If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Scientists create $30 million one-celled artificial living organism, inadvertently prove Intelligent Design   (online.wsj.com) divider line 552
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

26079 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 May 2010 at 4:25 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



552 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-05-21 12:47:26 AM
For all the people "meh"ing this, take it from someone who has followed this process closely in anticipation of this day:

This is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of science. The engineering involved was astounding. All of the people saying, "Oh, they just replaced one genome with another" really have no concept of what that means. This really is big.
 
2010-05-21 12:49:43 AM
Mentat: For all the people "meh"ing this, take it from someone who has followed this process closely in anticipation of this day:

This is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of science. The engineering involved was astounding. All of the people saying, "Oh, they just replaced one genome with another" really have no concept of what that means. This really is big.


i789.photobucket.com

"Indeed."
 
2010-05-21 12:51:23 AM
Baryogenesis: im2lagged2frag: Zamboro: im2lagged2frag: "If there is something that is divine, it exists outside of Time"

Because you say so? What if I can imagine a god who exists within time?

then you have a different definition of god.

How do you know one definition of God is true and one isn't?


i dont. I dont think it is a true / false question.
 
2010-05-21 12:55:30 AM
entropic_existence: Both the view you announced as wrong, and the one you described, are both incorrect in terms of how a cell works.

img175.imageshack.us
 
2010-05-21 12:58:04 AM
Mentat: For all the people "meh"ing this, take it from someone who has followed this process closely in anticipation of this day: This is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of science. The engineering involved was astounding. All of the people saying, "Oh, they just replaced one genome with another" really have no concept of what that means. This really is big.

[Not sure if serious?] The stitched together 1Kb fragments into a properly arranged a 1Mb genome, yeah that's pretty of impressive. They replaced the genome of a cell, something that happens in everyday cloning. They caused the transformation of one bacteria species into another; pretty cool, but what can you use it for? I wouldn't call it astounding. Why do you think this is so "big"?
 
2010-05-21 01:01:25 AM
Also I don't think you can all follow the link so for the sake of people arguing here, a quote from one of the researchers on the project.

"We clearly transformed one cell into another," says Venter. "That's a pretty amazing accomplishment," says Anthony Forster, a molecular biologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Still, he and others emphasize that this work didn't create a truly synthetic life form, because the genome was put into an existing cell.
 
2010-05-21 01:01:28 AM
jingks: Mentat: For all the people "meh"ing this, take it from someone who has followed this process closely in anticipation of this day: This is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of science. The engineering involved was astounding. All of the people saying, "Oh, they just replaced one genome with another" really have no concept of what that means. This really is big.

[Not sure if serious?] The stitched together 1Kb fragments into a properly arranged a 1Mb genome, yeah that's pretty of impressive. They replaced the genome of a cell, something that happens in everyday cloning. They caused the transformation of one bacteria species into another; pretty cool, but what can you use it for? I wouldn't call it astounding. Why do you think this is so "big"?


i think rather than taking and splicing parts of a genome that already exist, they made an entirely new one with their own programming, not programming that exists in any other. i think. i read the article several hours ago.
 
2010-05-21 01:03:32 AM
Zamboro:
No, not even close. You're lecturing me on differences I'm already intimately familiar with. I've been arguing religion on these boards for about five years now.

You seem to be suggesting that only creationists believe that their religious views are factual. This would mean, according to you, that all other Christians don't actually believe God exists, but rather that God is an idea. Perhaps that's your take on God, but presenting it as definitive is dishonest in the extreme. I know better than to think most Christians share that conception of God.


I said 'from what i can tell' before each part. if that seems to indicate that I am stating these as definitive statements, speaking on behalf of other people, i apologize.

you said: Again, I can easily find millions of theists who disagree. How you, personally, view religion doesn't change the fact that overwhelmingly, theists consider their beliefs to be literally true, not quasi-true, not "true for me", but an accurate understanding of reality.

once again, from what i can tell, you are referring to people who believe in an absolutely literal Bible, not people who believe in Intelligent Design. Once people are not attached to a literal 6 day creation and 6,000 year old world, it seems to me their views on a lot of things must become more flexible.
 
2010-05-21 01:03:43 AM
The Flexecutioner: i think rather than taking and splicing parts of a genome that already exist, they made an entirely new one with their own programming, not programming that exists in any other. i think. i read the article several hours ago.

No, they copied the genome of one bacterium and added some markers so they could tell it was theirs. They didn't make a Frankensteinesque bacterium from multiple sources.

Again from the science news article I linked in the last post: The team decided to change microbes in midstream, sequencing the 1-million-base genome of the faster-growing M. mycoides and beginning to build a synthetic copy of its chromosome.
 
2010-05-21 01:05:06 AM
im2lagged2frag: reaching in

oops, god just interacted with the universe
im2lagged2frag: Baryogenesis: im2lagged2frag: Zamboro: im2lagged2frag: "If there is something that is divine, it exists outside of Time"

Because you say so? What if I can imagine a god who exists within time?

then you have a different definition of god.

How do you know one definition of God is true and one isn't?

i dont. I dont think it is a true / false question.


So you're just guessing at God's properties?

How can it not be a true/false question? Either God exists or doesn't. Either God has a property (ex. omnipotence) or doesn't.
 
2010-05-21 01:08:13 AM
jingks: The Flexecutioner: i think rather than taking and splicing parts of a genome that already exist, they made an entirely new one with their own programming, not programming that exists in any other. i think. i read the article several hours ago.

No, they copied the genome of one bacterium and added some markers so they could tell it was theirs. They didn't make a Frankensteinesque bacterium from multiple sources.

Again from the science news article I linked in the last post: The team decided to change microbes in midstream, sequencing the 1-million-base genome of the faster-growing M. mycoides and beginning to build a synthetic copy of its chromosome.


when i typed up my comment, your link comment hadnt been posted yet so i didnt see it. as im not a scientist, i'll trust some measure of your reduction of this accomplishment. for me, it was pretty farking astounding.
 
2010-05-21 01:11:34 AM
im2lagged2frag: Zamboro:
No, not even close. You're lecturing me on differences I'm already intimately familiar with. I've been arguing religion on these boards for about five years now.

You seem to be suggesting that only creationists believe that their religious views are factual. This would mean, according to you, that all other Christians don't actually believe God exists, but rather that God is an idea. Perhaps that's your take on God, but presenting it as definitive is dishonest in the extreme. I know better than to think most Christians share that conception of God.

I said 'from what i can tell' before each part. if that seems to indicate that I am stating these as definitive statements, speaking on behalf of other people, i apologize.

you said: Again, I can easily find millions of theists who disagree. How you, personally, view religion doesn't change the fact that overwhelmingly, theists consider their beliefs to be literally true, not quasi-true, not "true for me", but an accurate understanding of reality.

once again, from what i can tell, you are referring to people who believe in an absolutely literal Bible, not people who believe in Intelligent Design. Once people are not attached to a literal 6 day creation and 6,000 year old world, it seems to me their views on a lot of things must become more flexible.


You're confusing a group of people who have a literal interpretation of the Bible with what Zamboro is saying.

Example: Christians believe in the divinity of Christ. As Zamboro said, "theists consider their beliefs to be literally true, not quasi-true, not "true for me", but an accurate understanding of reality." This is different from a literal interpretation of the Bible.
 
2010-05-21 01:11:59 AM
according to my display, my comment came 3 seconds after yours, just for clarification.
 
2010-05-21 01:17:34 AM
im2lagged2frag: if a god(s) do(es) exist, he/she/it/they would be on the bank of the river, reaching in. the universe is inside time, the divine, if it exists, is not.

Just because you can make a silly analogy doesn't mean that it is true or even plausible.
If God is outside time, God is incapable of effecting change in the universe.


Martian_Astronomer: I would argue that it is possible for something which exists out of time to change state if you posit some sort of "perpendicular time." A fifth dimension, if you will. The entire timeline of our universe would exist at one point on this "perpendicular" timeline.

This is an interesting idea... but I'm not sure how it solves the problem. If our universe exists at only one point in this 2nd time-dimension, God STILL has no time to enact change, since the span of time he spends interacting with our universe has zero width. The other possibility, that the 2nd time dimension runs parallel with ours, implies that our whole universe always interacts with the 2nd time dimension and so God is no longer outside time. I may be missing a mathematical subtlety here, but I'm not really convinced that this solves the problem.
 
2010-05-21 01:22:58 AM
Gawdzila: im2lagged2frag: if a god(s) do(es) exist, he/she/it/they would be on the bank of the river, reaching in. the universe is inside time, the divine, if it exists, is not.

Just because you can make a silly analogy doesn't mean that it is true or even plausible.
If God is outside time, God is incapable of effecting change in the universe.


Martian_Astronomer: I would argue that it is possible for something which exists out of time to change state if you posit some sort of "perpendicular time." A fifth dimension, if you will. The entire timeline of our universe would exist at one point on this "perpendicular" timeline.

This is an interesting idea... but I'm not sure how it solves the problem. If our universe exists at only one point in this 2nd time-dimension, God STILL has no time to enact change, since the span of time he spends interacting with our universe has zero width. The other possibility, that the 2nd time dimension runs parallel with ours, implies that our whole universe always interacts with the 2nd time dimension and so God is no longer outside time. I may be missing a mathematical subtlety here, but I'm not really convinced that this solves the problem.


that sounds like some tesseract cube within a tesseract cube, the outer one being god.
 
2010-05-21 01:24:01 AM
And everybody said it was silly to have a Zombie Apocalypse Contingency Plan in place...

/I need to go order some more 10 gauge shotshell hulls.
//Anybody have any extra shrapnel laying around? For zombie slaying purposes.
 
2010-05-21 01:27:13 AM
jingks: [Not sure if serious?] The stitched together 1Kb fragments into a properly arranged a 1Mb genome, yeah that's pretty of impressive. They replaced the genome of a cell, something that happens in everyday cloning. They caused the transformation of one bacteria species into another; pretty cool, but what can you use it for? I wouldn't call it astounding. Why do you think this is so "big"?

It's the first organism whose genome was assembled, base by base, by humans. If the technology to do this becomes refined and rapid, we could get to a point where you could email off a genome to a company specializing in synthesizing bacteria and have the results delivered to your doorstep. It could basically replace all current methods for making transgenic bacteria, and make them more easily reproducible too.
 
2010-05-21 01:39:45 AM
Sum Dum Gai: It's the first organism whose genome was assembled, base by base, by humans. If the technology to do this becomes refined and rapid, we could get to a point where you could email off a genome to a company specializing in synthesizing bacteria and have the results delivered to your doorstep. It could basically replace all current methods for making transgenic bacteria, and make them more easily reproducible too.

I can understand that point of view. Maybe I'm a little pessimistic, but I just don't see the up-scaling of this technique to that level. Two years ago the same team created a 500kb fragment, now they've doubled it. I suppose once the labour involved is less than current techniques starting with non-synthetic sequence I'll be a little more excited.
 
2010-05-21 01:43:36 AM
jingks: [Not sure if serious?] The stitched together 1Kb fragments into a properly arranged a 1Mb genome, yeah that's pretty of impressive. They replaced the genome of a cell, something that happens in everyday cloning. They caused the transformation of one bacteria species into another; pretty cool, but what can you use it for? I wouldn't call it astounding. Why do you think this is so "big"?

1) The "stitching" was an engineering problem designed to synthesize an artificial genome that does not exist in nature. This is not trivial.

2) No, we do not transfer genomes between bacteria every day. This is not cloning in the common sense of extracting a gene from one organism and transferring it to another. The ability to transfer a genome into an empty cell was a major technical achievement that, not coincidentally, was developed by the same team for the purposes of reaching this goal. This is not trivial.

3) The goal of artificial life is to be able to design a genome de novo from a set of natural or artificial genetic modules. In essence, the want to be able to treat life like a computer program. Imagine a biological CPAN where you can simply take the biochemistry you need to achieve a specific task and add it to your designer genome. Take, for example, the algae project they mention in the article. What do you need to convert CO2 into fuel starting from scratch? First you need the basic minimal biochemical pathways to sustain life in culture. Second, you would add the photosynthesis modules that would convert light energy and CO2 to a more complex carbon compound. In algae, this is typically carbohydrates, but there's no theoretical reason why you couldn't link it to an acetogenic pathway to convert the CO2 directly to acetyl-CoA. From that point, you add the modules to divert acetyl-CoA to long-chain fatty acid biosynthesis and BOOM you have straight-to-the-tank jet fuel. Want to degrade biomass? Add the modules to synthesize a custom cellulosome. Want to bioremediate an oil spill? Add the modules for hydrocarbon degradation. The potential is endless. At this point, it's not even science, it's engineering.
 
2010-05-21 01:45:10 AM
This is Obama's Eiffel Tower.
 
2010-05-21 01:46:19 AM
Nice one, Subby.
 
2010-05-21 01:51:39 AM
jingks: Two years ago the same team created a 500kb fragment, now they've doubled it.

I don't think you appreciate what that means. One of the reasons they started with such a small genome was because they needed to define the minimal number of genes necessary to sustain life. One of the first engineering hurtles they overcame was engineering a natural Mycoplasma strain that in fact could survive with what they determined to be the minimal number of genes. That becomes the scaffold that they build upon. This is where we are at in the progression:

1) Determine minimal gene set (done)
2) Demonstrate genome transfer into empty host (done)
3) de novo genome assembly (done)
4) Demonstrate transfer of de novo genome into empty host (done)
5) Build upon minimal gene set to design genomes with desired biochemistries (coming up)

The hard part's finished. Everything from here on out is just optimization.
 
2010-05-21 01:56:20 AM
Did they start from scratch?

No.

Did they create and perform all the functions themselves?

No.

Did they rely on another life form for the template?

Yes.

Did they rely on other lifeforms to bring it all together into something readable, to "jump start" their patchwork genome?

Yes.

A big does of hyperbole to say this is created life.
 
2010-05-21 01:57:49 AM
Meh

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

30 million? Wow, just wow

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
 
2010-05-21 02:00:03 AM
Hey, has anyone posted that story about God saying "get your own dirt?" Cause, I think that would be relevant to this topic.
 
2010-05-21 02:03:07 AM
Baryogenesis: Hey, has anyone posted that story about God saying "get your own dirt?" Cause, I think that would be relevant to this topic.

"What's the difference between a mallard with a cold and you? One's a sick duck, and I can't remember how it ends but God said 'get your own dirt.'"
 
2010-05-21 02:03:35 AM
Baryogenesis: Hey, has anyone posted that story about God saying "get your own dirt?" Cause, I think that would be relevant to this topic.

Look above you. Heh
 
2010-05-21 02:04:13 AM
Old technology is old.
 
2010-05-21 02:05:22 AM
Mentat:
1) Determine minimal gene set (done)
In M. genitalium, whose minimal gene set creates a slow bacterium too slow growing to work with, so they switch to native M. mycoides genome. Though it's likely that the procedure would work with the minimal M. genitalium genome, that genome is not efficient for industrial application.

2) Demonstrate genome transfer into empty host (done)
Into an empty host of another species (though they share the same restriction enzyme compliment). I said earlier, quite impressive. The transplantation itself is previous work, so does not add to the "impressiveness" of this study.

3) de novo genome assembly (done)
I said this was impressive. But likely more laborious than the generation of the same genome starting with a native M. mycoides genome and modifying it.

4) Demonstrate transfer of de novo genome into empty host (done)
same as number 2

So again, while impressed, I'm not thinking this is all that breakthrough. Maybe I'm just pessimistic?
 
2010-05-21 02:17:20 AM
Teikiatsu: When a group of scientists manages to make a complete membrane, cytoskeleton, nucleus, ribosome, golgi apparatus, nucleus, and the hundreds of other cell components from basic non-living chemicals and slap it all together and make it start up from total inactivity, *THEN* they can say they created life. In the meantime, this is just a step towards that goal.

So only eukaryotes are alive? What a strange thing to say ...
 
2010-05-21 02:25:03 AM
Firefly4F4

Thanks. Yeah, I suppose that's what I was expecting to hear. Good explanation.

ryant123

Yes, this material IS rather annoying.

LavenderWolf

That's all fine, I'm just talking about formal logic here. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

todangst

Haha, I forgot about the passive aggressiveness of internet people - ask someone a question and get mildly insulted while they give you an answer. Awesome! (see what I did there?)

Regardless, the notion of them both requiring values is interesting. Your point would be, then, that until you have a value for B, the A -> B statement cannot be evaluated. That's clearly how one would need to progress if they wanted to refute someone making my point with the argument: "if you were to die, you would meet God". I can see your position, definitely.

But of course there are clearly avenues someone could use to argue against your position, todangst (your condescension notwithstanding). If you're as good at formal logic as you seem to think you are, you know them and their responses already, so I won't bother rehashing them here :)

--

Anyhow, thanks for the comments everyone. I can now completely forget about formal logic now and get back to real life. Hooray!
 
2010-05-21 02:27:59 AM
I'm pretty sure that if I was able to walk up to God and talk to him face-to-face, the last thing I would say is, "I don't need you" under any circumstances.

Unfortunately God plays a mean game of hide-and-seek.
 
2010-05-21 02:37:37 AM
The Flexecutioner: that sounds like some tesseract cube within a tesseract cube, the outer one being god.

Not really, though. A tesseract is just a 3-D representation of a 4-cube. If you have one tesseract inside another then they are occupying the same 4-space, just as if you put one box inside of another here in 3-space. Of course you could say that the other tesseract occupies a different 4-space, but then it doesn't make much sense to say that one of them is inside the other, either.
 
2010-05-21 02:45:51 AM
Since no one noticed before, check the date on this article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299857,00.html (new window)

Sounds like its just a new media wave to stir up funding.

Meh.
 
2010-05-21 02:47:13 AM
Link (new window)

Why didn't that work above grrr
 
2010-05-21 02:56:45 AM
I don't see this as ushering in a new era.
Wake me up when they make cancer eating nanites.
 
2010-05-21 05:13:30 AM
Retinue: I am convinced by my examination of the complexity of life and in particular the complexity and obvious telos or purposeful action within the cell that life itself is the result of design. I make no such claims for the existence of the universe as a whole, for I see no signs of purpose or direction in the non living universe, nor do I claim that it is Yahweh's magic elves building cellular components.

So.... aliens, then? Malevolent time travelers?

Basically what you're saying is, "I have a poor understanding of biology and a sh*tty imagination, therefore there was a designer."

Argument from ignorance. You should work on that.
=Smidge=
 
2010-05-21 05:17:44 AM
Retinue: My questions were, as you suspected, a set of trick questions. Actually the real answer to every question I asked is precisely the same: WE DON'T KNOW. Yet you could not bring yourself to admit this. Very telling.

Except we do know. Not necessarily every detail, because there are lots of things that are ongoing research, but we actually do know a hell of a lot. You sitting there saying we don't is a complete lie.

this is an older paper with many links concerning the eukaryotic flagella and its assembly.

here is a much more recent review of assembly and regulation of eukaryotic flagella and cilia.

here is a paper about the Intraflagellar Transport mechanisms that is a key part of eukaryotic flagella construction and maintenance but whose regulation at the tip and base of the flagella isn't as well understood. This paper, which is now 4 years old, made some key findings in understanding it better.

here and here are two more papers characterizing parts of this system to help build the big picture.

Mentat: For all the people "meh"ing this, take it from someone who has followed this process closely in anticipation of this day:

This is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of science. The engineering involved was astounding. All of the people saying, "Oh, they just replaced one genome with another" really have no concept of what that means. This really is big.


Its a great technical achievement sure. synthesizing chunks of DNA that big using chemical synthesis machines and stitching them together is quite difficult, and has never been done before. In the big picture though this isn't a big scientific leap over what they did two years ago. How they made the genome is the only thing new, and it is just its assembly process that was different, it's the exact same genome they made previously.

They are both imporant steps forward in Synthetic Biology but so too are a handful of papers that come out every year on more foundational concepts like building custom genetic circuits.

This is NOT one of the biggest achievements in the history of science. Its important, but it isn't quite worthy of all of the hyperbole it is getting.
 
2010-05-21 05:33:05 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2010-05-21 06:25:11 AM
Zamboro:

You must have missed this link. Whether you accept it or not, Behe's rebuttal does debunk Millers's argument.
 
2010-05-21 06:58:15 AM
FireBreathingLiberal: i can imagine little gnomes locked in buildings with 5 foot ceilings churning through office work in mini cubicles.


I've seen it. It's called the DMV!


...in s-l-o-w---m-o-t-i-o-n...
 
2010-05-21 07:03:21 AM
Retinue: I am convinced by my examination of the complexity of life and in particular the complexity and obvious telos or purposeful action within the cell that life itself is the result of design.

You called yourself a layman earlier, so why on earth would anybody go on to accept your examination of the complexity of life as anything other than your attempt to find an explanation that doesn't require a level of education and understanding orders of magnitude higher than your current one?

Arguments from incredulity hold no water.
 
2010-05-21 07:21:26 AM
Retinue:

I am convinced by my examination of the complexity of life and in particular the complexity and obvious telos or purposeful action within the cell that life itself is the result of design.

The Envoy:

You called yourself a layman earlier, so why on earth would anybody go on to accept your examination of the complexity of life as anything other than your attempt to find an explanation that doesn't require a level of education and understanding orders of magnitude higher than your current one?

We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. ~ Harold Urey

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ~ Richard Dawkins

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. ~ Francis Crick

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious. ~ Michael Behe
 
2010-05-21 07:34:21 AM
Bevets: Zamboro:

You must have missed this link. Whether you accept it or not, Behe's rebuttal does debunk Millers's argument.


What's amusing is how dishonest Luskin is, no surprise to many of us. He even links back to Part I of Miller's rebuttal that this more recent post (the one you linked to) is supposedly a rebuttal to. In part I of Ken Miller's post he goes through everything Luskin brings up and shows why he is still wrong. All Luskin did in the post you linked to is plug his ears and Go "NUH UH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" What a joke.

A summary of Miller's post (Smoke and Mirrors Part I) follows:

1) Despite what Behe says on page 86 of Darwin's Black Box, Behe does indeed waffle back and forth between talking about just what happens "after the fork" and the entire system. He explicitly says that the entire system is irreducibly complex. But Luskin won't point that out' The relevant quotes:

Page 86:

"Leaving aside the system before the fork in the pathway, where details are less well known, the blood clotting system fits the definition of irreducible complexity. ... The components of the system (beyond the fork in the pathway) are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin." [DBB, p. 86]

Ok, that is what Luskin points to solely. But what does Behe say right on the start of the next page?

"Since each step necessarily requires several parts, not only is the entire blood-clotting system irreducibly complex, but so is each step in the pathway." [DBB, p. 87]

What else does he say pn page 86?

"... none of the cascade proteins is used for anything except controlling the formation of a blood clot. Yet in the absence of any one of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails." [DBB, p. 86]

It's obvious he was talking about the system as a whole while also giving a specific example of a more limited part of the system.

But here is the more important part anyway which Luskin still fails to address:

2) The "core" clotting cascade that happens "after the fork" is not irreducibly complex! and Russel Doolittle showed this in 2008 with the Lamprey genome.

So, what comes after the fork that was specifically noted by Behe as Luskin points out?

And I noted that the components of the system beyond the fork in the pathway are fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart factor, and proaccelerin

Guess what? Lampreys don't have Factor V (proaccelerin). Behe (and Luskin's) argument is STILL bogus. It isn't Miller who has failed to respond to Luskin, it's Luskin plugging his ears and refusing to even acknowledge the content of Miller's posts. It's a straight up lie and anyone who carefully reads the linked posts by Miller would actually be able to see that. Once again Bevets you are blindly passing forward someone else's falsehoods as if they are a good argument.
 
2010-05-21 07:44:19 AM
entropic_existence:

You must have missed this link. Whether you accept it or not, Behe's rebuttal does debunk Millers's argument.
 
2010-05-21 07:55:40 AM
Bevets: entropic_existence:

You must have missed this link. Whether you accept it or not, Behe's rebuttal does debunk Millers's argument.


Quelle Surprise!
The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), is part of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank[2] in the United States. The CSC lobbies for the inclusion of creationism in the form of intelligent design (ID) in public school science curricula as an explanation for the origins of life and the universe while casting doubt on the theory of evolution by portraying it as a "theory in crisis."[3]
 
2010-05-21 08:00:26 AM
Do I need to re-read the article or is the proof not found there?
 
2010-05-21 08:15:44 AM
Atheists like to think they are Neo from the Matrix.

What they fail to realize is that most of humanity is more like Cypher.
 
2010-05-21 08:18:32 AM
 
2010-05-21 08:34:19 AM
Retinue: I have made the point that the flagellum motor is a machine, built to a design for the specific purpose of mechanical locomotion. Nothing about that has been refuted. It is a machine, one of many thousands which function within the cell for specific, intelligent and purposeful functions. There is nothing random about this. Everywhere within the cell structure is purpose and direction.

I never mentioned Behe. I only use the motor because it is quite large and its structure is quite visible under scan. A machine is a machine and this motor is a machine. I could just as easily used as an example the siphon pump mechanism used in many cells.


See, what you're doing is begging the question. You are presupposing that a flagellum was built for the specific purpose of locomotion rather than presenting an argument as to why we should believe that it was. It's hard to argue when you yourself are not presenting an argument, but stating your conclusion as a matter of fact.

Behe, to his credit did present a valid argument:

1. Any complex machinery built by natural selection would have to have been built up piece, by piece, with each increment providing a greater evolutionary advantage than the previous one
2. The bacterial flagellum only functions if several separate parts function in unison, take one part away and the whole fails. It could not, therefore have been created in the manner described in (1).
3. The bacterial flagellum therefore is evidence of intelligent design

Unfortunately for him, someone disproved (2) and the argument failed.

What you seem to be doing is confusing function with purpose. Just because an object does something doesn't mean that it was created in order to do that thing. The sun is a nuclear reactor that creates tropical cyclones on Earth. That doesn't mean that it was created for the aforethought purpose of creating tropical cyclones, (or to inspire impressionist landscape painters, ect). That oak tree is a structure that shades me from the mid-day sun. That does not mean that it's its purpose, it's just something that it happens to do.

If you're going to make a teleological argument you have to explain why you think something has a purpose, not merely state that it does and expect everyone else to agree.
 
Displayed 50 of 552 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report