[Gio]

I was looking through the internet the other day and stumbled upon this little theory. Sure the implications behind it are religious and imply that intelligent design exists, and I know not many people here would accept that, but the science behind their arguments against natural selection are pretty sound.

Basically everyone knows that natural selection is minute changes in an organism over time with chance that causes an organism to evolve over time. Which is a pretty sound theory in most cases. But this one scientist named Michael Behe was studying some sort of bacteria one day and figured that the motor that is behind the flagella of this bacteria could not have evolved because of its sheer complexity. Basically he is claiming that this was and intelligent design much like the motor of a car is designed by man. If you take one part out or put the motor together in the wrong order no part of it will work, therefore this part of the bacteria could not have evolved slowly over time by chance and had to have been designed. It would have had to have been built all at one time.
I am not trying to argue that this means that Christians were right all along I was want to know how you guys think this stacks up against natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia....able_complexity

[Golden Legacy]

This is a typical argument that is meant to turn one of the basic premises of evolution against itself. I've seen it used before, and unfortunately I don't think it's a particularly valid one.

"Sheer complexity"? For one this bases the claim that life is only capable of existing based on the limits of what humans think. You pointed out the claim that because a certain scientist was observing a certain type of bacteria and observed a flagellum that was simply "too complex", that therefore it must have been intelligently designed. Why is it based only on what humans should think is "complex"? This is a fairly subjective view coming from someone who has difficulty grasping the sheer scope of evolution (what can happen on the order of hundreds of millions of years) and trying to think of life outside of how man sees it.

Also, there is a classic logical fallacy invoked, that the choice has to be between intelligent design or evolution, and therefore by disproving the latter, the first MUST be true. This is a false dilemma and a strawmen. Even if this scientist's claims were true (and it appears to have been repeatedly debunked), this does not in any way support intelligent design, only trying to contradict evolution.

There's more I can say here, but that's my analysis of it so far. The only credit I will give this idea right now is that it at least tries to be somewhat 'scientific' in its approach, instead of constantly appealing to emotion and vague notions of morality.

[Gio]

I personally don't see why both of theories can't exist together, both on somewhat smaller scales than each side claims. I mean it is obvious that natural selection does work to some degree a prime example would be the finch on the Galapagos Islands, but that is just the differing of beaks sizes and it is a small scale, And even overs thousands and millions of years all I could see happening from the is differences is small things such as this, and you can claim that over millions of years that could change a species. I don't see any flaw in said theory, but this irreducible complexity theory doesn't only exist in this flagellum. You can apply it to a lot of things such as DNA and other things within a cell.

For example what they are saying is that if this flagellum motor had slowly evolved it would have had to have pulled these devices to make this motor work out of nowhere and since natural selection is based on having slight differences in species allow some to survive better than others, it cant possibly explain how this motor appeared out of nowhere, because in order for it to work, all of the parts have to be there at once. This same theory can be applied to nearly all the parts of the cell.

I am not claiming that either is correct but I am more inclined to accept intelligent design because of my beliefs. It doesn't by any means prove that a God or intelligent designer exists, but it does speak volumes about how there are still holes in the theory of evolution and natural selection that people defending just try to cover up and gloss over.

[Golden Legacy]

Actually I agree with you that "both sides" can coexist and too often it's become polarized into an all-or-nothing sort of view.

Gio, on Feb 4 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

a prime example would be the finch on the Galapagos Islands, but that is just the differing of beaks sizes and it is a small scale, And even overs thousands and millions of years all I could see happening from the is differences is small things such as this, and you can claim that over millions of years that could change a species. I don't see any flaw in said theory, but this irreducible complexity theory doesn't only exist in this flagellum. You can apply it to a lot of things such as DNA and other things within a cell.

There are plenty of examples that can be used.

Quote

For example what they are saying is that if this flagellum motor had slowly evolved it would have had to have pulled these devices to make this motor work out of nowhere and since natural selection is based on having slight differences in species allow some to survive better than others, it cant possibly explain how this motor appeared out of nowhere, because in order for it to work, all of the parts have to be there at once. This same theory can be applied to nearly all the parts of the cell.

This is where the logic is a bit forced. Who says that this "flagellum motor" could not have possibly existed otherwise? On what basis is this claim made? There are and can be alternatives to motor function in bacteria that goes beyond the scope of what exists today. Just because the actual mechanics viewed today may seem to only work with this motor (and only if it came at once), does not disprove the possibility of other mechanisms that could have existed or changed. For example, neural evolutionary history of the brain shows that it has changed and expanded in size and ability. All eukaryotic organisms, from humans down to the simplest basic organisms, have neural ability ranging from the complex organ of the brain down to the most basic nucleus. The trends between them show a correlation based on how complex and developed the species is. It could have, and did, develop gradually as a result of the species' needs and growing functions, not an all-or-nothing affair as with this irreducible complexity claim.

Do you have any more information on this scientist's claims? Has it been verified or reproduced?

Quote

I am not claiming that either is correct but I am more inclined to accept intelligent design because of my beliefs. It doesn't by any means prove that a God or intelligent designer exists, but it does speak volumes about how there are still holes in the theory of evolution and natural selection that people defending just try to cover up and gloss over.

I wouldn't say this is a hole... not all of evolutionary history has been documented and there are still areas of development, human and otherwise, that have yet to be filled. But, not being able to accept that there may have been a way for a bacteria's flagellum from ever existing beyond what humans have ever known=/= disproving evolution.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Feb 4 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

This is a typical argument that is meant to turn one of the basic premises of evolution against itself. I've seen it used before, and unfortunately I don't think it's a particularly valid one.

"Sheer complexity"? For one this bases the claim that life is only capable of existing based on the limits of what humans think. You pointed out the claim that because a certain scientist was observing a certain type of bacteria and observed a flagellum that was simply "too complex", that therefore it must have been intelligently designed. Why is it based only on what humans should think is "complex"? This is a fairly subjective view coming from someone who has difficulty grasping the sheer scope of evolution (what can happen on the order of hundreds of millions of years) and trying to think of life outside of how man sees it.

Also, there is a classic logical fallacy invoked, that the choice has to be between intelligent design or evolution, and therefore by disproving the latter, the first MUST be true. This is a false dilemma and a strawmen. Even if this scientist's claims were true (and it appears to have been repeatedly debunked), this does not in any way support intelligent design, only trying to contradict evolution.

There's more I can say here, but that's my analysis of it so far. The only credit I will give this idea right now is that it at least tries to be somewhat 'scientific' in its approach, instead of constantly appealing to emotion and vague notions of morality.

I don't think the scientist was saying "this is too complex to have evolved." Because that really isn't a sound argument. The point is, is that the "motor" moving the flagella doesn't have any "augmenting parts." Parts that only serve to make it run better, but can be removed.

His point was that the "motor" seemed as though it were built from the ground up, without any additions or augmentations. Basically, if one part wasn't there, it wouldn't work. And due to the nature of the theory of evolution, this would conflict with it, since the motor would have had to have developed over time to become as complex as it is.

[Gio]

Well I had this real long thing typed up and then my computer freaked out and deleted it all somehow. Basically I was going to bring up something called the co-option theory, if you want to know what my tiny problem is with it read up one it and I will expalin.

Anyway. I think toasty has pretty much hit the nail on the head with what the scientist is trying to explain.
Also I am becoming more and more inclined to think that both of these theories can coexist as you said earlier GL.