Sponsors

Avian Flu Vaccine & The End of Intelligent Design Email Print

Scientists have identified at least one reason bird flu isn't spreading easily from person to person. The virus concentrates itself too deep in the lungs to be spewed out by coughing and sneezing.  The findings have concrete implications for vaccine development.  The vaccines, in turn, may offer a way for us to rid the world of the twin scourges known as Intelligent Design and Creationism....

Avian flu is very contagious among birds.  It is not so contagious among humans...yet.  It is well known that almost every documented case of bird flu has been in people who had intimate and extended contact with infected birds.   Some rare cases have been reported where human to human transmission are suspected.  However, most of these were also in people who were in contact with birds as well.   The relatively high mortality rate of those infected is a cause for concern.  If human to human transmission of the infection became widespread, we would have a pandemic to rival or surpass the flu pandemic of 1918.  Millions would die. Now for the good news.

Scientists at the University of Wisconsin have recently identified two features of the virus that may explain why it is not so contagious in humans.  One is the surface molecules (glycoproteins called hemagglutinin spikes) that help virus particles bind to cell surfaces and trick the cells into letting them inside.  Think of them as a kind of key which fits a lock on the cell surface.  If you have the right key, you can get in.  

Once a virus is inside, it then strips off its coating and inserts its DNA (or RNA) into the nucleus of the cell, hijacks the machinery and starts making lots of copies of itself.  That identifies a second feature of the virus, a gene called PB2. PB2 codes for a protein the virus needs so its DNA can actually get copied in a useful way.  Without active PB2,  the viral DNA just isn't going to be useful.

As it turns out the spikes on H5N1 are the wrong key for the upper respiratory system.  That means it doesn't infect cells in your mouth, nose, and throat.  The keys do work deep down in the lungs, but that is less of a problem as far as transmission is concerned.  Simply because if you have an infection near the top...you will spray stuff out when you sneeze and cough.  If it is deep down, you aren't going to be spreading much unless you cough up a lung.  

Mammals are really good at generating immune responses to foreign spikes.  That is why flu season comes and goes.  The herd basically builds up a response to the virus.  If it didn't, the infection would just hang around.  Spikes mutate like crazy.  When they do, you get a new wave of flu.  This is one reason why we have different flavors of flu shots.  It turns out those spikes are also a real nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.  If you don't believe in evolution, then you should not need more than one flu shot in your life.

Different vaccines get made different ways.  One way is to inject parts of the virus and generate a response.  That works about 50 to 80 percent of the time.  A better way is to inject a complete virus that has been "attenuated" somehow so you get to see the whole range of surface molecules.  Obviously you want to be sure that virus is not active or you are just asking for trouble.  That is where PB2 comes in.   It turns out someone has actually patented recombinant forms of the PB2 gene.  That means you should be able to  isolate avian flu virus, modify it with the busted PB2 gene.  Grow the new "attenuated" virus and use that to make vaccines!    

Ok...not you personally, but someone with the right laboratory and equipment.

Taken together those two features (poor absorption in the upper respiratory tract and candidates for modifying genes critical to replication) are good news.  They mean we may have a longer window before the spikes change enough to become infectious in your nose, mouth and throat.  That means we have time to develop effective vaccines.  

Obviously, there won't be enough vaccine to go around early on. Rationing health care is always a problem. But fortunately this time we have a way to rationally allocate this scarce resource.  We can actually kill two birds with one stone here.  

Lots of people criticize Intelligent Design and Creationism for being unscientific because they are not testable.  WELL NOW WE CAN TEST THEM!!!   I propose that when the first vaccines are produced, advocates of either Intelligent Design or Creationism should seize this opportunity to test their hypothesis by not getting vaccinated.  If they are right, they should be fine. Some may question the wisdom of their decision, but it would be a truly scientific way of testing their notions.


KEYWORDS: , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< US Doesn't See Dangers of Iran Overtures | Moni v Transparency International: Is Moni the next Norma Rae? >
 Display:
...where their mouth is!

"It is also a real nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.  If you don't believe in evolution, then you should not need more than one flu shot in your life."

Excellent stuff BN!!

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 03/27/2006 12:41:01 PM EST

8ackgr0und N015e states:  "It is also a real nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.  If you don't believe in evolution, then you should not need more than one flu shot in your life."

What does not believing in evolution have to do with believing in Intelligent Design?  

Evolution is a fact.  Darwinism and Intelligent Design are alternative explanations of the fact of evolution.  All you have done is reveal you total ignorance of the matter.

Besides, the Darwinian explanation of evolution attempts to explain the Origin of Species.  This is otherwise known as macroevolution.  What you are describing is at best microevolution.  Your reference to microevolution says nothing about the veracity of the either Darwinian or the Intelligent Design explanations of macroevolution.

But don't feel bad.  Almost everyone thinks that just because evolution is a fact, that means that the Darwinian explanation of evolution is a fact.  They would be wrong.

by Endoplasmic Messenger on 03/27/2006 09:41:38 PM EST

Endoplasmic Messenger.... first let me congratulate you on picking a truly ironic handle.  It is testimony to the fact your response... when translated ... is a perfect example of why Intelligent Design is considered the biological equivalent of ebonics.  

Ready?   Let's play ball!

8ackgr0und N015e states:  "It is also a real nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design.  If you don't believe in evolution, then you should not need more than one flu shot in your life."

What does not believing in evolution have to do with believing in Intelligent Design?  

I'm glad you asked.  To begin with Intelligent Design posits that life is "irreducibly complex" hence it was designed into existence rather than the result of evolution.  So let's explore that little notion together.  Take my hand and climb down the phylogenetic tree with me as we ask a simple question:  Where does "irreducible complexity" begin?  

Mammals?
Reptiles?
Vertebrates?
Invertebrates?
Jelly fish?
Plankton?
Paramecium?
Eukaryotes?
Prokaryotes?
Viruses?

Are double stranded DNA viruses irreducibly complex?
What about single stranded DNA viruses?
What about single stranded RNA viruses?
Let's get funky ... what about naked RNA viruses?

You are familiar with narnaviruses, aren't you?  Those are the naked rna packages that infect Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the yeast we use to make beer.  See that little trip down the phylogenetic tree was worth it... as Dr. Benjamin Franklin noted, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

But wait...there's more!  You know how many nucleotides exist in narnaviruses?  Don't worry.... I won't keep you in suspense. There are less than 3000 nucleotides in the entire genome of any narnavirus.  If that's all it takes to be irreducibly complex, then excuse me while I apply for tax exempt status as the new deity on the block because I know how to synthesize stuff much more complicated than that.  

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you can't identify life without invoking evolution, irreducible complexity is really in trouble.  Unless you can pinpoint where irreducible complexity begins... Intelligent Design doesn't even get out of the starting gate.  I want you to remember that every time you suck down a brewskie.

Strike one........  0 and 1....

========= ====

Evolution is a fact.  Darwinism and Intelligent Design are alternative explanations of the fact of evolution.  All you have done is reveal you total ignorance of the matter.

Since I never mentioned Darwin... your straw man argument is a waste of effort.  If you want to discuss scientific theories of non-Darwinian evolution, we can do that.  And we will... but first let me dispense with your next piece of fuzzy logic:

Besides, the Darwinian explanation of evolution attempts to explain the Origin of Species.  This is otherwise known as macroevolution.  What you are describing is at best microevolution.  Your reference to microevolution says nothing about the veracity of the either Darwinian or the Intelligent Design explanations of macroevolution.

I'm going to climb up that endoplasmic reticulum you are so fond of and explode like a hand grenade.  Watch close because you won't even see this coming.

As you know the endoplasmic reticulum is where protein translation occurs.  It is a signal achievement of eukaryotic evolution. Prokaryotes don't have it.  That's right friends...all you prokaryotes out there thinking about moving on up the phylogenetic tree we just climbed down.... listen up!  If you don't have an ER, you gotta get one or you ain't going anywhere.  

Now, how do you do that? Glad you asked...evolution is the solution.  Lemme tell you a story.  We'll call it a Tale of Two Theories. As far as prokaryotes are concerned, 1.5 Billion years ago it was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way.

In short, not much has changed in the intervening 1.5 Billion years since some primordial prokaryotes escaped the confines of their parochial existence and decided to forsake the profligate lifestyle of soluble enzyme metabolism and started to segregate their operations into organelles.  That's right segregation... ah said it.... without segregation we would never have moved up the tree.  But wait... that would be true only if the infolding hypothesis was the whole story.  But it ain't.   It's hard to look into the eyes of a ribosome and call it brother.  The dirty little secret locked in every female cell is that the endosymbiotic theory is a compelling reason to believe that just like the Antebellum South, another hotbed of segregation, miscegenation was the order of the day even at the cellular level.  

When you add to that hot steamy group grope the fact of lateral gene swapping among those primordial prokaryotes, is it any surprise the network nature of genome phylogeny in early prokaryotes leads people to conclude that back then there were no species as we now think of them?  

Burdened with that knowledge, are you seriously going to argue that irreducible complexity came out of the primordial ooze? Well then where the hell did the ooze come from? You think someone just tracked it in on their boots while they were dropping off a delivery of designer genes?

Speaking of nonsense, let's consider your false dichotomy of "microevolution" and "macroevolution".  How finely do you want to slice that?  I mean come on ... you were talking about transitions among mere species... I'm talking movement from one Kingdom to another Brotha!

If that don't scare the Dickens out of all you Intelligent Design folks...then you aren't paying attention.

Strike two.......  0 and 2........

========= ======


But don't feel bad.  Almost everyone thinks that just because evolution is a fact, that means that the Darwinian explanation of evolution is a fact.  They would be wrong.

Ahhhhh.... the arrogance of ignorance... you gotta love it.  0 and 2 and talking trash.... ok pal.... I realize you didn't even see the last one coming so this time I'll be sporting and pitch this one right down the middle.  You are still going down .... ready?  

Here's the pitch: You think "almost everyone" equates Darwinian theory with evolution.  Not so amigo.  You want a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution?  Be careful what you ask for... because you might get it... voila:

Let me introduce you to the Neutral Hypothesis of Evolution. The Neutral Hypothesis is not a new theory.  In fact, it is based on evidence that has existed in the scientific literature since 1907! It has received widespread attention in peer-reviewed journals and enjoys considerable support. For example:

i)    M. Kimura (1968)  Evolutionary rate at the molecular level.
Nature 217:624-625

ii)   J. L.King and T. H. Jukes (1969)  Non-Darwinian evolution.
Science 164:788-798

In case you didn't know Science and Nature are not only two of the most prestigious of scientific peer-reviewed journals, they also have the broadest circulation of any peer reviewed journals on the planet.  So much for science acting as keepers of the Darwinian Orthodoxy.

Of course there is more to being scientific than merely being published in a peer-reviewed journal.  If it is science then it's gotta be testable.  Something Intelligent Design and Creationism are not.  Has anyone tested the Neutral Hypothesis? Glad you asked!  Here are a few papers that test that hypothesis of evolution:

i)     Hudson, R. R., M. Kreitman, and M. Aguade 1987. A test of
neutral molecular evolution based on nucleotide data. Genetics
116:153-159.

ii)    Kliman, R. M., and J. Hey. 1993. Reduced natural selection
associated with low recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol.
Biol. Evol. 10:1239-1258.

iii)   McAllister, B. F., and G. A. McVean. 2000. Neutral evolution
of the sex-determining gene tra in Drosophila. Genetics 154:1711-1720.

iv)    Singh, R. S., and R. J. Kulathinal. 2000. Sex gene pool
evolution and speciation: a new paradigm. Genes Genet. Syst. 75:
119-130.

STEEERIKE THREEE ...............YER OUT!!!!  0 for 3 baby!!!!!!

I think you have been what the kids call "served" buddy.  Here's a word of advice: If that's the best you've got....Don't quit your day job.

A recent FBI search warrant reveals Republicans refer to themselves as the Corrupt Bastards Club!

by 8ackgr0und N015e on 03/28/2006 01:49:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Evolution is pretty much inseparable from Darwin's views. Natural selection, sexual selection and speciation are all observable facts. All elements of Darwin's theory of evolution have strong support and fit well with the much more recent studies of molecular biology. For your reference, I have previously written about evolution in general and supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution. That might help clear things up for you.

I will say that your distinction between microevolution and macroevolution has some validity if for no other reason that some people "believe" in one but not the other...as if a person's "belief" in a scientific theory mattered for its validity. But macroevolution is the result of microevolution over a long period of time. Sometimes the link between the two has even been observed as in the case of "ring species" where you see local varietal variations that result in actual speciation at the extreme ends of the range. What you are calling microevolution and macroevolution are not ultimately separable. They ARE often studied distinctly simply because the link between then is not always observable. But they are pieces of the same puzzle.

Read the Progressive Democrat

by mole333 on 03/28/2006 09:47:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Instead of saying "Evolution is inseparable from Darwin's views," I would say that "Darwin's views are inseparable from evolution."  The fact is there are non-Darwinian models for evolution that happen to also be scientific.  However, there is no part of Darwin's theory that argues against evolution.  Basically, Darwin's model is a subset of a larger field.

Having said that, I am all for testing and debating the issue... as long as you can maintain scientific rigor.  There are a host of exciting and interesting questions that can be raised without compromising intellectual integrity or rigor.  With so much truly stimulating material to consider, why would you substitute the real deal for nonsense?  

Rhetorical ploys certainly sound erudite, but confusing that for science is like comparing apples and elephants.  Sure you can eat both of them, but you would look awfully retarded trying to ride an apple.  It's the dumbing down of the discussion that offends me most. It's why I say Intellectual Design is nothing more than scientific ebonics.

A recent FBI search warrant reveals Republicans refer to themselves as the Corrupt Bastards Club!

by 8ackgr0und N015e on 03/28/2006 03:03:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I might not quite agree. There are models that modify or fill in blanks left by Darwin's theory, but I don't think any viable model of evolution can ignore Darwinism. There is of course punctuated equilibrium, which modifies Darwinism. And there is some evidence that a tiny fraction of bacterial evolution is a form of Lamarkian evolution, but it is a tiny amount (this was in Nature some 15 years ago based on statistical analysisi... the authors doubted their own conclusions but couldn't come up win an alternative so published...no followup as far as I am aware). But the bulk of how evolution works is Darwinian.

But this is quibbling. I basically agree with you 99%! ID is intelectually dishonest, insanely dumb, and irritatingly decieving. It isn't just putting god at the beginning of the process (something that can be consistent with science, though not PART of science). It in essence posits a deity as the active force in evolution. It is a bastard concept meant simply to get a pseudopod in the door for creationism.

Read the Progressive Democrat

by mole333 on 03/28/2006 05:54:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Perfection is a human obsession caused by our own manual form of creation. One of the parable's says that "The Kingdom of God is like a farmer sowing seed. Some fall on stony ground and is blown away by the wind. Some are eaten by the birds, but those that land on good soil produce good fruit." This is as good an example of natural selection as one could find.

Perfection is not possible because if it were it would be static. We try to approach the unapproachable ideal because our creations have to work within a short time period and God's creations have milleniums to take place. God is not a designer - he is a farmer. Mutations are mostly mistakes. Occasionaly one of them survives and carries on. Creationism and intelligent design try to validate the Bible. They are not the result of a serious search for truth.

One does not have to be an athiest to recognize the obvious truth contained in evolution. The idea of God getting down in his knees in the mud to fabricate Adam is absurd. Creationism and its brother intelligent design are like the Bushies trying to explain why we occupy Iraq. Macro or micro it is all evolution.

by gramps on 03/28/2006 12:52:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I also don't know if there is a God. However, that doesn't matter.  I am secure in my faith that the face of God is revealed in the laughter of children.  I can't prove that, but I don't have to.  After all, faith that requires proof isn't faith...it's something else.  

A recent FBI search warrant reveals Republicans refer to themselves as the Corrupt Bastards Club!

by 8ackgr0und N015e on 03/28/2006 03:13:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you may be on to something here, Background Noise, but it has not been made clear how the microbiological aspects of the Avian Flu, and its vaccine, redress design. How does the information presented here refute science's ability to detect design? Please explain.

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there are more than a few proponents of ID who have no problem with biological evolution, unless a particular view of evolution somehow negates the ability of science to detect design. I am among this group. Any thoughts on this fact?

Any clarification or input would be appreciated.

Joseph C. Campana

Founder and Webmaster, ResearchID.org
jccampana at gmail dot com
http://www.researchintellig entdesign.org

by JosephCCampana on 03/28/2006 10:04:24 AM EST

Joseph Campana says:

...there are more than a few proponents of ID who have no problem with biological evolution, unless a particular view of evolution somehow negates the ability of science to detect design.

Interesting ... design is the conclusion with Intelligent Design because life is assumed to be "irreducibly complex."  This is nothing more than a tautology... you assume A, and thus conclude A is true because you can't find evidence to refute the conclusion.  If you know anything about science you know that is exactly bass ackwards... when testing an hypothesis you are supposed to assume the NULL hypothesis and then seek to REFUTE that.  

Logical Positivism has no place in the process.  You compound the problem by applying logical positivism to a tautology.  But it get's worse (in an unexplainable way) when you base all that noise on a foundation of idealist ontology. Then you are just building sand castles in the air with your breath.  That's the kind of fuzzy thinking that distinguishes Intelligent Design from science (and most forms of rational thought).  It's basically apologetic rhetoric without data.

Let me be concrete here because I would hate to wound your inner child by leaving you with the mistaken impression that I am mocking Intelligent Design's pretense at science in the absence of hard data.

As I indicated in detail above, unless you can point to WHERE this mythical irreducible complexity occurs... you are just flapping your gums.   I notice you are silent on that point. Don't be shy... speak up.  WE'RE WAITING JOSEPH!!!!  

Before you stick your feet in your mouth...let me explain something to you about predictions and observations.  The reason Uncle Al set Isaac's world on its ear is he made concrete predictions that could be observed.  That's not to say that everything derived from his theories are correct... but where they are not correct is clear when you test it.

Now let's talk about the "scientific detection" of design.  You have some newfangled machine that detects this mythical property?  Care to share it with the rest of us?  Tell me...do we measure design by size? By weight? By color? Do we measure it spectrophometrically...or is it like measuring the parton distribution functions and luminosities of charm, beauty and strange quarks?  Do tell..... Inquiring Minds Want to KNOW!!!

To be honest the microscopic world is a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there...so let's leave the microworld for a moment and look at the macro world.  I'm looking at a tree.  Are they designed? After all, trees are indescribably complex. Oh wait... they used to be indescribably complex. Now I can describe the structure I am looking at using simple nonlinear fractal geometry... so let's look at the math.... Is the fractal geometry underlying the natural structures permeating the cosmos an irreducibly complex creation that was designed?  Or is it an artifact of our cognition?  How would you know?

See unfortunately for you... if you want to be taken seriously then you have to bring something to the table besides "I'm too ignorant to explain the mechanisms underlying the natural state so I will posit something simple and untestable to mollify me."  You probably don't know how anti-lock brakes work... that doesn't mean I won't use mine.

Speaking of brakes... I'll stop here for now and wait for you to catch up.  But don't forget to eat your Wheaties when you bring it because you are going to get slapped around like a pinata at a birthday party.

A recent FBI search warrant reveals Republicans refer to themselves as the Corrupt Bastards Club!

by 8ackgr0und N015e on 03/28/2006 02:49:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Background Noise,

Thank you for your reply. This is a great website, I really like the concept.

I don't mind being slapped around; I like piñatas and birthday parties. Besides, anyone who tries to develop anything new is bound to receive this treatment, whether they are vindicated in the end or not. I've come to expect it. There are many ways that one can only grow in by leaving the comfort of home, and there are monsters on the other side of the fence. This kind of treatment is actually very helpful in honing my ideas. I am glad you are willing to discuss this issue, so I realize abuse is par for the course.

On to the topic at hand...

Irreducible complexity is a subsidiary view of ID that I do not personally put a lot of time in researching; I only have a cursory understanding of what it is. There is one rub with IC, though. Its most basic logic regarding function is true. If you remove one of the 30 parts of a bacterial flagellum, it won't work. Whether that complexity is attainable through evolutionary mechanisms is another ball of wax, and nor is it my claim. If you are waiting for me to defend IC, please wait no more; I am no defender of the concept.

I may be mistaken, but your general conceptualization of ID may be somewhat weaker than that intended by most proponents. They probably are not aware that they are participating in such things as tautologies, nor is it likely they know what a tautology is. Nonetheless, the argument seems to be more than you make it.

I think the key is developing a fulcrum of discussion; key terms and concepts that everyone can agree on. Here follows a proposed definition I have been developing for ID, please tell me what statements you find disagreeable.

Not assuming all intelligence is a single particular kind, which illustrates the actualization of intelligent agency.

  1. Human Intelligence is a distinguishable theoretical kind.

  2. Human Intelligence can influence the natural world in a variety of ways.

  3. Human Intelligence can act and cause unique effects that are fundamentally different than natural laws, chance, and their cooperation.

  4. Any possible Intelligence equivalent or superior to human intelligence will have at least an intersection with human intelligence given the constraints on physical activity (forces, space, time, energy, chance, and their interaction) imposed by the universe.

  5. This intersection derives the possibility of an inferential analogy between the physical effects of human intelligence and other superior intelligences, i.e. design analogues.

  6. Distinguished from human intelligence, based on observational elimination and non-coincidence, these physical effects of Intelligence form the basis of an empirically testable set.

  7. These unique physical effects are what is meant by Rarefied Design.

Please piñatas-fy away. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything. Again, thank you for inviting me to discuss this. Once we hammer out a basis for conversation, we'll revisit my first question from my previous post.

Joseph C. Campana

http://www.researchintellig entdesign.org

by JosephCCampana on 03/28/2006 05:43:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
  2. Human Intelligence can influence the natural world in a variety of ways.

How does this differ from any other species affecting the natural world? The greatest change wrought by living organisms to date was the oxygen atmosphere due to cyanobacteria. By comparison, human intelligence has done little.

 

  3. Human Intelligence can act and cause unique effects that are fundamentally different than natural laws, chance, and their cooperation.

I disagree. Nothing we do is fundamentally different than any natural law. We are bound by natural laws plain and simlple. In essence, human intelligence is nothing more than another trait that natural selection acts upon. I do not see the basis of this statement.

In general I do not see your outline as in any way cogent to the discussion of evolution. Or, at least, no more so than the discussion of any trait. And if that is all it is, what is so special about it? Intelligence is a specialized trait much like a skunk's odiferous spray. It is not in any way above or beyond or different from the natural world.

One other quibble, though about something that you aren't strongly defending. Remove one part of the flagellum and you do indeed mess it up. But there is plenty of room for modification and change in that complex organ. And it DOES get modified and evolve. To say that removing one piece destroys it therefore it is irreducibly complex ignores the fact that the mutations that lead to speciation do not occur as a sudden, massive modification but a series of smaller, gradual changes. IC is a straw man arguement. But you seem aware of that.

Read the Progressive Democrat

by mole333 on 03/28/2006 06:06:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You said:

Irreducible complexity is a subsidiary view of ID that I do not personally put a lot of time in researching; I only have a cursory understanding of what it is. There is one rub with IC, though. Its most basic logic regarding function is true. If you remove one of the 30 parts of a bacterial flagellum, it won't work. Whether that complexity is attainable through evolutionary mechanisms is another ball of wax, and nor is it my claim. If you are waiting for me to defend IC, please wait no more; I am no defender of the concept.

Irreducible complexity is the central thesis of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. It also happens to be crap.  Since you brought it up, let's take a look at your flagellum example. The response to that has been covered in great detail in The Flagellum Unspun and various other publications.  The conclusion being this:

"[S]tudies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong - the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex... Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life."

That last sentence is a doozie. Unfortunately for you, there are flagella out there that even "missing a part" still beat Intelligent Design's main argument to death ...oooopsie... so where does that leave us?

  1. Irreducible complexity is the core of Behe's argument.  It is about as "subsidiary" to Intelligent Design as The Virgin Birth is to Christianity.

  2. If you lose irreducible complexity, there is no reason to posit a designer.

  3. If there is no reason to posit a designer, there is no reason to attribute intelligence to the designer.

You just wiped yourself out before I even had a chance to break a sweat.  Drats.  The rest of your post is potentially interesting, but irrelevant.  

A recent FBI search warrant reveals Republicans refer to themselves as the Corrupt Bastards Club!

by 8ackgr0und N015e on 03/28/2006 07:31:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It doesn't seem like we can establish a fulcrum of discussion, short-circuiting any possibility of a fruitful conversation.

So to conclude, if anyone ever wants to deal with ID, and not their own false conception of what it might or might not be, consider the following:

-- Behe did not single-handedly innovate intelligent design.
-- Behe is neither the first author, nor the principle author, of the intelligent design community.
-- Intelligent design came first historically, followed by Behe's formulation of Irreducible complexity.
-- Irreducible complexity is not the beginning, middle, or end of ID; it is a subsidiary view.

Again, I appreciate the invitation to discuss this issue; I am disappointed that our views are so completely antithetical that discussion is impossible, but, we cannot agree with everyone on everything.

Happy blogging,

Joseph C. Campana

by JosephCCampana on 03/29/2006 12:41:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Gee... I was looking forward to beating Dembski's pseudoscience to death with the same flagellum that killed Behe's pet theory.

A recent FBI search warrant reveals Republicans refer to themselves as the Corrupt Bastards Club!

by 8ackgr0und N015e on 03/29/2006 02:21:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: