In the recent Dover trial, and elsewhere, the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement has championed the bacterial flagellum as an irreducibly complex system that, it is claimed, could not have evolved through natural selection. Here we explore the arguments in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved, rather than designed, entities. We dismiss the need for any great conceptual leaps in creating a model of flagellar evolution and speculate as to how an experimental programme focused on this topic might look.

I find that last sentence rather interesting. Without having read the full article (because I can’t get it), the indication here seems to be that all this paper really does is attempt to “speculate” (interesting word choice in itself) on how research into the issue of flagellar evolution might look. In other words, this paper itself isn’t presenting any actual lab results that would lead us closer to a detailed, testable model of how the flagellum evolved.

Even more interesting, though, (if one reads between the lines), is the implication here that no such experimental programs have existed to date, or if they have, they have not been successful. That would seem to fly in the face of all the claims that the evolution of the flagellum is a problem long since solved by biologists. Indeed, I have often seen long lists of research studies posted on blogs and around the net that supposedly demonstrate the detailed, testable model of flagellar evolution. Apparently, either Matzke and Pollen are unaware of all these research studies, or all those oft cited studies really don’t provide the model as claimed. If its the former, they are in good company as Behe himself was accused of not being aware of them when he wrote Darwin’s Black Box. If the latter, then several biologists and other participants in internet disussions are grossly misinformed.

Either way, though, the abstract seems to be a pretty strong indication that in the 10 years since Behe’s book was published, evolutionary biologists have still not solved the riddle of flagellar evolution in Darwinian terms, nor has a detailed, testable (and potentially falsifiable) model been developed. Further, it seems to also be the case that there really hasn’t been any detailed structure as to how a biologists would even go about conducting the experimental research, since this paper offers “speculations” as to how such research “might” go.

To me, this looks like a frank admission that no one has a clue how the flagellum evolved, which is exactly what Behe claimed in his book, and for which he has endured 10 years of mocking and excoriation from Darwinists. Matzke and Pollen are to be congratulated for being honest enough to admit that Behe was right after all.

No the IDists argument is one from knowldge: “We know what intelligent agencies are capable of coupled with the knowledge of what nature, operating freely, is capable of.”

]“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.
In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed”
Pg. 72 of “Darwinism, Design and Public Education”

It is the anti-IDists who argue from ignorance guided by dogma: “We don’t know what mutations caused what changes and perhaps we never will but we know evolution did it.”

You can’t even tell us what mutations caused what changes or whether or not mutations can cause the changes required if evolutionism were indicative of reality. IOW evolutionism is dogma based on ignorance.

And again you display willful ignorance by stating the following:
I cannot think of a selectable pathway by which this can have evolved; therefore none exists.”

Again ID is not anti-evolution. And “selectable” is very subjective- selectable by what? Ya see alleged IC structures could have evolved by an ID mechanism similar to the mechanism in “Evolving Inventions” SciAm Feb 2003. And you could falsify that statement, as oposed to your continued whining, by demonstrating RM&NS can account for such structures. But I can understand why you would rather whine…

Sorry, I cannot let you off so easily. The telephone thing of course I experience often enough, but for a person to walk in and answer something that she heard so clearly that she thought it had been spoken to her, and responded as such, only then to suddenly realize that what had just happened was impossible is quite something else. And at the same time, the younger daughter is shocked to find someone speak an exact answer to an exact thought that she had just had.

There had been no tension before my daughter went out to the car. As soon as she did, my younger daughter apparently began the train of thought as in, “how convenient.”

Another time, same younger daughter was feeling upset and wanted to talk with an old family friend on the other coast and strongly thought that she wished she could talk with him. A day or so later he called, and he said, “The other day I was in the shower getting ready to go somewhere, and I heard someone telling me to call, and it sounded like your voice.”

avocationist: thank you for your kind words. I think you misjudge your own eloquence, though, which far exceeds mine. I have really enjoyed your exchanges with Carlos over on the other thread. Turtle down and all that!

“A big part of that argument is the claim that no subset of a structure could have been useful for any other purpose.”

That is the anti-IDists’ claim. IDists make no such claim

No, the IDist argument is a pure argument from incredulity: “I cannot think of a selectable pathway by which this can have evolved; therefore none exists.” This is a remarkably broad claim—to be able in one’s mind to imagine every conceivable pathway through the enormous multidimensional maze of possible mutational pathways, evaluate them for fitness, and conclude that no viable pathway exists. One bit of evidence, albeit somewhat weak evidence, that might be offered to support such an assertion would be if it could be shown that the components of the structure were so specifically adapted to this function that they could contribute to fitness in no other possible way. If this could be shown, it would certainly support the argument that the structure is IC. Lacking this, we are left with nothing at all other than the insistence of ID theorists that we trust in their ability to foresee every possible pathway.

Now, that is different from situations like my phone calls, since we happen to call each other fairly frequently, especially when it is time to go home together. And, avocationist, I am quite sure that your situation was a similar one; which youngster would not think about the chance of getting out of a chore, or worse, about her sibling trying to that?

I may not even accuse a self-proclaimed psychic claiming to have a vision, although I admit I will be extremely suspicious. Just yesterday, on “The Infinity Mind” on Public Radio, a psychiatrist described a mentally disturbed person who became a pretty good “psychic” because he was able to put himself so well into the other person’s situation.

My private decision about a person’s honesty will eventually depend on how far-going and how often such claims are made. We all agree that there are plenty of charlatans who lie and cheat in order to dominate somebody or get their money.

As an aside, an amazing feature of our brain is that it can come up with all kinds of associations while it is churning in the background, and only some of these eventually surface as thoughts. Just as example for this surprising phenomenon: metabolic brain scanning studies have demonstrated that in anticipation of an action such as moving an arm, certain brain centers become active before the individual actually “knows” he/she made this decision.

So while I have no objections to two people having the romantic notion of connecting mysteriously; it can be a sign of a personal bond that holds them together. However, from a scientific standpoint I can give it no credence.

I agree, one should not call this supernatural. Or natural. It’s just not there.

Now I am really off-topic….

Everything is natural. its just that the material aspect of reality which we currently inhabit makes up a tiny fraction of the whole reality,

As usual, you have explained very lucidly and logically what I express so poorly. I said almost this very thing on a thread yesterday. Your paragraph (post 56) explains why I keep insistig that there is no such thing as supernatural, while fully agreeing with Joseph that nature cannot cause itself.

Ofro:

One time I was shopping in a place where you pack your own groceries. Older daughter went to the car to fetch something just as I began to pack them with younger daughter. Younger daughter had some resentment, as she generally helped me greatly with projects while her sister always was busy. The car was visible, across the glass, but we could not see her and it was not in hearing range. Anyway, nobody spoke a word, because I stood there next to younger daughter. Suddenly, older sister burst in and answered her sister thus:

“I am not trying to get out of work! I had to go to the car!”

Both of their mouths dropped open, as they realized that she had responded to a thought, not a spoken word. And of course, younger sister was not making it up, as her jaw dropped as well, that she was thinking exactly that angry thought moments before.

You might try looking up Ervin Lazslo “Science and the Akashic Field.” And remember, I do not believe in supernatural.

D’oh- My apologies to both

I am so poor I can’t even pay attention…