament-first hypothesis

One way that the kinds of pili described above could get their start is by simple polymerization of a surface adhesin. The adhesin would have inherited from its ancestor the ability to bind with the outer membrane channel and with the extracellular substrate; all that would have to be added is self-binding capability. The plausibility of this step is attested by several facts: first, structures made up of multiple copies of the same subunit are biochemically ubiquitous, and the evolution of large multimeric complexes has in many instances been traced back to simpler ancestors, e.g., AAA ATPases (Mocz and Gibbons, 2001). Second, polymerization into a filament or tubule via mutation is a quite common event: sickle-cell hemoglobin, derived by only a single substitution from regular hemoglobin, forms not only self-assembling polymers but dynamic polymers (Mitchison, 1995). In fact, Mitchison (1995) argues that evolution can start with just about any protein fold and produce a self-assembling polymer.

An alternative to polymerizing an adhesin is to postulate that a gene for a pre-existing filament-forming protein was coopted by transposition of the promoter and N-terminal signal sequence of an already secreted protein. Support for this second possibility might be found in homology between flagellin and a modern filament-forming protein. Homology between flagellin and actin has been proposed. Harris and Elder (2002) cite an 8/13 amino acid sequence match between flagellin and actin in the N-terminal region, but this could easily be due to chance. Novikova et al. (2000) found that flagellar filaments co-precipitate with rabbit skeletal myosin, and that flagellin and F-actin compete for myosin binding, but this might be explained by a general similarity of filaments rather than homology. The search for flagellin-actin homology is somewhat misguided in any case, because actin is a eukaryotic protein, so ancient prokaryote actin homologs such as FtsA (Mitchison, 1995) would be more appropriate subjects. Similarly, what should be sought is not the homolog of flagellin but the homolog of the entire axial protein family. Given the large divergence of flagellin from the more conserved rod and hook members of the family (Homma et al., 1990a), any relationships outside of this family are bound to be difficult to detect.

A simple assumption is that the first filament was a chain of monomers, probably in an open helix. Longer filaments are presumably better for adherence than short filaments, and thus selection for adhesion can be expected to favor longer filaments. Once a polymer filament of reasonable length has been built, however, there may be a difficulty in extending it. The problem does not arise if filament subunits are added at the base, as occurs in type IV pili: type IV pili are based on type II secretion systems, which use a two-step process to transport proteins. First, proteins are exported into the periplasm, and then they are pushed out through a secretin, perhaps via a “plunger”-type mechanism involving a pseudopilus (Thomas et al., 2001). However, the type III secretion system exports proteins from the cytoplasm in one step. By exporting a number of individual subunits, a short filament binding to the outer membrane pore can be formed, but its possible length will be severely limited by the decreasing chances of successfully adding monomers to the receding distal tip. This problem might be overcome in a gradual manner by modifications to the open helix, so that it better corralled the monomers as they exited the secretin. Each mutation that brought the turns of the helix closer together would decrease the rate of monomer escape, and allow the extension of the filament. A tube with closed or nearly closed walls would be the optimal solution, and selection for rigidity (necessary for very long filaments) would also favor the closed tube.

The result would be something rather like the modern type III virulence pili, which appear to have far less complex axial structures than flagella. Indeed, despite several investigations it has yet to be determined that the Hrp pilus has any axial components (rod-like, hook-like, etc.) apart from the main protein of the pilus, HrpA (MxiH/PrgI in Shigella/Salmonella; Blocker et al., 2003; Aizawa (2001) tentatively suggests a few others). The extracellular portion of the filament seems to extend continuously into the secretion complex (Fernandez and Berenguer, 2000) whereas in flagella there is a distinction between filament, hook, and rod.

It might be objected at this point that the flagellum requires the cap (FliD) in order to chaperone the flagellin subunits into place at the elongating tip of the filament; without it, they diffuse away and are lost (Blocker et al., 2003). The hook has its own temporary cap (FlgD), and it has been suggested, but not proven (Hirano et al., 2001; Berg, 2003; Macnab, 2003), that the rod has a cap protein as well (FlgJ). However, the necessity of the cap for successfully assembling subunits is ambiguous. Flagellin will self-assemble into filaments in vitro (Hirano et al., 2001). No cap has been identified in any type III virulence systems (Blocker et al., 2003), and although PrgJ has been suggested as a possible cap for the Salmonella needle (Sukhan et al., 2003), the evidence is indeterminate as Sukhan et al. could not detect PrgJ in sheared-off needles and did not detect it at needle tips using immunoelectron microscopy (they therefore suggest that PrgJ may be a basal component). The polar flagellum of Vibrio grows normally without the cap (Bardy et al., 2003), probably because it is sheathed by an extension of the cell membrane (McCarter, 2001) that constrains the subunits. Finally, even in the canonical E. coli flagellum the adaptor proteins FlgK and FlgL are added without any capping structure (Macnab, 2003), leading Macnab (2003) to argue that “capping structures are perhaps best viewed as a means of increasing efficiency of addition rather than as an absolute requirement.” On this view, the cap could be a relatively late evolutionary addition to the pilus structure, originating by pentamerization of a pilus subunit and initially improving speed and efficiency of pilus assembly. Later co-adaptation between filament and cap subunits would make it a more-or-less required feature.

3.4.2. Cap-first hypothesis

An alternative to gradual formation of a hollow pilus would be to start with the cap. In Pseudomonas aeruginosa, FliD serves not only as a cap protein, but also as an adhesin. P. aeruginosa infects the human respiratory system by adhering to mucins. FliD mutants were found to be nonadhesive, which could occur either because FliD is a necessary adhesin, or because the flagellar filament fails to assemble without the cap. However, Arora et al. (1998) found that FliC null mutants retained adhesive ability. This implies that it is FliD specifically which serves as the adhesin, and not the whole flagellar filament, a conclusion supported by additional lines of evidence (Arora et al., 1998; Scharfman et al., 2001). On the filament-first hypothesis, an adhesin attached to the outer membrane secretin mutated to form a polymeric chain. The fact that caps can be adhesive, however, suggests an alternative hypothesis. Instead of a mutation forming a polymeric chain, the mutant adhesin formed an oligomer that associated with the distal rim of the outer membrane secretin, approximately covered the mouth of the secretin, and allowing more adhesin monomers to be packed into the available space. In this case, a pentamer ring was approximately the right size. Once this was established, however, the utility of the adhesive “secretin cap” would be further improved if it could be extended away from the surface of the cell. This could occur by mutation of a duplicate cap protein that formed a slightly wider ring. This ring would associate with the base of the cap, but the size mismatch would allow the insertion of more subunits, forming a short pilus in one step. On this view, the primitive pilus would derive its structure of ~5 subunits per turn from the pentameric cap, rather than the reverse. The channel inside the pilus would be descended from the hole in expanded ring.

3.4.3. Modified filament-first hypothesis

The filament-first hypothesis has the disadvantage of explaining the addition of distal subunits to the filament before a tube structure could evolve. The cap-first hypothesis has the difficulty that a pentameric proto-cap covering the surface of the secretin pore might impede the secretion of other substrates. The difficulty is not insurmountable, as secreted substrates might escape from beneath the sides of the cap, or alternatively might knock loose the cap, which is then replaced by continually secreted cap protein (both mechanisms may operate in modern flagella). However, these problems dissolve if the hypothesized adhesin pentamer were to initially form a ring atop the secretin, instead of a cap. Secretion of diverse substrates could then continue unabated without continual secretion of the adhesin protein. From here, a proto-pilus could easily be formed by a mutant adhesin that polymerized the ring into a tube. This hypothesis is simpler and more appealing because it combines the advantages of the two previous scenarios: a pilus initially assembled by simple mechanisms without a cap, but having a well-formed tube structure from the start, and allowing the uninterrupted secretion of other type III secretion system substrates. On this hypothesis, the proto-cap would again be a late addition (a modified pilus protein) increasing assembly efficiency.

It is interesting to reflect on the surprise many researchers felt when the mechanism of flagellar filament construction – adding subunits at the tip rather than the base – was discovered. It has been called “astonishing” and “somewhat bizarre” (Macnab and DeRosier, 1988). However, with the modified filament-first hypothesis in hand, the decidedly unintuitive method of filament assembly used by the flagellum can be seen as a product of the constraint of building a pilus from the starting point of type III secretion. That a flagellum can also be built perfectly well from the base is shown by the archaeal flagellum with its type IV secretion-like system (Peabody et al., 2003). But unlike the type IV secretion system, which has periplasmic ATPases and other outer membrane-associated active transport components, the type III system had no mechanism of powered outer membrane transport available to build on.

3.4.4. Improvements on the type III pilus

Once a primitive pilus has evolved, a number of rapid improvements can be expected. First would be optimization of the pilin protein for its new role, under selection for increased strength, minimizing breakage, increased speed of assembly, etc. Addition of the cap and subsequent coevolution of the pilin and cap subunits could have occurred fairly early, particularly as the pili became very long and assembly times became significant. Pilus lengthening would be selected for because it increases reach and adhesive surface area. That lengthening is a trivial matter of regulation is shown by various lab-produced mutants that exhibit lengthened hooks, needles, etc. due to simple mutations. Type III pili might have reached the length of flagellar filaments (10 μm) long before motility originated; flagella and Hrp pili are of comparable length (He and Jin, 2003, Figure 1). Soon the type III secretion system would become a specialized pilus-secretion apparatus, and pili would be adapted for a variety of more strenuous uses. For example, pili might be used as stalks to elevate the bacterium above the surface, in order to better access light, a particular concentration of molecules, or escape competition from bacteria on the surface, all functions of attachment organelles today (Dyer, 2003). Duplication and modification of the pilin protein would allow greater functional flexibility, such as adhesion to different substrates and the production of certain kinds of pili based on environmental stimuli. One important modification that might have occurred after these trends were well along would be to strengthen the pilus attachment to the cell by extending the filament down into the secretion system to attach to the export apparatus embedded in the cytoplasmic membrane. This would have been effected by cooption of a duplicate pilin. The core tubule structure of the flagellar rod, hook, and filament is constructed exclusively by the N- and C-terminal domains of the axial proteins; the middle domains are placed on the outside of the tubule, and in flagellin are highly modifiable and often dispensable (Cohen-Krausz and Trachtenberg, 2003). Therefore, the “proto-rod” probably originated by loss of the outer domains, assuming that the extracellular pilus had them for adhesion or structural purposes. This duplication event would create the ancestors of the rod/hook subfamily and flagellin. Initially, one cap protein could chaperone the assembly of both structures, but as they diverged, the cap protein would be duplicated as well to allow specialization on each protein, assuming that modern flagellar rods have cap proteins, as has been suggested (FlgJ; Berg, 2003; Macnab, 2003).

It is not clear that modern type III virulence pili make use of rodlike proteins at all (the filament may simply extend all the way from the cytoplasmic export apparatus out into the extracellular space), so it is also possible that differentiation of filament and rod proteins occurred later and that attachment to the export apparatus occurred via modification of the pilin subunit. However, the hypothesis that the duplication was early helps to explain the high divergence between flagellin and the rod/hook subfamily, as well as explaining how the filament became attached to the export apparatus instead of the outer membrane secretin (although some attachment to the secretin may have remained; see below). Another protein, FliE, serves as the adaptor protein between FliF (the MS-ring) and FlgB (the proximal rod protein). FliE homologs have not yet been detected in type III virulence systems, so the utility of a FliE-like adaptor in nonmotile systems is ambiguous. Here it will be assumed that it was a relatively late, post-motility addition that strengthened the attachment between the MS-ring and the rod. Investigation of the attachment mechanisms of modern type III pili to the secretion system may shed light on the relative likelihood of these possibilities.

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10419742 - 05/29/09 12:12 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

3.5. The evolution of flagella

3.5.1. The selective advantage of undirected motility

Even with a complex pilus in place, the modern flagellum could not have originated in a single step. It is hypothesized that the first, very crude motility function was random dispersal. The function was probably not stirring or gathering more food by more rapid movement, because of the previously-discussed constraints of life at a low Reynolds number. Dispersal, on the other hand, is both a ubiquitous adaptation in biology and rather undemanding in terms of motility. Vogel (1994) reports that passive dispersal (i.e., unpowered dispersal by wind or current) is found in every phylum of animals and division of plants. For creatures such as bacteria, some dispersal will occur without any adaptations whatsoever: random physical events can dislodge them from the substrate, and Brownian motion and larger-scale turbulence and flow will move them about. Even in agar, nonflagellate bacteria without other motility systems can spread via “sliding,” motility due to colony growth requiring only the production of a surfactant to reduce friction (Brown and Häse, 2001). However, dispersal is not always a good thing for a bacterium. Since a bacterium existing in a location is most likely descended from a successfully reproducing bacterium also at that location, and therefore the environment is conducive to reproduction, it would be expected that the best choice for a bacterium would be to stay where it is at, rather than gambling everything on a rather literal leap into the blue. On the other hand, this logic will rapidly break down because any environment conducive to replication will soon become filled to the brim with bacteria, at which point competition for nutrients, space, light, etc. will become severe. In such a situation there are numerous potential responses (spore formation, killing fellow bacteria by secreting antibiotics, etc.), but one of them is clearly dispersal (Dusenbery, 1998; Stoodley et al., 2002).

The best general strategy would be for the bacterium to “decide” whether or not to disperse based on environmental cues: if life is good, stay put, but if resources are scarce, go somewhere else. In fact, this is basically what regulates the production of flagella in modern bacteria. In E. coli, the master operon (class 1) for flagella encodes FlhC and FlhD. These proteins activate the genes for flagellar biosynthesis in the next operon (class 2), but are repressed in high glucose conditions, where nutrients are plentiful and movement is pointless. If conditions deteriorate, the level of cyclic AMP in the cell increases, and the expression of FlhDC is activated by cAMP and the catabolite repressor/activator protein (CAP) (Berg, 2003). Dispersal processes and evolutionary stable dispersal strategies are tractable to mathematical and computer modeling, resulting with a large literature (e.g., Gandon and Roussett, 1999; Lebreton et al., 2000; Mathias et al., 2001; Poethke and Hovestadt, 2002), although most of it is not aimed specifically at bacteria (for exceptions see Kreft et al., 2001; Kerr et al., 2002). All that is needed for the argument to proceed at this point is that dispersal be a widely beneficial behavior. However, the basic dynamics of random bacterial diffusion are so simply described (Berg, 1993) that a short investigation of what kind of bacterium might be expected to evolve random dispersal is irresistible.

Even dead or otherwise nonmotile bacteria have a non-trivial diffusion coefficient: a sphere with a radius r will have a diffusion coefficient Dsphere of (Berg, 1993, eqn. 4.13):

For a dead bacterium with a diameter of 2 μm, Dsphere = 2.1x10-9 cm2/sec. The average time t it will take to diffuse a distance x is given by (Berg, 1993, eqn. 1.10):

For the above bacterium, this means that it can be expected to passively diffuse its 2 μm diameter in ~9.3 sec, purely by Brownian motion. However, because Brownian motion is a random walk, after each ‘step’ the diffusing particle has an equal chance of going in any direction; the overall drift is zero. A large number of particles placed at one location will gradually spread out in all directions by diffusion, but the mean location of the population will not change from the starting point unless additional forces come into play. The fact that average diffusion time increases with the square of the distance means that diffusion becomes an increasing poor way to travel as the dispersal distance increases. The 2 μm nonmotile bacterium, above, takes an average of 9 seconds to diffuse one body length, but to diffuse 100 body lengths takes not 100 times as long (15 minutes) but 10,000 times as long (26 hours). These figures are somewhat misleading as they completely ignore turbulence and flow (perfume molecules would take a month to diffuse across a room if diffusion was the only relevant process; Berg, 1993), but beneath the laminar boundary layer, very near a surface, these forces will be reduced (Vogel, 1994).

Therefore, one very crude way for a bacterium adhered to a surface to disperse is to detach its adhesins and/or adhesive pili, and let passive dispersal take place. At least one such dispersal mechanism has been documented (Coutte et al., 2003). If the bacterium can manage to rise substantially in the boundary layer, flow or turbulence may carry it some distance, at which point it can re-secrete adhesive pili and attach to a new surface. It will probably do better if it starts out at the top of long pilus; similar dispersal-enhancing mechanisms are well known (fruiting bodies in bacteria such as Myxococcus; Caulobacter stalks).

Under what conditions would it be advantageous to enhance the effects of Brownian motion by adding crude active motility? Usefully, Dusenbery (1997; 1998) has derived an equation allowing the calculation of the relative utility of active and passive dispersal for organisms at a low Reynolds number. Dusenbery assumes that the organisms are spherical and that they swim at a velocity of 10 body lengths/sec, a common value at widely varying scales (Dusenbery, 1996). Taking into account the fact that rotational Brownian motion will keep any cell from swimming in a straight line, the ratio of the diffusion coefficient with motility (Dm) to the diffusion coefficient without it (D0) is (Dusenbery, 1997, Table 2):

where r is again the radius and u is the cell’s swimming velocity in radii/sec (here, 20). Dusenbery calculates that a bacterium would have to have a diameter of at least 0.64 μm in order to double its diffusion coefficient for the purpose of undirected dispersal. Small bacteria have a very high diffusion coefficient even without motility, and for small bacteria Brownian rotation is so severe that swimming straight for any distance is impossible. Therefore, for very small bacteria, active swimming with flagella is pointless; random Brownian motion is as good as it gets (other swimming methods may be successful, e.g. the linear motor of Spiroplasma; Trachtenberg et al., 2003). This has the obvious implication that flagella cannot have evolved in very small bacteria; Dusenbery surveyed bacteria genera and found that the smallest motile genus had a diameter of 0.8 μm. Similar minimum size constraints were found for motility with chemotaxis, phototaxis, and thermotaxis (Dusenbery, 1997).

Equation (8) can be modified by converting the relative swimming velocity u (in radii/sec) into the absolute swimming velocity v (in cm/sec):

Equation (9) can be used to estimate the minimum swimming velocity required for a protoflagellum to substantially increase the diffusion coefficient of a cell. Dm/D0 was calculated for cells ranging from 0-8 μm in diameter, with absolute swimming velocities of 0.1, 1, and 10 μm/sec (see Figure 6). Some advantage to diffusion would result from motility for any values of Dm/D0. However, because the construction and movement of filaments has some cost, we have followed Dusenbery in setting the cutoff for “selectable motility function” at doubling the passive diffusion coefficient (Dm > 2D0). As can be seen from Figure 6, Dusenbery’s result is approximately reproduced (swimming velocity here is absolute rather than relative to cell size, so slightly different input values were used): Dm/D0 is doubled for a ~0.6 μm bacterium swimming at 10 μm/sec.

However, a crudely functioning protoflagellum cannot be expected to push a bacterium at 10 μm/sec. The important result shown in Figure 6 is that even very slow absolute swimming velocities can result in a significant improvement in the diffusion coefficient for large bacteria. Swimming at 1/10 the velocity of E. coli is advantageous to dispersal in a bacterium of ~2 μm diameter, and swimming at 1/100 the velocity of E. coli is advantageous to the dispersal of a bacterium with a diameter of ~6 μm. Two factors contribute to this pattern: for larger bacteria, passive diffusion is slower, increasing the relative advantage of swimming. Similarly, rotational diffusion is also slower for larger bacteria, but this factor enhances the efficacy of swimming as swimming runs will take longer to be randomly reoriented.

There are additional reasons to think that the protoflagellum may have originated in a large bacterium. Similar beneficial scaling applies if swimming velocity is considered in terms of body lengths/second: Dusenbery’s 0.64 μm bacterium has to swim at 10 body lengths/second in order to beat diffusion, but a 6 μm bacterium need only swim 0.17 body lengths/second in order to achieve a benefit. A consideration of carbon budgets also points this direction: for a (hypothetical) very small flagellated bacterium, diameter 0.4 μm, producing 10 peritricious flagella, each ten times the body length of the cell, would cost 50% of the cell’s carbon (Mitchell, 2002). However, for a 1 μm cell, the relative cost of 10 flagella of proportional size is only about ~2% of cell carbon. For the 6 μm diameter cell discussed above, it is ~0.2%. 6 μm diameter bacteria are well within the usual size range of bacteria (Dusenbery, 1997). For a moderately large bacterium, the costs of crude, poorly functioning flagella are trivial, while the relative benefits in terms of dispersal are substantial. The exponential nature of the relationships is such that moderate violations of the input assumptions will not greatly change the qualitative results (Dusenbery, 1997); at some moderately large size the costs of primitive motility become low and the benefits high.

3.5.2. Primitive flagella

The flagellar motor is made up of two proteins, MotA and MotB. MotB binds to the peptidoglycan cell wall, allowing the complex to serve as a stator. MotB (and perhaps MotA) also forms a proton conducting channel. Although the exact mechanism of motor function is still mysterious, with many proposed models (Berg, 2003; Schmitt, 2003), energy from the translocation of proteins in the vicinity of MotB is somehow transformed into mechanical energy to move the rotor. Probably this occurs by conformational change in MotA, which then binds reversibly with the rotor protein FliG, causing rotation. Speaking very metaphorically, FliG appears to act like the teeth of a gear, converting (in one model) the power stroke of MotA into rotary motion. FliG is mounted on the central MS-ring (FliF). Also attached to the MS-ring (perhaps mostly but not exclusively via FliG) are the switch proteins FliM and FliN. FliM contains a receptor domain for the phosphorylated chemotaxis protein CheY-P, and the binding of CheY-P induces some kind of conformational change in FliM, FliN, and FliG that results in switching the direction of motor rotation from counterclockwise to clockwise. This in turn results in a short ‘tumble’ which reorients the cell, and then the flagellum returns to counterclockwise rotation.

Even given the minimal costs and substantial selective benefits of crude motility, how could the sudden origin of the rotary motor complex be mutationally possible? The basic answer is that the ancestors of the motor proteins were already fully formed and serving other functions in the cell. It was recently discovered (Cascales et al., 2001; Kojima and Blair, 2001) that the flagellar motor proteins MotAB have nonflagellar homologs: ExbBD and TolQR (Figure 4c). These proteins share significant sequence similarity and all form ion channels that energize work at a distance by a third protein; ExbBD and TolQR energize outer membrane transport via action on TonB and TolA, respectively, while MotAB energize flagellar motion via action on FliG. The recently discovered homologs involved in Myxococcus gliding systems (Youderian et al., 2003) will likely add another instance, although no detailed studies of their function have been performed. The nonflagellar MotAB homologs are phylogenetically widely distributed, found in proteobacteria, cyanobacteria, Aquifex, and even in archaea (Kojima and Blair, 2001). These facts led Kojima and Blair to note that these proteins “could perform work in contexts other than (and simpler than) the flagellar motor,” and they conclude that “ancestral forms of the MotA/MotB complex might have arisen independently of any part of the rotor.”

In order to form the motor-rotor interface, however, the origin of a third protein, FliG, must also be accounted for. No nonflagellar homologs of FliG have been discovered (except in type III virulence systems), perhaps not surprisingly given the peculiar function of this protein and the radical change it must have undergone, whatever its ancestral function. The structure of the middle and C-terminal domains of FliG has been resolved (Brown et al., 2002), and is primarily made of alpha helices. Alpha helices are ubiquitous in proteins, so FliG is not necessarily structurally bizarre, despite its unusual function. Three general possibilities present themselves for the origin of the FliG-MotAB complex. (1) TolQR homologs were coopted via a mutation that allowed them to bind directly to FliF. FliG was a later addition that enhanced motility by improving binding between the MS-ring and MotA, and gradually took over the interface function completely. (2) Proto-FliG was bound to FliF before the cooption of MotAB for some other reason, perhaps a stabilization or structural function similar to that served by the FliG homologs in type III virulence systems. Mutant TolQR homologs then bound to proto-FliG. (3) FliG was coopted simultaneously with MotAB, because it originated as a fragment of a TolA homolog that ancestrally interacted with a TolQ homolog. The third hypothesis is the simplest and most direct pathway; the only novel interaction would be the binding of the proto-FliG to FliF; binding to the proto-MotA would be inherited. This is less demanding than postulating the re-engineering of the interface between a TolQ homolog and its substrate (a feature of both hypotheses #1 and #2), and does not require postulating an independent cooption of FliG from an unknown source. The hypothesis also has the advantage of being testable via determination of the structures of TonB or TolA and investigation of their interactions with ExbBD and TolQR.

On any of the hypotheses, it is not absolutely necessary that crude motility be an immediate product; a coopted TolQRA-like complex could first have associated with the type III secretion system to enhance or help to control protein transport. However, all that would initially be required for the very weak motility postulated above would be a slow rotation (other things being equal, a swimming velocity of 1/100th that of E. coli would imply a rotation rate similarly reduced; E. coli flagella rotate at 100 Hz, so perhaps the protoflagellum rotated at ~1 Hz). Although the model does not hypothesize that the ancestral pilus was short, even severely truncated flagella (0.3-1.2 μm) can support residual motility (Josenhans et al., 1995; Suerbaum, 1995), lending plausibility to the notion that perfectly formed flagella are not necessary for crude motility. In addition to the motility advantages discussed above, wiggling and twisting would probably help to dislodge the bacterium from the surface and from nearby bacteria; just such a function of certain type IV bundle-forming pili has been observed in E. coli (Knutton et al., 1999).

A possible objection here is that the ancestral pilus cannot be expected to have been freely rotating, preadapted for the addition of a motor complex; the rod might have been bound to the peptidoglycan cell wall via the P-ring, making motility impossible. However, this assumes that a P-ring existed at this point, a dubious assumption if a secretin can bridge both the cell wall and cell membrane. Additionally, it is actually not clear that pili are commonly rigidly fixed to the cell wall via a secretin. It would be very interesting to know if type III and other pili, when attached to a substrate, allow a bacterium to rotate via Brownian motion in a fashion similar to motor-disabled bacteria with their flagella attached to coverslips. Similar observations would be useful for membrane-embedded structures such as outer membrane secretins. One selective reason that might favor freely-rotating pili prior to the evolution of motility is, again, adhesion. A curved pilus that is allowed to rotate via Brownian motion can continually explore more area around a cell (particularly a large, slowly diffusing, slowly rotating cell) than a rigidly attached pilus, increasing the chances of finding a substrate.

A final possible objection is that if the pilus was perfectly straight, then rotating it would not produce motion. While this is true, it is irrelevant because modern pili are not always straight or stiff (Bullitt and Makowski, 1998, Figures 2-4; Honma and Nakasone, 1990; Yamashiro et al., 1994), the interconversion of pilus shapes is mutationally trivial, and there are many more ways to build a curved, helical filament than a straight one from protein subunits. Additionally, for the pilus rotated by Brownian motion postulated above, some curvature and helical character would be a requirement in order for the pilus to explore a larger area than a fixed pilus. The exact shape of the protoflagellum is not crucial in the drag-intensive world of the low Reynolds number; Purcell (1997) has calculated that any number of peculiar rotating shapes can swim with varying efficiency (and efficiency is in fact basically energetically irrelevant at this scale; Purcell, 1977; Berg, 1993). Purcell (1977) notes that turning anything nonsymmetrical will result in swimming.

3.5.3. Loss of outer membrane secretin

Unlike other secretion systems (type I-IV, including type III virulence systems), the type III secretion systems of bacterial flagella do not actually have an outer membrane secretin. The protein that plays the role of an outer membrane pore, FlgH, is actually a lipoprotein that Aizawa (2001) and Dailey and Macnab (2002) suggest is homologous to the Salmonella type III secretion system protein InvH. InvH is a lipoprotein required for the insertion of the secretin InvG (SctC in Hueck’s (1998) unified nomenclature) into the outer membrane (Crago and Koronakis, 1998). Such a mechanism is common for outer membrane secretin assembly; in the type II secretion system of Klebsiella oxytoca, the outer membrane lipoprotein PulS binds 1:1 with the secretin protein PulD, preventing periplasmic degradation and helping the localized assembly of the secretin into the outer membrane. Twelve PulS proteins probably form a ring about the 12-PulD secretin pore (Bitter, 2003).

These observations suggest a hypothesis for the origin of the flagellar L-ring: it is not derived from an outer membrane secretin, as would be naively assumed based on its position in the outer membrane. Rather, the FlgH L-ring may be derived from the lipoprotein that was the chaperone for the secretin of the primitive type III secretion system. What happened to the secretin? An obvious possibility is that it slowed the rotation of the protoflagellum. On the present model, the primitive type III pilus originally bound to the outer membrane secretin, and later the channel was extended down to the MS-ring in the cytoplasmic membrane. However, some association or binding might have remained between the outer membrane secretin and the filament. If this was the case, it probably would not have mattered for a pili rotating by Brownian motion or rotating at low Hertz in the protoflagellum. The outer membrane can tolerate some rotational motion of embedded components, just as membranes tolerate the lateral diffusion of proteins. Some modern flagella are even covered by the membrane, such as the polar flagella of Vibrio, although here a special sheath evidently prevents tearing during rotation at 1500 Hz. However, as rotation speeds increased, the risk of outer membrane tearing would increase. A simple solution to this problem could be to delete the portion of the secretin binding to the filament; the outer lipoprotein ring would take over the role of outer membrane pore, but would not interact with the filament and would provide a bearing between the filament and outer membrane. A channel through the cell wall would be continuously maintained if the secretin became the proto-P-ring. Aizawa (2001) suggests homology between FlgI and the secretin InvG. The hypothesis would be strengthened if lipoproteins other than FlgH form rings in the outer membrane in other secretion systems; thus far, lipoprotein has not been found in isolated secretin complexes although the ring structure is suspected (Bitter, 2003).

3.5.4. Refinements

For a bacterium, a sphere is the optimal shape for maximizing passive dispersal (Dusenbery, 1998). It can thus be surmised that the cell evolving the protoflagellum was a coccus, like some flagellated bacteria today (Zaar et al., 2003). In such a cell, the surface positioning of a flagellum is irrelevant – one place is as good as another on a sphere, so no positioning mechanism is required. Since the model postulates that random dispersal was the original function of flagella, the first, crudely functioning protoflagellum lacked many parts that are important in modern flagella. First, chemotaxis and switching are not required for dispersal, so neither the Che proteins nor the switch complex would have been required. If switching is not required and the protoflagellar filament is sticking straight out at a random position on spherical cell surface, then the hook region is similarly dispensible. Once functional motility was even marginally established, however, there would be rapid selection for improvements. These might have occurred in more or less any order, or concurrently, so they will be discussed topically.

3.5.5. Chemotaxis and switching

The “flagellar” chemotaxis genes (Eisenbach, 2000; Table 2, this paper) are in fact not specific to flagella; the same system is coupled to diverse motility systems, including archaeal flagella and twitching motility (Faguy and Jarrell, 1999; Bardy et al., 2003). Furthermore, homologous components are tied to all manner of cellular responses to the environment; the central two-component signal transduction system (consisting of the histidine kinase CheA and the response regulator CheY in flagellar chemotaxis) is ancient, found in all three domains, and used for diverse functions. Their evolution is discussed by Koretke et al. (2000). Another major set of chemotaxis components, the membrane bound methyl-accepting chemotaxis proteins (MCPs) which are the receptors for attractants and repellants, have a similarly wide set of homologs with diverse functions (Zhulin et al., 2003). More could be said about details, as there are substantial variations between the chemotaxis systems of various organisms (Eisenbach, 2000; Kirby et al., 2001), but for the purposes of this paper it will be assumed that some sort of sensory transduction system preceded the origin of the flagellum, and that one of the response regulators was the ancestor of CheY. In modern flagella, a worsening in conditions results in the increasing phosphorylation of CheY into CheY-P.

In E. coli, switching rotation from counterclockwise (CCW) to clockwise (CW) causes the cell to tumble, reorienting it to swim in a new direction. The probability of switching is increased by the binding of CheY-P to FliM. If concentrations of attractants are increasing during a run, CheY-P decreases and switching is suppressed, and thus favorable runs tend to last longer. If repellents are increasing, CheY-P increases, switching is promoted, and thus unfavorable runs are shortened. The cell uses this method to bias its random walk, imposing an overall drift towards regions with higher concentrations of attractants (Berg, 1993). However, for bacteria with a diameter larger than 1.4 μm, run-and-stop or run-and-reverse strategies are more energetically favored than the run-and-tumble strategy, due to the larger costs of actively rotating a large cell (Mitchell, 2002). As a result the run-and-tumble strategy, while common in model organisms, is far from universal. Rhodobacter sphaeroides swims with a single, stop-start flagellum, with no reversing (Shah and Sockett, 1995; Shah et al., 2000). Passive rotation via Brownian motion reorients the stopped cell. This is but one of many variations on switching (Eisenbach, 2000), but probably resembles the most primitive version.

Explaining the origin of the switch complex, which couples the chemotaxis system to flagellar rotation, requires an examination of the domain structure and interactions of the switch proteins. FliN and FliM, which make up the C-ring, are partially homologous. FliN is homologous to the C-terminal domain of FliM, and as a result the two proteins probably occupy similar positions in the C-ring, perhaps alternating in a 3 FliN:1 FliM pattern, which approximately matches their stoichiometry (Mathews et al., 1998; see also Figure 2, this paper). FliM also has a N-terminal domain with no counterpart in FliN that is the actual CheY-P receptor. CheY-P binds to the receptor domain, increasing the probability of a switch to CW rotation (Eisenbach, 2000) via an unknown mechanism involving interactions between FliM/N and FliG (Mathews et al., 1998). The receptor domain is homologous to the single-domain chemotaxis protein CheC of Bacillus subtilis (Kirby et al., 2001). CheC binds reversibly to the Bacillus C-ring, and is released when it binds to CheY-P. CheC has not been found in E. coli, but homologs are found in many early-branching bacteria, as well as archaea. A cladogram generated for CheC and the FliM CheC-like domain shows that CheC is phylogenetically basal (Kirby et al., 2001).

A pre-existing sensory transduction system could be coupled to flagellar rotation in a single step on the hypothesis that a FliN-like protein existed for some nonflagellar cellular response purpose, serving as a receptor for CheC. The exact function of modern CheC is not known, but it appears to interact with CheA, CheD, and McpB, which form a receptor complex (Kirby et al., 2001). CheC may also have a FliM-like function via interaction with the C-ring (Szurmant et al., 2003). The ancestor of FliN might therefore be found among the other proteins that CheC interacts with. On the model, a mutation in this FliN-like protein created a proto-FliN that bound to FliG, slowing or jamming the motor. The reversible binding of CheC to proto-FliN, however, happened to alleviate this effect by changing the conformation of proto-FliN. CheY-P binding to CheC would result in the dephosphorylation of CheY-P and the release of CheC from proto-FliN, resulting in the slowed-rotation behavior. Chemotactic behavior would thereby originate by a single mutation (all other interactions would be inherited), which could then be followed by gradual improvements in the initial crude function. This hypothesis is more economical than supposing that FliN originated for some role in structural support or enhancing export, and was later coopted to a switching function via the binding of CheC, although this remains a possibility as FliN homologs are retained in type III virulence systems for some purpose. The first hypothesis suggests that the homolog of FliN will be found within sensory transduction systems as one of the proteins that CheC or a CheC homolog interacts with; it is difficult to know where to look with the latter hypothesis. The considerable variations in the C-ring of bacteria may yield further hints, as major variations on chemotaxis and the switch complex are known; for example, Aquifex aeolicus lacks the traditional chemotaxis system as well as FliM; Bacillus spp. have FliY (a FliM-FliN fusion protein; Bischoff and Ordal, 1992; Celandroni et al., 2000) rather than FliN. In any case, the fusion of CheC-like and FliN-like proteins would produce the FliM seen in most bacteria.

Hypothesizing a detailed pathway explaining how a stop-start switch complex could be converted into the other varieties of switching will depend on detailed knowledge of motor mechanism; many models of the flagellar motor have been proposed and the question is far from settled (Berg, 2003). However, if proton-induced conformational changes in MotA induce some kind of power-stroke against FliG, followed by release of the FliG binding site and a return stroke to the original position, then perhaps the answer is fairly simple. If the conformational change in the switch complex shifts the FliG binding site up or down relative to MotA, then perhaps the difference between “forward” and “reverse” is just the difference between MotA-FliG binding on the forward power stroke or the return stroke.

Although a detailed analysis will not be performed here, the transition between random dispersal and dispersal + chemotaxis is quite gradual; adding just a small amount of directional drift to the random walk of bacteria allows gradual migration towards nutrient gradients and away from toxins or waste products. The advantages of directional drift over random diffusion are exponential (Berg, 1993), and the costs in terms of extra carbon consumption are trivial compared to the already small costs of building a flagellum in the first place.

3.5.6. Hook and additional axial components

It seems likely that the hook (FlgE) and the four rod proteins (FlgBCFG) are all duplicates of an ancestral rod protein; their sequence relationships have been described in detail elsewhere (Homma et al., 1990a; Homma et al., 1990b). Whether phylogeny can be expected to correlate well with sequence similarity in this case is somewhat debatable, as adjacent axial components will tend to have relatively similar structural roles and signal sequences. However, it is apparent that “adaptor” proteins (FlgK and FlgL between the hook and filament; FlgG between the hook and the rest of the rod) must have originated after the duplication of the major components; for example, as the proto-hook and proto-filament proteins began to specialize in their particular roles, the mismatches between the subunits would become increasingly troublesome, limiting further divergence. However, duplication and modification of hook and flagellin proteins to produce adaptor proteins (a FlgE copy producing FlgK, and a FliC copy producing FlgL) would allow both tighter binding between hook and filament, and would remove the constraints on specialization of the major structures. These duplications need not have happened simultaneously; with a moderate amount of divergence, one adaptor might do (e.g., FlgG is the adaptor between the rod and hook), with a second being added as divergence continued. This form of protein subfunctionalization (Force et al., 1999) can probably explain the rest of the axial proteins as well: the hook (FlgE) might well have originated as an adaptor between the proto-rod and proto-filament in the very early flagellum. As FlgE specialized for the hook role, adaptors for the filament (FlgK) and rod (FlgG) would have been produced from copied hook proteins. The reason that the flagellum has three proximal rod proteins (FlgBCF) is not clear, but may have something to do with assembly checkpoints and coordinating the addition of the P- and L-rings at the appropriate moment. FlgB is the proximal rod component, interfacing with FliF via FliE (Berg, 2003); the relative order of FlgC and FlgF has not been determined, but perhaps one assembles while the P-ring is being assembled around it, and the other assembles coincident with the L-ring. These components are highly conserved across all known bacterial flagella, probably because of co-adapted interactions between the components, but their dispensability for building a basic filament appears to be shown by type III virulence systems, where no rod homologs have yet been discovered (Blocker et al., 2003) although the pilus protein shares similarities with axial proteins (Aizawa, 2001; Blocker et al., 2003; Cordes et al., 2003). Thus the coordinated assembly of rod and the P- and L-rings could have been a relatively late innovation. The origin of FliE, the adaptor between the basal rod component FlgB and the FliF MS-ring, was probably a very early event, occuring just after the origin of motility, in order to strengthen the association between the mismatched symmetries of FliF and the proto-rod. Since FliE is exported via the type III pathway and is quite small (11 kDa), perhaps it originated as a fragment of the proto-rod protein.

The hook capping protein FlgD probably originated as a duplicate of the putative rod capping protein (FlgJ), in a manner similar to the divergence of the rod cap and filament cap discussed previously. However, E. coli FlgJ has a C-terminal muramidase domain in addition to an N-terminal portion that interacts with the rod proteins. This domain shows homology to other muramidases and so was probably coopted in order to speed up flagellar assembly by boring a hole through the cell wall. This was probably a late addition; even today muramidase activity is not absolutely required for successful flagellar assembly, probably because the assembling rod has a chance of finding a suitable gap in the peptidoglycan on its own (Hirano et al., 2001). Some bacteria lack the muramidase domain (Rhodobacter) or FlgJ (gram-positive bacteria) entirely (Hirano et al., 2001). An investigation of the assembly of the SctC ring in type III virulence systems, and similar structures in other systems, might shed light on just what the muramidase is for, as its requirement has not yet been reported for other secretion systems. Perhaps positioning of the primitive type III pilus and protoflagellum was originally determined by the ability of the secretin to find a sufficient peptidoglycan gap to insert itself in; association of the secretin with proto-FliF brought the secretory structure together. Having a dedicated muramidase in the modern flagellar pathway might simply enable flagella production on demand, at any predetermined spot, whether or not a sufficient hole in the peptidoglycan is already available.

3.5.7. Modern variations

The model has arrived at something like the common ancestor of all currently known bacterial flagella. Some of the variant flagella, such as those found in gram-positive bacteria, spirochetes, Aquifex, or Rhodobacter, might in fact be early offshoots of flagellar evolution. This is not required on the current model, but an improved understanding of bacterial phylogeny may change the situation. In any case, most of these variants are probably derived (Cavalier-Smith, 2002a), as are many other minor variations that are known (Eisenbach, 2000; Bardy et al., 2003).

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

supernovasky
Comrade

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,394
Loc: Louisiana
Last seen: 9 hours, 28 minutes

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10419759 - 05/29/09 12:15 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

4. Conclusions

The detailed evolutionary model described above is summarized in Figure 7. The role that various evolutionary processes played in the model can now be roughly quantified. Only one major shift of function occurred at the system level, the transition from a pilus to a protoflagellum. All of the other changes in system function can be seen as minor modifications of a basic function; if these are enumerated (export --> secretion --> adhesion --> pilus, and dispersal --> taxis), then four minor shifts of function occurred. In all cases a “shift” in function is actually more accurately described as an addition of function at the system level, as previous functions are maintained. At the level of subsystems (consisting of two or more proteins), the cooption events can be tabulated: subsystem cooption was invoked for the origin of the core export apparatus, outer membrane secretin (proto-FlgI) and lipoprotein chaperone (proto-FlgH), the adhesin ancestral to the axial protein family, the motor complex, and the chemotaxis/switch complex, for a total of five subsystem cooption events. In each of these cases, cooption occurred by the mutation of one protein to link two preexisting systems (Figure 7), followed by the duplication and integration of the new subsystem proteins into the major system. Except for the major transition between pilus and motility, subsystem cooption was associated with improvements of system function rather than major changes in system function. At the gene level, duplication events within the core system were invoked 11 times for origin of 12 axial proteins from one, and an additional time for the divergence of FliN and FliM. None of these events requires postulating functional shift at the subsystem or system levels. Addition of a new domain with novel functionality was identified twice (FliN+CheC --> FliM, rod cap+muramidase --> FlgJ), although it probably occurred in additional instances where homologies are currently more vague. It appears that loss of a component is only a possibility for the outer membrane secretin of the primitive type III secretion system, although if this became FlgI then no component loss events are necessary. This is the case even though some components that are ancient on the model (e.g., FliH) are apparently not absolutely required in modern flagella (Minamino et al., 2003). All other changes at all levels were matters of gradual improvement of function, i.e. optimization and co-adaptation of components. Even at this early stage of development, the model gives decent estimate of the relative importance of various evolutionary processes involved in the origin of complex biochemical systems.

Figure 7: Summary of the evolutionary model for the origin of the flagellum, showing the six major stages and key intermediates. White components have identified or reasonably probable nonflagellar homologs; grey components have either suggested but unsupported homologs, or no specific identified homologs, although ancestral functions can be postulated. The model begins with a passive, somewhat general inner membrane pore (1a) that is converted to a more substrate-specific pore (1b) by binding of proto-FlhA and/or FlhB to FliF. Interaction of an F1F0-ATP synthetase with FlhA/B produces an active transporter, a primitive type III export apparatus (1c). Addition of a secretin which associates with the cytoplasmic ring converts this to a type III secretion system (2). A mutated secretion substrate becomes a secreted adhesin (or alternatively an adhesin is coopted by transposition of the secretion recognition sequence), and a later mutation lets it bind to the outer side of the secretin (3a). Oligomerization of the adhesin produces a pentameric ring, allowing more surface adhesins without blocking other secretion substrates (3b). Polymerization of this ring produces a tube, a primitive type III pilus (4a; in the diagram, a white axial structure is substituted for the individual pilin subunits; all further axial proteins are descended from this common pilin ancestor). Oligomerization of a pilin produces the cap, increasing assembly speed and efficiency (4b). A duplicate pilin that loses its outer domains becomes the proto-rod protein, extending down through the secretin and strengthening pilus attachment by association with the base (4c). Further duplications of the proto-rod, filament, and cap proteins, occurring before and after the origin of the flagellum (6) produce the rest of the axial proteins; these repeated subfunctionalization events are not shown here. The protoflagellum (5a) is produced by cooption of TolQR homologs from a Tol-Pal-like system; perhaps a portion of a TolA homolog bound to FliF to produce proto-FliG. In order to improve rotation, the secretin loses its binding sites to the axial filament, becoming the proto-P-ring, and the role of outer membrane pore is taken over by the secretin’s lipoprotein chaperone ring, which becomes the proto-L-ring (5b). Perfection of the L-ring and addition of the rod cap FlgJ muramidase domain (which removes the necessity of finding a natural gap in the cell wall) results in 5c. Finally, binding of a mutant proto-FliN (probably a CheC receptor) to FliG couples the signal transduction system to the protoflagellum, producing a chemotactic flagellum (6); fusion of proto-FliN and CheC produces FliM. Each stage would obviously be followed by gradual coevolutionary optimization of component interactions. The origin of the flagellum is thus reduced to a series of mutationally plausible steps.

4.1. Evaluating the model

Biological evidence supporting the model is summarized in Table 6, in terms of extant analogs to the hypothesized intermediates and nonflagellar homologs of system components. Of the 30 major structural components listed in Table 1, 12 are axial proteins and probably share a common (unidentified) ancestor, a hypothetical type III pilin subunit. Of the remaining 18 components, four (FliI, MotA, MotB, and FliM) have well-accepted nonflagellar homologs based on significant sequence similarity. Suggestive evidence of homology exists for eight components, FliHJOPQR (with components of the ATP synthetase), the P-ring FlgI (with secretins), and the lipoprotein FlgH (with lipoprotein chaperones of secretins). On the basis of interactions with other components with identified nonflagellar homologs, homologies can be postulated, with little current supporting evidence, for two components, FlgA (with other secretin-associated proteins secreted by the type II secretion system), and FliG (with a fragment of a TolA homolog). Finally, five components (FliF, FlhA, FlhB, FliN, and the ancestor of the axial proteins) have no identified potential homologs, although nonflagellar ancestral functions are not difficult to postulate. The type III virulence system contains homologs of most of these proteins (probably including an axial protein; Cordes et al., 2003), but as discussed previously its phylogenetic position is controversial.

At this early stage of investigation this mixed bag should not be surprising. Structural information (which is conserved even when sequence similarity is lost) is not available for most of the proteins, and current sampling of bacterial genomes is not very balanced. However, the homologies postulated provide opportunities to test the model with future observations: if the model presented here is correct, then it is expected that nonflagellar homologs for most flagellar proteins will be found serving the suggested functions, in the suggested systems. Similarly, the model can be falsified by discovery of homologies in unexpected locations: for example, if the proteins of the flagellar basal body are discovered to be homologous to proteins of the junctional pore of gliding motility rather than a primitive type III secretion system, then the entire model would be overthrown and replaced by a model relating these two systems.

The proposed analogies (Table 6) provide another set of tests of the model. Each of the systems proposed as analogies to stages in flagellar evolution is a piece of evidence that the selective forces invoked in the model are common; the fact that the functions of secretion, adhesion, pilus formation, and motility appear to be related in analogous systems lends support to the model, which postulates transitions between these functions. The model would be weakened if the proposed analogies, mostly based on well-studied laboratory organisms, were found to actually be rare in free-living prokaryotes. On the other hand, the discovery of further similar analogs will strengthen the model – for example, it is expected that many additional components of the archaeal flagellum will be determined to be homologous to type IV secretion (Peabody et al., 2003). The conclusions of the simple cost-benefit model proposed here can also be tested via analogs. Calculations indicated that the cost-benefit tradeoff is strongly in favor of motility, even very crude motility, in a moderately large bacterium. It would therefore be expected that, in an experimental environment where dispersal is advantageous, selection would favor the retention of even severely impaired (but still motile) flagella for large bacteria, while similarly impaired flagella would be selected against in small bacteria. Similarly, attempts to evolve crude motility in the lab (or re-evolve motility after the deletion of a crucial component) would only work if large bacteria are used. As there are experimental conditions where it is selectively advantageous for bacteria to lose motility (Velicer et al., 2002), a careful consideration of the microbial environment would be required.

4.2. The evolution of other microbial motility systems

The present model has several implications for the evolution of other prokaryote motility systems. The conclusions of the cost/benefit analysis, that stirring is an unlikely intermediate function and that even crude motility is advantageous for dispersal in large bacteria, will apply to the evolution of any type of flagellar-like motility in prokaryotes (the tiny Spiroplasma are apparently motile, but use a radically different system). However, these conclusions cannot be generalized to the evolution of the eukaryotic cilium, as many eukaryotes have reached the size where stirring and swimming become useful feeding behaviors (Vogel, 1994). Although detailed information on mechanism and homologies is not yet available, gliding motility and archaeal flagella probably both originated via evolutionary processes analogous to the present model, by cooption of pre-existing secretion systems. This basic idea has already been proposed for archaeal flagella (Bayley and Jarrell, 1998; Peabody et al., 2003). The fact that archaeal and bacterial flagella are completed unrelated appears to weaken Cavalier-Smith’s (2002a) argument that archaea are derived; however, if type IV secretion systems can be found in gram positive bacteria then a plausible ancestor for archaeal flagella would exist in Cavalier-Smith’s scheme. Presumably, standard bacterial flagella could not be adapted to hyperthermophillic, hyperacidic conditions (Cavalier-Smith, 2002a), and the archaeal cenancestor was forced to re-evolve a completely new form of flagellum.

4.3. The construction of evolutionary models

It is sometimes alleged that the construction of evolutionary models amounts to nothing more than the telling of “just-so stories.” However, the putative originators of this criticism, Gould and Lewontin (1979), only attacked scenarios that were untestable or untested. They particularly focused their criticism of “adaptive storytelling” on cases where the adaptive function of the trait in question was highly dubious, such as human sacrifice (Gould and Lewontin, 1979). Their point was that some traits might be explained by processes other than selection. They never argued that systems like the bacterial flagellum, where function, complexity, and adaptiveness are obvious, might have an explanation not involving the extended action of natural selection.

A related objection to evolutionary modeling is that it is armchair theorizing, unrelated to the practical concerns of the present day. However, an examination of recent discoveries of nonflagellar homologs of flagellar components shows that this is not the case. The recognition of homology between flagella and type III virulence systems has contributed greatly to an understanding of the latter, which are implicated in many diseases of humans, livestock, and crops (Hueck, 1998; Cornelis and Van Gijsegem, 2000; Büttner and Bonas, 2002; Blocker et al., 2003; He and Jin, 2003). Similarly, the homology between ion channels and flagellar motor proteins contributes to the understanding of the still-mysterious mechanism of the flagellar motor (Schmitt, 2003; Zhai et al., 2003). In the case of the present model, the hypothesis of more extensive homology between the F1F0-ATP synthetase and the type III export apparatus, if true, has important implications, as the integral membrane components are the most poorly understood portion of the flagellum and type III virulence systems (Macnab, 2003).

A final advantage of constructing an evolutionary model is that it encourages the synthesis of data, relating the discoveries of specialist subfields in a coherent framework. Such a framework is a prerequisite for more detailed evolutionary investigations, providing research questions and hypotheses to test, and challenging dissenters to come up with better models. Until now a detailed evolutionary model had never been seriously attempted for the bacterial flagellum, and even this fairly basic survey has yielded several discoveries that were not obvious at the outset. The bacterial flagellum (and prokaryote motility systems in general) probably arose in large, coccus-shaped bacteria that were essentially modern in terms of complexity. It is not necessary to suppose that the flagellum co-evolved with the cell wall and membranes before the last common ancestor of life. This would be a much more difficult event to study in any case. The previously accepted homologies between flagellar components and nonflagellar systems (such as for FliI and MotAB) are not the strange anomalies they appear to be when viewed in isolation, rather they fit well into a gradual model of flagellar evolution, and give clues as to where further homologies may be discovered. Cooption of preexisting subsystems are the key events of interest in the model. Gene duplications within the system primarily add complexity after the origin of the protoflagellum, and other processes, such as domain swapping and the loss of “scaffolding” components, are relatively minor players. Finally, in light of the organized complexity and apparent “design” of the flagellum, the very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations might be required.

6. References

Aizawa, S. I., 2001. Bacterial flagella and type III secretion systems. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 202 (2), 157-164. DOI link.

Albertini, A. M., Caramori, T., Crabb, W. D., Scoffone, F. and Galizzi, A., 1991. The flaA locus of Bacillus subtilis is part of a large operon coding for flagellar structures, motility functions, and an ATPase-like polypeptide. J Bacteriol. 173 (11), 3573-3579.

Anandarajah, K., Kiefer, P. M., Donohoe, B. S. and Copley, S. D., 2000. Recruitment of a double bond isomerase to serve as a reductive dehalogenase during biodegradation of pentachlorophenol. Biochemistry. 39 (18), 5303-5311. DOI link.

Arora, S. K., Ritchings, B. W., Almira, E. C., Lory, S. and Ramphal, R., 1998. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa flagellar cap protein, FliD, is responsible for mucin adhesion. Infect Immun. 66 (3), 1000-1007.

Auvray, F., Ozin, A. J., Claret, L. and Hughes, C., 2002. Intrinsic membrane targeting of the flagellar export ATPase FliI: Interaction with acidic phospholipids and FliH. Journal of Molecular Biology. 318 (4), 941-950. DOI link.

Bardy, S. L., Ng, S. Y. and Jarrell, K. F., 2003. Prokaryotic motility structures. Microbiology. 149 (Pt 2), 295-304. DOI link.

Bayley, D. P. and Jarrell, K. F., 1998. Further evidence to suggest that archaeal flagella are related to bacterial type IV pili. J Mol Evol. 46 (3), 370-373.

Berg, H. C., 1993. Random Walks in Biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Berg, H. C., 1998. Keeping up with the F1-ATPase. Nature. 394 (6691), 324-325. DOI link.

Berg, H. C., 2003. The rotary motor of bacterial flagella. Annu Rev Biochem. 72, 19-54. DOI link.

Berg, H. C. and Anderson, R. A., 1973. Bacteria swim by rotating their flagellar filaments. Nature. 245 (5425), 380-382.

Berry, R. M., 2000. Theories of rotary motors. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 355 (1396), 503-509. DOI link.

Birkenhager, R., Greie, J.-C., Altendorf, K. and Deckers-Hebestreit, G., 1999. F0 complex of the Escherichia coli ATP synthase . Not all monomers of the subunit c oligomer are involved in F1 interaction. Eur J Biochem. 264 (2), 385-396. DOI link.

Bischoff, D. S. and Ordal, G. W., 1992. Identification and characterization of FliY, a novel component of the Bacillus subtilis flagellar switch complex. Mol Microbiol. 6 (18), 2715-2723.

Bitter, W., 2003. Secretins of Pseudomonas aeruginosa: large holes in the outer membrane. Arch Microbiology. 179 (5), 307-314. DOI link.

Block, S. M., 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622), 217-219. DOI link.

Blocker, A., Komoriya, K. and Aizawa, S. I., 2003. Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100 (6), 3027-3030. DOI link.

Boyer, P. D., 1997. The ATP synthase - A splendid molecular machine. Annu Rev Biochem. 66, 717-749. DOI link.

Broome-Smith, J. K. and Mitsopoulos, C., 1999. Overview: Transport of molecules across microbial membranes -- a sticky situation to get to grips with, in: Broome-Smith, J. K., Baumberg, S., Stirling, C. J. and Ward, F. B. (Eds.), Transport of molecules across microbial membranes, General Society for Microbiology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp.1-14.

Brown, I. I. and Häse, C. C., 2001. Flagellum-independent surface migration of Vibrio cholerae and Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 183 (12), 3784-3790. DOI link.

Brown, P. N., Hill, C. P. and Blair, D. F., 2002. Crystal structure of the middle and C-terminal domains of the flagellar rotor protein FliG. Embo J. 21 (13), 3225-3234. DOI link.

Buchanan, S. K., 2001. Type I secretion and multidrug efflux: transport through the TolC channel-tunnel. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 26 (1), 3-6. DOI link.

Bullitt, E. and Makowski, L., 1998. Bacterial adhesion pili are heterologous assemblies of similar subunits. Biophys J. 74 (1), 623-632.

Büttner, D. and Bonas, U., 2002. Port of entry – the type III secretion translocon. Trends Microbiol. 10 (4), 186-192. DOI link.

Campbell, N. A., 1993. Biology. Benjamin/Cummings, Redwood City, CA.

Campos-Garcia, J., Najera, R., Camarena, L. and Soberon-Chavez, G., 2000. The Pseudomonas aeruginosa motR gene involved in regulation of bacterial motility. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 184 (1), 57-62. DOI link.

Cao, T. B. and Saier, M. H., Jr., 2003. The general protein secretory pathway: phylogenetic analyses leading to evolutionary conclusions. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1609 (1), 115-125. DOI link.

Capaldi, R. A. and Aggeler, R., 2002. Mechanism of the F1-F0-type ATP synthase, a biological rotary motor. Trends in the Biochemical Sciences. 27 (3), 154-160. DOI link.

Cascales, E., Lloubes, R. and Sturgis, J. N., 2001. The TolQ-TolR proteins energize TolA and share homologies with the flagellar motor proteins MotA-MotB. Mol Microbiol. 42 (3), 795-807. DOI link.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 1978. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of microtubules, mitotic spindles and eukaryote flagella. Biosystems. 10 (1-2), 93-114.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 1982. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of eukaryote flagella. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology. 35 (5896), 465-493.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 1987a. The origin of cells: a symbiosis between genes, catalysts, and membranes. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology. 52 (6111), 805-824.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 1987b. The origin of eukaryotic and archaebacterial cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 503, 17-54.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 2001a. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 53 (4-5), 555-595. DOI link.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 2001b. Early evolution: from the appearance of the first cell to the first modern organisms (review). Quarterly Review of Biology. 76 (2), 233.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002a. The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the negibacterial root of the universal tree and bacterial megaclassification. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 52, 7-76.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002b. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 52, 297-354.

Cavalier-Smith, T., 2002c. Origins of the machinery of recombination and sex. Heredity. 88, 125-141. DOI link.

Celandroni, F., Ghelardi, E., Pastore, M., Lupetti, A., Kolsto, A. B. and Senesi, S., 2000. Characterization of the chemotaxis fliY and cheA genes in Bacillus cereus. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 190 (2), 247-253. DOI link.

Chapman, M. R., Robinson, L. S., Pinkner, J. S., Roth, R., Heuser, J., Hammar, M., Normark, S. and Hultgren, S. J., 2002. Role of Escherichia coli curli operons in directing amyloid fiber formation. Science. 295 (5556), 851-855. DOI link.

Chothia, C., Gough, J., Vogel, C. and Teichmann, S. A., 2003. Evolution of the protein repertoire. Science. 300 (5626), 1701-1703. DOI link.

Christie, P. J., 2001. Type IV secretion: intercellular transfer of macromolecules by systems ancestrally related to conjugation machines. Mol Microbiol. 40 (2), 294-305. DOI link.

Christie, P. J. and Vogel, J. P., 2000. Bacterial type IV secretion: conjugation systems adapted to deliver effector molecules to host cells. Trends Microbiol. 8 (8), 354-360. DOI link.

Claret, L., Calder, S. R., Higgins, M. and Hughes, C., 2003. Oligomerization and activation of the FliI ATPase central to bacterial flagellum assembly. Mol Microbiol. 48 (5), 1349-1355. DOI link.

Cohen-Krausz, S. and Trachtenberg, S., 2003. The structure of the helically perturbed flagellar filament of Pseudomonas rhodos: implications for the absence of the outer domain in other complex flagellins and for the flexibility of the radial spokes. Mol Microbiol. 48 (5), 1305-1316. DOI link.

Copley, S. D., 2000. Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. V25 (N6), 261-265. DOI link.

Cordes, F. S., Komoriya, K., Larquet, E., Yang, S., Egelman, E. H., Blocker, A. and Lea, S. M., 2003. Helical structure of the needle of the type III secretion system of Shigella flexneri. J Biol Chem. 278 (19), 17103-17107. DOI link.

Corliss, J. O., 1980. Objection to "undulipodium" as an inappropriate and unnecessary term. Biosystems. 12 (1-2), 109-110.

Cornelis, G. R. and Van Gijsegem, F., 2000. Assembly and function of type III secretory systems. Annu Rev Microbiol. 54, 735-774. DOI link.

Coutte, L., Alonso, S., Reveneau, N., Willery, E., Quatannens, B., Locht, C. and Jacob-Dubuisson, F., 2003. Role of adhesin release for mucosal colonization by a bacterial pathogen. J Exp Med. 197 (6), 735-742. DOI link.

Cox, G. B., Jans, D. A., Fimmel, A. L., Gibson, F. and Hatch, L., 1984. Hypothesis. The mechanism of ATP synthase. Conformational change by rotation of the beta-subunit. Biochim Biophys Acta. 768 (3-4), 201-208.

Crago, A. M. and Koronakis, V., 1998. Salmonella InvG forms a ring-like multimer that requires the InvH lipoprotein for outer membrane localization. Mol Microbiol. 30 (1), 47-56. DOI link.

Dailey, F. E. and Macnab, R. M., 2002. Effects of lipoprotein biogenesis mutations on flagellar assembly in Salmonella. J Bacteriol. 184 (3), 771-776. DOI link.

Darwin, C., 1851. A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes. Ray Society, London. Online text.

Darwin, C., 1854. A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc. Ray Society, London. Online text.

Darwin, C., 1862. On the various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised. J. Murray, London. Online text.

Darwin, C., 1872. The origin of species by means of natural selection. 6th edition. John Murray, London. Online text.

de Duve, C., 1995. Vital Dust: Life as a cosmic imperative. Basic Books, New York.

de Souza, M. L., Seffernick, J., Martinez, B., Sadowsky, M. J. and Wackett, L. P., 1998. The atrazine catabolism genes atzABC are widespread and highly conserved. J Bacteriol. 180 (7), 1951-1954.

DeLong, E. F. and Pace, N. R., 2001. Environmental diversity of bacteria and archaea. Systematic Biology. 50 (4), 470-478. DOI link.

DeRosier, D. J., 1998. The turn of the screw: the bacterial flagellar motor. Cell. 93 (1), 17-20.

Dillon, R., Fauci, L. and Gaver, D., 3rd, 1995. A microscale model of bacterial swimming, chemotaxis and substrate transport. J Theor Biol. 177 (4), 325-340. DOI link.

Doolittle, R. F. and Feng, D. F., 1987. Reconstructing the evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation from a consideration of the amino acid sequences of clotting proteins. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology: The Evolution of Catalytic Function. LII, 869-874.

Durand, E., Bernadac, A., Ball, G., Lazdunski, A., Sturgis, J. N. and Filloux, A., 2003. Type II protein secretion in Pseudomonas aeruginosa: the pseudopilus is a multifibrillar and adhesive structure. J Bacteriol. 185 (9), 2749-2758. DOI link.

Dusenbery, D. B., 1996. Life At Small Scale: The Behavior of Microbes. Scientific American Library, New York.

Dusenbery, D. B., 1997. Minimum size limit for useful locomotion by free-swimming microbes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94 (20), 10949-10954. DOI link.

Dusenbery, D. B., 1998. Fitness landscapes for effects of shape on chemotaxis and other behaviors of bacteria. J Bacteriol. 180 (22), 5978-5983.

Dyer, B. D., 2003. A Field Guide to Bacteria. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Eisenbach, M., 2000. Bacterial chemotaxis, Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, Nature Publishing Group, London. DOI link.

Emerson, S. U., Tokuyasu, K. and Simon, M. I., 1970. Bacterial flagella: polarity of elongation. Science. 169 (941), 190-192.

Faguy, D. M. and Jarrell, K. F., 1999. A twisted tale: the origin and evolution of motility and chemotaxis in prokaryotes. Microbiology. 145 (Pt 2), 279-281.

Faguy, D. M., Jarrell, K. F., Kuzio, J. and Kalmokoff, M. L., 1994. Molecular analysis of archael flagellins: similarity to the type IV pilin-transport superfamily widespread in bacteria. Can J Microbiol. 40 (1), 67-71.

Fan, F., Ohnishi, K., Francis, N. R. and Macnab, R. M., 1997. The FliP and FliR proteins of Salmonella typhimurium, putative components of the type III flagellar export apparatus, are located in the flagellar basal body. Mol Microbiol. 26 (5), 1035-1046.

Fernandez, L. A. and Berenguer, J., 2000. Secretion and assembly of regular surface structures in Gram-negative bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 24 (1), 21-44. DOI link.

Force, A., Lynch, M., Pickett, F. B., Amores, A., Yan, Y. L. and Postlethwait, J., 1999. Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics. 151 (4), 1531-1545.

Francis, N. R., Sosinsky, G. E., Thomas, D. and DeRosier, D. J., 1994. Isolation, characterization and structure of bacterial flagellar motors containing the switch complex. J Mol Biol. 235 (4), 1261-1270. DOI link.

Fraser, G. M., Gonzalez-Pedrajo, B., Tame, J. R. and Macnab, R. M., 2003. Interactions of FliJ with the Salmonella Type III Flagellar Export Apparatus. J Bacteriol. 185 (18), 5546-5554. DOI link.

Gandon, S. and Roussett, F., 1999. Evolution of stepping-stone dispersal rates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 266 (1437), 2507-2513.

Ganfornina, M. D. and Sanchez, D., 1999. Generation of evolutionary novelty by functional shift. Bioessays. V21 (N5), 432-439.

Geer, L. Y., Domrachev, M., Lipman, D. J. and Bryant, S. H., 2002. CDART: protein homology by domain architecture. Genome Res. 12 (10), 1619-1623. DOI link.

Giron, J. A., Torres, A. G., Freer, E. and Kaper, J. B., 2002. The flagella of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli mediate adherence to epithelial cells. Mol Microbiol. 44 (2), 361-379. DOI link.

Gogarten, J. P. and Kibak, H., 1992. The bioenergetics of the last common ancestor and the origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system. Biosystems. 28 (1-3), 131-153.

Gogarten, J. P., Kibak, H., Dittrich, P., Taiz, L., Bowman, E. J., Bowman, B. J., Manolson, M. F., Poole, R. J., Date, T. and Oshima, T., 1989. Evolution of the vacuolar H+-ATPase: implications for the origin of eukaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 86 (17), 6661-6665.

Gogarten, J. P., Starke, T., Kibak, H., Fishman, J. and Taiz, L., 1992. Evolution and isoforms of V-ATPase subunits. J Exp Biol. 172, 137-147.

Gonzalez-Pedrajo, B., Fraser, G. M., Minamino, T. and Macnab, R. M., 2002. Molecular dissection of Salmonella FliH, a regulator of the ATPase FliI and the type III flagellar protein export pathway. Mol Microbiol. 45 (4), 967-982. DOI link.

Goodenough, U., 1998. The Sacred Depths of Nature. Oxford University Press, New York.

Goodenough, U., 2002. Of flagella and outboard motors, accessed online. URL: http://www.metanexus.net/archives/printerfriendly.asp?archiveid=7143.

Gophna, U., Ron, E. Z. and Graur, D., 2003. Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events. Gene. 312, 151-163. DOI link.

Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C., 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programmme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 205 (1161), 581-598.

Guerrero, R., Esteve, I., Pedrós-Alió, C. and Gaju, N., 1987. Predatory bacteria in prokaryotic communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 503, 238-250.

Hanumanthaiah, R., Day, K. and Jagadeeswaran, P., 2002. Comprehensive analysis of blood coagulation pathways in Teleostei: evolution of coagulation factor genes and identification of zebrafish factor VIIi. Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases. 29 (1), 57-68.

Harris, R. J. and Elder, D., 2002. Actin and flagellin may have an N-terminal relationship. J Mol Evol. 54 (2), 283-284. DOI link.

Harshey, R. M. and Toguchi, A., 1996. Spinning tails: homologies among bacterial flagellar systems. Trends Microbiol. 4 (6), 226-231. DOI link.

Hayward, C. A., 2000. Microorganisms, Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, Nature Publishing Group, London. DOI link.

He, S. Y., 1998. Type III protein secretion in plant and animal pathogenic bacteria. Annual Reviews in Phytopathology. 36, 363-392. DOI link.

He, S. Y. and Jin, Q., 2003. The Hrp pilus: learning from flagella. Curr Opin Microbiol. 6 (1), 15-19. DOI link.

Henderson, I. R., Navarro-Garcia, F. and Nataro, J. P., 1998. The great escape: structure and function of the autotransporter proteins. Trends Microbiol. 6 (9), 370-378. DOI link.

Hirano, T., Minamino, T. and Macnab, R. M., 2001. The role in flagellar rod assembly of the N-terminal domain of Salmonella FlgJ, a flagellum-specific muramidase. J Mol Biol. 312 (2), 359-369. DOI link.

Homma, M., DeRosier, D. J. and Macnab, R. M., 1990a. Flagellar hook and hook-associated proteins of Salmonella typhimurium and their relationship to other axial components of the flagellum. J Mol Biol. 213 (4), 819-832.

Homma, M., Kutsukake, K., Hasebe, M., Iino, T. and Macnab, R. M., 1990b. FlgB, FlgC, FlgF and FlgG. A family of structurally related proteins in the flagellar basal body of Salmonella typhimurium. J Mol Biol. 211 (2), 465-477.

Honma, Y. and Nakasone, N., 1990. Pili of Aeromonas hydrophila: purification, characterization, and biological role. Microbiol Immunol. 34 (2), 83-98.

Hooper, S. D. and Berg, O. G., 2003. On the nature of gene innovation: duplication patterns in microbial genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 20 (6), 945-954. DOI link.

Hueck, C. J., 1998. Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 62 (2), 379-433.

Jackson, M. W. and Plano, G. V., 2000. Interactions between type III secretion apparatus components from Yersinia pestis detected using the yeast two-hybrid system. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 186 (1), 85-90. DOI link.

Jarrell, K. F., Bayley, D. P., Correia, J. D. and Thomas, N. A., 1999. Recent excitement about the archaea. Bioscience. 49 (7), 530-541.

Jarrell, K. F., Bayley, D. P., Correia, J. D. and Thomas, N. A., 2000. Archaeal flagella, Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, Nature Publishing Group, London. DOI link.

Jarrell, K. F., Bayley, D. P. and Kostyukova, A. S., 1996. The archaeal flagellum: a unique motility structure. J Bacteriol. 178 (17), 5057-5064.

Jiang, Y. and Doolittle, R. F., 2003. The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100 (13), 7527–7532. DOI link.

Johnson, G. R., Jain, R. K. and Spain, J. C., 2002. Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway. Journal of Bacteriology. 184 (15), 4219-4232. DOI link.

Jones, W. J., Nagle, D. P., Jr. and Whitman, W. B., 1987. Methanogens and the diversity of archaebacteria. Microbiol Rev. 51 (1), 135-177.

Josenhans, C., Labigne, A. and Suerbaum, S., 1995. Comparative ultrastructural and functional studies of Helicobacter pylori and Helicobacter mustelae flagellin mutants: both flagellin subunits, FlaA and FlaB, are necessary for full motility in Helicobacter species. J Bacteriol. 177 (11), 3010-3020.

Kalir, S., McClure, J., Pabbaraju, K., Southward, C., Ronen, M., Leibler, S., Surette, M. G. and Alon, U., 2001. Ordering genes in a flagella pathway by analysis of expression kinetics from living bacteria. Science. 292 (5524), 2080-2083. DOI link.

Karner, M. B., DeLong, E. F. and Karl, D. M., 2001. Archaeal dominance in the mesopelagic zone of the Pacific Ocean. Nature. 409 (6819), 507-510. DOI link.

Kennedy, M. J., 1987. Role of motility, chemotaxis, and adhesion in microbial ecology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 503, 260-273.

Kerr, B., Riley, M. A., Feldman, M. W. and Bohannan, B. J., 2002. Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock-paper-scissors. Nature. 418 (6894), 171-174. DOI link.

Khan, S., 1997. Rotary chemiosmotic machines. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1322 (2-3), 86-105.

Kim, J. F., 2001. Revisiting the chlamydial type III protein secretion system: clues to the origin of type III protein secretion. Trends Genet. 17 (2), 65-69. DOI link.

Kirby, J. R., Kristich, C. J., Saulmon, M. M., Zimmer, M. A., Garrity, L. F., Zhulin, I. B. and Ordal, G. W., 2001. CheC is related to the family of flagellar switch proteins and acts independently from CheD to control chemotaxis in Bacillus subtilis. Mol Microbiol. 42 (3), 573-585. DOI link.

Knutton, S., Shaw, R. K., Anantha, R. P., Donnenberg, M. S. and Zorgani, A. A., 1999. The type IV bundle-forming pilus of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli undergoes dramatic alterations in structure associated with bacterial adherence, aggregation and dispersal. Mol Microbiol. 33 (3), 499-509. DOI link.

Koch, A. L., 2003. Were Gram-positive rods the first bacteria? Trends Microbiol. 11 (4), 166-170. DOI link.

Kojima, S. and Blair, D. F., 2001. Conformational change in the stator of the bacterial flagellar motor. Biochemistry. 40 (43), 13041-13050. DOI link.

Koretke, K. K., Lupas, A. N., Warren, P. V., Rosenberg, M. and Brown, J. R., 2000. Evolution of two-component signal transduction. Mol Biol Evol. 17 (12), 1956-1970.

Kreft, J. U., Picioreanu, C., Wimpenny, J. W. and van Loosdrecht, M. C., 2001. Individual-based modelling of biofilms. Microbiology. 147 (Pt 11), 2897-2912.

Lebreton, J., Khaladi, M. and Grosbois, V., 2000. An explicit approach to evolutionarily stable dispersal strategies: no cost of dispersal. Math Biosci. 165 (2), 163-176. DOI link.

Lenski, R. E., Ofria, C., Pennock, R. T. and Adami, C., 2003. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature. 423 (6936), 139-144. DOI link.

Long, M., 2001. Evolution of novel genes. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 11 (6), 673-680. DOI link.

Lupas, A., Van Dyke, M. and Stock, J., 1991. Predicting coiled coils from protein sequences. Science. 252 (5010), 1162-1164.

Macnab, R. M., 1978. Bacterial motility and chemotaxis: the molecular biology of a behavioral system. CRC Crit Rev Biochem. 5 (4), 291-341.

Macnab, R. M., 1999. The bacterial flagellum: reversible rotary propellor and type III export apparatus. J Bacteriol. 181 (23), 7149-7153.

Macnab, R. M., 2003. How bacteria assemble flagella. Annu Rev Microbiol. 57, 77-100. DOI link.

Macnab, R. M. and DeRosier, D. J., 1988. Bacterial flagellar structure and function. Can J Microbiol. 34 (4), 442-451.

Manson, M. D., Tedesco, P., Berg, H. C., Harold, F. M. and Van der Drift, C., 1977. A protonmotive force drives bacterial flagella. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 74 (7), 3060-3064.

Margulis, L., 1980. Undulipodia, flagella and cilia. Biosystems. 12 (1-2), 105-108.

Marie, C., Broughton, W. J. and Deakin, W. J., 2001. Rhizobium type III secretion systems: legume charmers or alarmers? Curr Opin Plant Biol. 4 (4), 336-342. DOI link.

Mathews, M. A., Tang, H. L. and Blair, D. F., 1998. Domain analysis of the FliM protein of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 180 (21), 5580-5590.

Mathias, A., Kisdi, E. and Olivieri, I., 2001. Divergent evolution of dispersal in a heterogeneous landscape. Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 55 (2), 246-259.

Maynard Smith, J., 1975. The Theory of Evolution. Cambridge University Press.

Mayr, E., 1976. The emergence of evolutionary novelties, Evolution and the diversity of life, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 88-113.

McBride, M. J., 2001. Bacterial gliding motility: multiple mechanisms for cell movement over surfaces. Annu Rev Microbiol. 55, 49-75. DOI link.

McCarter, L. L., 2001. Polar flagellar motility of the Vibrionaceae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 65 (3), 445-462, table of contents. DOI link.

Mecsas, J. J. and Strauss, E. J., 1996. Molecular mechanisms of bacterial virulence: type III secretion and pathogenicity islands. Emerg Infect Dis. 2 (4), 270-288.

Melendez-Hevia, E., Waddell, T. G. and Cascante, M., 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. J Mol Evol. 43 (3), 293-303.

Merz, A. J. and Forest, K. T., 2002. Bacterial surface motility: slime trails, grappling hooks and nozzles. Curr Biol. 12 (8), R297-303. DOI link.

Miller, K. R., 2003. Answering the biochemical argument from design, in: Manson, N. (Ed.), God and design: the teleological argument and modern science, Routledge. URL: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

Miller, K. R., 2004. The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity", in: Ruse, M. and Dembski, W. (Eds.), Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. URL: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Minamino, T., Gonzalez-Pedrajo, B., Kihara, M., Namba, K. and Macnab, R. M., 2003. The ATPase FliI can interact with the type III flagellar protein export apparatus in the absence of its regulator, FliH. J Bacteriol. 185 (13), 3983-3988.

Minamino, T., Gonzalez-Pedrajo, B., Oosawa, K., Namba, K. and Macnab, R. M., 2002. Structural properties of FliH, an ATPase regulatory component of the Salmonella type III flagellar export apparatus. J Mol Biol. 322 (2), 281-290. DOI link.

Minamino, T. and Macnab, R. M., 1999. Components of the Salmonella flagellar export apparatus and classification of export substrates. J Bacteriol. 181 (5), 1388-1394.

Minamino, T. and Macnab, R. M., 2000. FliH, a soluble component of the type III flagellar export apparatus of Salmonella, forms a complex with FliI and inhibits its ATPase activity. Mol Microbiol. 37 (6), 1494-1503. DOI link.

Minamino, T., Tame, J. R., Namba, K. and Macnab, R. M., 2001. Proteolytic analysis of the FliH/FliI complex, the ATPase component of the type III flagellar export apparatus of Salmonella. J Mol Biol. 312 (5), 1027-1036. DOI link.

Mitchell, J. G., 2002. The energetics and scaling of search strategies in bacteria. The American Naturalist. 160 (6), 727-740. DOI link.

Mitchell, P., 1985. Molecular mechanics of protonmotive F0F1 ATPases. Rolling well and turnstile hypothesis. FEBS Lett. 182 (1), 1-7.

Mitchison, T. J., 1995. Evolution of a dynamic cytoskeleton. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 349 (1329), 299-304.

Mivart, S. G., 1871. Genesis of Species. Macmillan, London.

Mocz, G. and Gibbons, I. R., 2001. Model for the motor component of dynein heavy chain based on homology to the AAA family of oligomeric ATPases. Structure (Camb). 9 (2), 93-103. DOI link.

Moens, S. and Vanderleyden, J., 1996. Functions of bacterial flagella. Crit Rev Microbiol. 22 (2), 67-100.

Mortlock, R. P. (Ed.), 1992. The Evolution of Metabolic Function. CRC Press, Boca Raton Fla.

Muller, W. E., Blumbach, B. and Muller, I. M., 1999. Evolution of the innate and adaptive immune systems: relationships between potential immune molecules in the lowest metazoan phylum (Porifera) and those in vertebrates. Transplantation. 68 (9), 1215-1227.

Musgrave, I., 2004. Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum, in: Young, M. and Edis, T. (Eds.), Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the Neocreationism, forthcoming from Rutgers University Press, Piscataway, N. J.

Nguyen, L., Paulsen, I. T., Tchieu, J., Hueck, C. J. and Saier, M. H., Jr., 2000. Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2 (2), 125-144.

Nilsson, D.-E. and Pelger, S., 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences. 256, 53-58.

Noji, H., Yasuda, R., Yoshida, M. and Kinosita, K., Jr., 1997. Direct observation of the rotation of F1-ATPase. Nature. 386 (6622), 299-302. DOI link.

Nougayrede, J. P., Fernandes, P. J. and Donnenberg, M. S., 2003. Adhesion of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli to host cells. Cell Microbiology. 5 (6), 359-372. DOI link.

Novikova, N. A., Levitsky, D. I., Metlina, A. L. and Poglazov, B. F., 2000. Interaction of bacterial flagellum filaments with skeletal muscle myosin. IUBMB Life. 50 (6), 385-390. DOI link.

Ohnishi, K., Fan, F., Schoenhals, G. J., Kihara, M. and Macnab, R. M., 1997. The FliO, FliP, FliQ, and FliR proteins of Salmonella typhimurium: putative components for flagellar assembly. J Bacteriol. 179 (19), 6092-6099.

Oplatka, A., 1998a. Are rotors at the heart of all biological motors? Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 246 (2), 301-306. DOI link.

Oplatka, A., 1998b. Do the bacterial flagellar motor and ATP synthase operate as water turbines? Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 249 (3), 573-578. DOI link.

Oster, G. and Wang, H., 2003. Rotary protein motors. Trends Cell Biol. 13 (3), 114-121. DOI link.

Pasquier, L. D. and Litman, G. W. (Eds.), 2000. Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System (Series: Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology). Springer, Berlin.

Peabody, C. R., Chung, Y. J., Yen, M. R., Vidal-Ingigliardi, D., Pugsley, A. P. and Saier, M. H., Jr., 2003. Type II protein secretion and its relationship to bacterial type IV pili and archaeal flagella. Microbiology. 149 (Pt 11), 3051-3072. DOI link.

Pei, Z., Burucoa, C., Grignon, B., Baqar, S., Huang, X. Z., Kopecko, D. J., Bourgeois, A. L., Fauchere, J. L. and Blaser, M. J., 1998. Mutation in the peb1A locus of Campylobacter jejuni reduces interactions with epithelial cells and intestinal colonization of mice. Infect Immun. 66 (3), 938-943.

Pellmyr, O. and Krenn, H. W., 2002. Origin of a complex key innovation in an obligate insect-plant mutualism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 99 (8), 5498-5502. DOI link.

Plano, G. V., Day, J. B. and Ferracci, F., 2001. Type III export: new uses for an old pathway. Mol Microbiol. 40 (2), 284-293. DOI link.

Poethke, H. J. and Hovestadt, T., 2002. Evolution of density- and patch-size-dependent dispersal rates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 269 (1491), 637-645. DOI link.

Prum, R. O. and Brush, A. H., 2002. The evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. Q Rev Biol. 77 (3), 261-295. DOI link.

Pugsley, A. P., 1993. The complete general secretory pathway in gram-negative bacteria. Microbiol Rev. 57 (1), 50-108.

Purcell, E. M., 1977. Life at low Reynolds number. American Journal of Physics. 45, 3-11.

Purcell, E. M., 1997. The efficiency of propulsion by a rotating flagellum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94, 11307-11311. DOI link.

Rizzotti, M., 2000. Early Evolution: From the appearance of the first cell to the first modern organisms. Birkhäuser Verlag, Boston.

Rosenhouse, J., 2002. Probability, optimization theory, and evolution. Evolution. 56 (8), 1721-1722.

Sabbert, D. and Junge, W., 1997. Stepped versus continuous rotatory motors at the molecular scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 94 (6), 2312-2317. DOI link.

Sadowsky, M. J., Tong, Z., de Souza, M. and Wackett, L. P., 1998. AtzC is a new member of the amidohydrolase protein superfamily and is homologous to other atrazine-metabolizing enzymes. J Bacteriol. 180 (1), 152-158.

Saier, M. H., Jr., 2003. Tracing pathways of transport protein evolution. Mol Microbiol. 48 (5), 1145-1156. DOI link.

Salvini-Plawen, S. V. and Mayr, E., 1977. On the evolution of photoreceptors and eyes. Evolutionary Biology. 10, 207-263.

Sandkvist, M., 2001. Biology of type II secretion. Mol Microbiol. 40 (2), 271-283. DOI link.

Sauer, F. G., Barnhart, M., Choudhury, D., Knight, S. D., Waksman, G. and Hultgren, S. J., 2000. Chaperone-assisted pilus assembly and bacterial attachment. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 10, 548-556. DOI link.

Scharfman, A., Arora, S. K., Delmotte, P., Van Brussel, E., Mazurier, J., Ramphal, R. and Roussel, P., 2001. Recognition of Lewis x derivatives present on mucins by flagellar components of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect Immun. 69 (9), 5243-5248. DOI link.

Schmitt, R., 2003. Helix rotation model of the flagellar rotary motor. Biophys J. 85 (2), 843-852.

Seffernick, J. L. and Wackett, L. P., 2001. Rapid evolution of bacterial catabolic enzymes: a case study with atrazine chlorohydrolase. Biochemistry. 40 (43), 12747-12753. DOI link.

Shah, D. S., Perehinec, T., Stevens, S. M., Aizawa, S. I. and Sockett, R. E., 2000. The flagellar filament of Rhodobacter sphaeroides: pH-induced polymorphic transitions and analysis of the fliC gene. J Bacteriol. 182 (18), 5218-5224. DOI link.

Shah, D. S. and Sockett, R. E., 1995. Analysis of the motA flagellar motor gene from Rhodobacter sphaeroides, a bacterium with a unidirectional, stop-start flagellum. Mol Microbiol. 17 (5), 961-969.

Silverman, M. and Simon, M., 1974. Flagellar rotation and the mechanism of bacterial motility. Nature. 249 (452), 73-74.

Smyth, C. J., Marron, M. B., Twohig, J. M. and Smith, S. G., 1996. Fimbrial adhesins: similarities and variations in structure and biogenesis. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 16 (2), 127-139. DOI link.

Spormann, A. M., 1999. Gliding motility in bacteria: insights from studies of Myxococcus xanthus. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 63 (3), 621-641.

Stoodley, P., Sauer, K., Davies, D. G. and Costerton, J. W., 2002. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol. 56, 187-209. DOI link.

Suerbaum, S., 1995. The complex flagella of gastric Helicobacter species. Trends Microbiol. 3 (5), 168-171. DOI link.

Sukhan, A., Kubori, T. and Galán, J. E., 2003. Synthesis and localization of the Salmonella SPI-1 type III secretion needle complex proteins PrgI and PrgJ. J Bacteriol. 185 (11), 3480-3483. DOI link.

Szurmant, H., Bunn, M. W., Cannistraro, V. J. and Ordal, G. W., 2003. Bacillus subtilis hydrolyzes CheY-P at the location of its action: the flagellar switch. J Biol Chem. 14, 14.

Thanassi, D. G., 2002. Ushers and secretins: channels for the secretion of folded proteins across the bacterial outer membrane. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 4 (1), 11-20.

Thanassi, D. G. and Hultgren, S. J., 2000a. Multiple pathways allow protein secretion across the bacterial outer membrane. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 12 (4), 420-430. DOI link.

Thanassi, D. G. and Hultgren, S. J., 2000b. Assembly of complex organelles: pilus biogenesis in gram-negative bacteria as a model system. Methods. 20 (1), 111-126. DOI link.

Thanassi, D. G., Saulino, E. T. and Hultgren, S. J., 1998. The chaperone/usher pathway: a major terminal branch of the general secretory pathway. Curr Opin Microbiol. 1 (2), 223-231. DOI link.

Thar, R. and Kuhl, M., 2002. Conspicuous veils formed by vibrioid bacteria on sulfidic marine sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 68 (12), 6310-6320. DOI link.

Thomas, N. A., Bardy, S. L. and Jarrell, K. F., 2001. The archaeal flagellum: a different kind of prokaryotic motility structure. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 25 (2), 147-174. DOI link.

Thomas, N. A., Mueller, S., Klein, A. and Jarrell, K. F., 2002. Mutants in flaI and flaJ of the archaeon Methanococcus voltae are deficient in flagellum assembly. Mol Microbiol. 46 (3), 879-887. DOI link.

Thornhill, R. H. and Ussery, D. W., 2000. A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol. 203 (2), 111-116. DOI link.

Trachtenberg, S., Gilad, R. and Geffen, N., 2003. The bacterial linear motor of Spiroplasma melliferum BC3: from single molecules to swimming cells. Mol Microbiol. 47 (3), 671-697. DOI link.

True, J. R. and Carroll, S. B., 2002. Gene co-option in physiological and morphological evolution. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 18, 53-80. DOI link.

van Wely, K. H., Swaving, J., Freudl, R. and Driessen, A. J., 2001. Translocation of proteins across the cell envelope of Gram-positive bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 25 (4), 437-454. DOI link.

Velicer, G. J., Lenski, R. E. and Kroos, L., 2002. Rescue of social motility lost during evolution of Myxococcus xanthus in an asocial environment. J Bacteriol. 184 (10), 2719-2727.

Vogel, S., 1988. Life's devices: the physical world of animals and plants. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Vogel, S., 1994. Life in Moving Fluids. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Vogler, A. P., Homma, M., Irikura, V. M. and Macnab, R. M., 1991. Salmonella typhimurium mutants defective in flagellar filament regrowth and sequence similarity of FliI to F0F1, vacuolar, and archaebacterial ATPase subunits. J Bacteriol. 173 (11), 3564-3572.

Walz, D. and Caplan, S. R., 2002. Bacterial flagellar motor and H(+)/ATP synthase: two proton-driven rotary molecular devices with different functions. Bioelectrochemistry. 55 (1-2), 89-92. DOI link.

Weber, J., Muharemagic, A., Wilke-Mounts, S. and Senior, A. E., 2003a. F1F0-ATP synthase. Binding of delta subunit to a 22-residue peptide mimicking the N-terminal region of alpha subunit. J Biol Chem. 278 (16), 13623-13626. DOI link.

Weber, J. and Senior, A. E., 2003. ATP synthesis driven by proton transport in F1F0-ATP synthase. FEBS Lett. 545 (1), 61-70. DOI link.

Weber, J., Wilke-Mounts, S. and Senior, A. E., 2003b. Identification of the F1-binding surface on the delta-subunit of ATP synthase. J Biol Chem. 278 (15), 13409-13416. DOI link.

Whitesides, G. M., 2001. The once and future nanomachine. Scientific American. 285 (3), 78-83.

Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C. and Wiebe, W. J., 1998. Prokaryotes: The unseen majority. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 95, 6578-6583. DOI link.

Wilkens, S. and Capaldi, R. A., 1998. Solution structure of the epsilon subunit of the F1-ATPase from Escherichia coli and interactions of this subunit with beta subunits in the complex. J Biol Chem. 273 (41), 26645-26651. DOI link.

Wu, H. and Fives-Taylor, P. M., 2001. Molecular strategies for fimbrial expression and assembly. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 12 (2), 101-115.

Yamashiro, T., Nakasone, N., Honma, Y., Albert, M. J. and Iwanaga, M., 1994. Purification and characterization of Vibrio cholerae O139 fimbriae. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 115 (2-3), 247-252. DOI link.

Youderian, P., Burke, N., White, D. J. and Hartzell, P. L., 2003. Identification of genes required for adventurous gliding motility in Myxococcus xanthus with the transposable element mariner. Mol Microbiol. 49 (2), 555-570. DOI link.

Young, G. M., Schmiel, D. H. and Miller, V. L., 1999. A new pathway for the secretion of virulence factors by bacteria: the flagellar export apparatus functions as a protein-secretion system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 96 (11), 6456-6461. DOI link.

Young, K. D., 2001. Peptidoglycan, Nature Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, Nature Publishing Group, London. DOI link.

Zaar, A., Fuchs, G., Golecki, J. R. and Overmann, J., 2003. A new purple sulfur bacterium isolated from a littoral microbial mat, Thiorhodococcus drewsii sp. nov. Arch Microbiology. 179 (3), 174-183.

Zhai, Y. F., Heijne, W. and Saier, M. H., 2003. Molecular modeling of the bacterial outer membrane receptor energizer, ExbBD/TonB, based on homology with the flagellar motor, MotAB. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1614 (2), 201-210. DOI link.

Zhulin, I. B., Nikolskaya, A. N. and Galperin, M. Y., 2003. Common extracellular sensory domains in transmembrane receptors for diverse signal transduction pathways in bacteria and archaea. J Bacteriol. 185 (1), 285-294. DOI link.

But of course, it HAD to have been designed, right?

Thanks to the Journal of Nature, Microbiology, and N. J. Matzke, science has better ideas. You can see the full link at the original source here:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

--------------------

Epic global warming thread -- Collective Consciousness and Death -- Are you tripping? (CLICK!) -- Honest Talk on Marijuana

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10419912 - 05/29/09 12:38 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Not had to, it was. :smile:

Post Extras:

Chespirito
Stranger

Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,223

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10419974 - 05/29/09 12:51 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Not had to, it was.

Ignored, you add nothing to any discussion Ive ever seen. At least the other ID proponent in this thread takes time to read everything and respond. You are purely an ideologue. And I say good day

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Chespirito]
#10419981 - 05/29/09 12:52 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Ha, I just ignored him after that post too. :grin:

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Chespirito]
#10419991 - 05/29/09 12:53 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

You aren't doing so bad yourself.

Post Extras:

Chespirito
Stranger

Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,223

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10420003 - 05/29/09 12:56 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Hell yea brotha

Edit: Ha we've been swindled! He deleted that post.
Edit 2: Oh wait Im ignoring him!

Post Extras:

DieCommie
El Guapo

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,787
Loc: Street of Dreams

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Chespirito]
#10420018 - 05/29/09 01:00 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Chespirito said:

Hell yea brotha

Edit: Ha we've been swindled! He deleted that post.
Edit 2: Oh wait Im ignoring him!

Now we cant even see the thread supporting "Expelled" :rolleyes:

Post Extras:

Chespirito
Stranger

Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,223

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10420027 - 05/29/09 01:01 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Yea this is fucked, I guess I'm going to have to unblock him. But after this thread is over with, oh you can believe his ass is gonna be down the river

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: DieCommie]
#10420035 - 05/29/09 01:02 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

What do you mean?

Expelled brings up some valid points though, maybe not about evolution but definitely about Abiogenesis.

Post Extras:

MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs

Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 13,719
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 days, 21 hours

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10420368 - 05/29/09 02:02 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
What do you mean?

Expelled brings up some valid points though, maybe not about evolution but definitely about Abiogenesis.

He can't see your posts. :imslow:

--------------------

Post Extras:

mushroomhunter10
Jack-Of-All-Trades

Registered: 10/04/08
Posts: 3,357
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: MushroomTrip]
#10420402 - 05/29/09 02:10 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Ignorance is bliss.

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: deCypher]
#10420627 - 05/29/09 02:51 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: So, do I think it's possible for a motor to occur naturally? I think it's as likely as the Pope being an atheist.

IYO, what then created the motor? If it's another material being, then they had to come from somewhere, or they in turn were designed. Following this line of logic, we must either conclude that at some point a material being evolved purely from natural selection and mutation, or that a supernatural, immaterial being created them.

Let's explore these two options:

In the first case, we are claiming that a material being capable of designing other beings came from natural selection and mutation. Wouldn't an ontologically simpler theory be that instead of us being designed by species X, which was in turn designed by species Y, which in turn came from natural selection and mutation, that it was our species which came from natural selection and mutation? I see no reason to invent additional steps in the chain of creation when Occam's Razor suffices and when we have no tangible evidence of these other species.

In the second case, we are claiming that a supernatural being capable of designing other beings exists, or at least existed at some point. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up?

What created the motor? It's, pardon the expression, immaterial to the argument. I was reading today that Richard Dawkins was speculating about aliens. Are you sure there are only two options? Because refusing to acknowledge other options not only limits our view, but it claims to know what we do not know. That is exactly what makes atheists the fools they are.

Remember, biologists once thought cells were little blobs of protoplasm. Now we know they are filled with little machines.

It's a good question, but entirely irrelevant to the argument. Needless to say, however, I enjoy your interest in the discussion and your thought-provoking questions. :thumbup:

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: supernovasky]
#10420683 - 05/29/09 03:01 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:

Since you didn't read the link last time, I'm just going to copy and paste an article with about 100 peer reviewed journal sources on how the flagellum could have easily evolved in a stepwise fashion:

Pardon me for saying so, but that's a silly thing to do for a couple of reasons:

1) Perhaps you missed this part: Copyright 2003 by N. J. Matzke Now unless you know Nick personally (that would be AWESOME) or have some kind of permission to reproduce this in its entirety you're violating copyright law and placing yourself and the Shroomery in an untenable legal position.

2) I am in the process of reading it so that I can reply intelligently to Ghengis Khan. As anyone can see it will take some time to read and understand the article.

I do want to thank you though. It is the most thorough treatment on the subject I have seen. A most excellent, excellent link!!

--------------------

Post Extras:

Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector

Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10420722 - 05/29/09 03:10 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:

But of course, it HAD to have been designed, right?

Induction would lead us to think so, yes. However that isn't the end of the story (obviously). Certainly you must admit that science can never arrive at the Truth but only get closer (or farther away).

Interesting how methodological naturalism (the thing you call 'science') rules out the mind. Eliminating one possibility before considering its effect on an answer is a little (read: a lot) like stacking the deck.

--------------------

Post Extras:

deCypher

Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 52,515

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10420882 - 05/29/09 03:43 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
What created the motor? It's, pardon the expression, immaterial to the argument.

If you claim that the motor was designed, it'd be nice to have an explanation for who or what designed it. If none of these explanations are credible then it is likely that the alternative explanation (that it wasn't designed) is correct. :shrug:

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said: Are you sure there are only two options?

I thought I had comprehensively covered most of the options but what third alternative did you have in mind?

--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10421238 - 05/29/09 04:55 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr. Mushrooms said:
What created the motor? It's, pardon the expression, immaterial to the argument.

No, it's not. Since you can't say with absolute certainty that the flagellum was or was not designed (you can only express an opinion about likelihood) then we are forced to consider all aspects of the hypothesis.

You think the flagellum was designed because it looks like a motor (or "it is a motor" in your words). I think it evolved because it looks like other things that have also evolved. But your explanation requires the existence of a higher being, while my explanation does not.

By saying that the designer is immaterial to the argument you're skipping out on the weakest part of it. That sort of logic is not acceptable anywhere else, so why should it be accepted here?

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: zouden]
#10421351 - 05/29/09 05:18 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

That sort of logic is not acceptable anywhere else, so why should it be accepted here?

Um, because it has been repeated ad nauseum in several threads without directly addessing the core issues?

Never underestimate the power of redundancy power. :nono:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Silversoul
Holon

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 22,562
Loc: Mostly harmless

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10421455 - 05/29/09 05:39 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

mushroomhunter10 said:
Ignorance is bliss.

Is that why your posts always seem so mellow?

--------------------

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Silversoul]
#10421502 - 05/29/09 05:56 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

You do realize that you are slowly becoming Swami?

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

zouden
Neuroscientist

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#10421627 - 05/29/09 06:27 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

And so the circle of life continues.

--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see

Post Extras:

OrgoneConclusion
Pharoah & Balanced

Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 29,358
Loc: Luxor

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: zouden]
#10421659 - 05/29/09 06:39 PM (2 years, 11 months ago)

As all Shroomerites join hands and sing 'Hakuna Matata'... :lighter:

--------------------

This is your drain on brugs.

Post Extras:

Kuba
Stranger

Registered: 08/02/09
Posts: 1
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausible. [Re: mushroomhunter10]
#10788774 - 08/02/09 08:53 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Ben Stein is a smart mafaka too, so for somebody so intelligent and well respected in the science community to question the establishment is a breath of fresh air to me.

Sorry to break it to you but Stein in not "respected" in the science community. He is actually very ignorant to much of science and he isnt even much of an economist.

Go to: ExpelledExposed.com

Post Extras:

youbreakyoubuy
Monkey Mouth

Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 2,632
Last seen: 2 years, 16 days

Re: (Movie)Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein's Documentary. Intelligent Design Is Plausi [Re: Kuba]
#10789809 - 08/02/09 11:50 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

nooooooo

--------------------
Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.

Post Extras:

Jump to top.

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Last > [ show all ]

Shop for:

Agar, Hemp, pH Test Strips

½ Pint Jars, Chlorella, Microscope, Scales

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )	c0sm0nautt	2,079	177	01/10/09 03:25 PM by OrgoneConclusion
Shmoopy's Intelligent Design Textbook - $24.95 ( 1 2 3 4 all )	OrgoneConclusion	2,079	75	05/22/09 06:11 AM by youbreakyoubuy
New Movie "Exiled": Evolution vs. Intelligent Design ( 1 2 all )	OrgoneConclusion	1,067	23	10/11/07 10:41 AM by OrgoneConclusion
Intelligence	SpecialEd	646	16	05/23/04 03:05 AM by redgreenvines
How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )	dr0mni	2,484	103	05/17/09 01:49 AM by Darwinian
Evolution and intelligence? ( 1 2 3 all )	OrgoneConclusion	893	50	12/23/08 12:37 AM by OrgoneConclusion
Intelligence and the Travelling Salesman Problem	Swami	481	13	05/19/09 08:03 AM by bradley
Intelligent design is a religion? Not! ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )	Mr. Mushrooms	4,703	166	05/26/09 07:17 AM by Mr. Mushrooms

Extra information

You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Mr. Middle, Diploid
8,517 topic views. 4 members, 11 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]

del.icio.us digg Furl MyWeb reddit StumbleUpon