If I'm not mistaken, the theory of intelligent design can refer to the human race being created, not by God, but by living beings. So in turn, wouldn't those beings have to have been created by something or someone? God perhaps?
If I'm not mistaken the theory is that life was created by a being who is intelligent. It doesn't specify god, but it implies it.
You got me, but I've seen it discussed multiple times on this site. I think they believe that aliens created us and 'implanted' us here on earth...ya
Intelligent Design very intentionally does not specify who the creator (or designer) is. Why? 1. They cannot ever test such a hypothesis (one of many reasons why ID is not, nor ever will be, a science), and 2. In order to get it taught in schools and bypass the whole "separation of church and state" thing, they need to disguise what they're doing as something other than creationism.
+Rep. This is it in a nutshell. What we're seeing appearing now in S+P and here are people trying to promote the next stage of ID, one that they hope wont get laughed down like the previous versions were. Again, I seriously think this thread and others like it should not be in S+N. Anyone agreeing, please contact your local mod... MelT
Here we go again. This is a freaking marijuana forum and 95% of the threads here are about UFOs and time travels written under the influence and you want to ban any talk of intelligent design? ID is not science, but it considers the very topic of the natural world (hence Science and Nature)
Yes, here we go again. You keep missing something that I have now made a plea for in S+N a number of times. 'No more threads about Aliens...' But you somehow feel that ID is more plausible than aliens, when frankly I don't. "ID is not science." That's very true. So why is it here? Considering the natural world and not bothering to actually to keep up with research about what it is, is nothing less than silly. PS: if anyone would like to read all the reasons why ID is wrong, and how it distorts evidence to keep itself alive, read the many articles here. ID is dead - not that it ever lived... http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...ationists.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html MelT
The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly Version 1.1 Copyright © 2006-2007 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. [Last Update: July 18, 2007] \t \t\t \t\t"... an irreducibly complex system might arise by gradually co-opting parts that initially were dispensable but eventually become indispensable ...." \t\t \t\tWilliam A. Dembski 2004, p. 24. \t\t \t Introduction Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly - and here's why. "Irreducible complexity" is a simple concept. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed1. Behe believes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by direct, gradual evolutionary mechanisms. However, standard genetic processes easily produce these structures. Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory2. Thus, as explained below, so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible. Behe gave irreducible complexity the wrong name. Behe's flawed argument Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution3. But why not? Behe's reckoning goes like this: (P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts. (P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional. (C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional. Of course, Behe's argument is invalid since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can do much more than just add parts. For instance, evolution can also change or remove parts (pretty simple, eh?). In contrast, Behe's irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve. The Mullerian two-step With Behe's error now in hand, we immediately have the following embarrassingly facile solution to Behe's "irreducible" conundrum. Only two basic steps are needed to gradually evolve an irreducibly complex system from a functioning precursor: Add a part. Make it necessary. It's that simple. After these two steps, removing the part will kill the function, yet the system was produced directly and gradually from a simpler, functional precursor. And this is exactly what Behe alleges is impossible. As a scientific explanation, the Mullerian two-step is extremely general and powerful, since it is independent of the biological specifics of the system in question. In fact, both steps can happen simultaneously, in a single event, even a single mutation. The function of the system can remain constant during the process or it can change. The steps can be functionally beneficial (adaptive) or not (neutral). We don't even need to invoke natural selection in the process - genetic drift or neutral evolution will do4. The number of ways to add a part to a biological structure is virtually unlimited, as is the number of different ways to change a system so that a part becomes functionally essential. Plain, ordinary genetic processes can easily do both. A historically and technically appropriate name for IC: "Interlocking Complexity" For the preceding reasons, compelled by both scholarly ethics and scientific accuracy, I suggest that we avoid reference to "irreducibly complex" structures using Behe's misnomer. Rather, I propose the term "Mullerian interlocking complexity" (MIC), terminology similar to that used in H. J. Muller's much earlier evolutionary analyses of the same molecular phenomenon (Muller 1918; Muller 1939). Example 1: The stone bridge A clear example of the Mullerian two-step is given by a stone bridge. Consider a crude "precursor bridge" made of three stones. This bridge spans the area needed to be crossed and is thus functional. For step one of the Mullerian two-step, a part is added: a flat stone on top, covering all precursor stones. Whether this improves the functionality of the bridge is irrelevant - it may or may not, the bridge still functions. For step two of the Mullerian two-step, the middle stone is removed. Voilá, we have an irreducibly complex bridge, since the last step made the top-stone necessary for the function. The precursor bridge: three stones. Step #1, add a part: the top-stone. Step #2, make it necessary: remove the middle stone. As promised, we now have an irreducibly complex stone bridge. None of the three stones can be removed without destroying the bridge's function. Example 2: How to eat pentachlorophenol An irreducibly complex system has evolved in bacteria within the past 70 years. Footnotes 1: Behe has defined his usage of "irreducible complexity": \t \t\t \t\t\t"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. " \t\t\t \t\t\tBehe 1996 p. 39. \t\t \t \t \t\t \t\t\t"... 'irreducibly complex' means roughly that if one removes a component from a system, function is lost; ..." \t\t\t \t\t\tBehe 2001 p. 686. \t\t \t \tBack 2: H. J. Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939. This prediction was made long before the genetic material was known or anyone had seen the structure of a "molecular machine". \t \t\t \t\t\t"... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..." \t\t\t \t\t\tMuller 1918 pp. 463-464. (emphasis in the original) \t\t \t \t \t\t \t\t\t "V. The role of interlocking and diffusion of gene functions in hindering true reversal of evolution \t\t \t\t \t\t\t"... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary." Muller 1939 pp. 271-272. \t\t \t \tBack 3: Behe explains why he imagines "irreducible complexity" is a barrier to gradual evolution: \t \t\t \t\t\t"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution." \t\t\t \t\t\tBehe 1996 p. 39. \t\t \t \t \t\t \t\t\t"Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory." \t\t\t \t\t\tBehe 2002. \t\t \t \tBack 4: H. Allen Orr has explained Muller's explanation for "irreducible complexity" in several articles in the Boston Review criticizing Behe's and William Dembski's writings. Orr has emphasized the adaptive possibilities in the Mullerian two-step (i.e. improvement of function at each step). However, the mechanism is more general and does not even require selection, a point that Muller himself made originally, 50 years before neutral evolution was found to be important in molecular evolution. \t \t\t \t\t\t"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required." \t\t \t\tOrr 1996 \t\t \t\t \t\t\t"... gradual Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential. " \t\t \t\tOrr 1997 \t\t \t \tBack References Behe, M. J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, Touchstone. Behe, M. J. (2001) "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." Biology and Philosophy 16:685-709. Behe, M. J. (2002) "The challenge of irreducible complexity." Natural History, 111(3):74. Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York. Dembski, W. A. (2004) "Irreducible Complexity Revisited." Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) 3.1.4, November. [PDF] Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499. [Free Text, Genetics Online] Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280. Orr, H. A. (1996) "Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again)." Boston Review, December 1996/January 1997. [Free Text, Boston Review] Orr, H. A. (1997) "Is Darwin in the Details?: H. Allen Orr Responds" Boston Review, February/March 1997. [Free Text, Boston Review]
This is precisely why ID has no place here. Intelligent Design Creationism Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic. In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism. MelT
Guy, anyone who's remotely interested in abiogenesis knows about TalkOrigins... you don't need to go around copying and pasting webpages here. As for Science Daily, their articles are way way overly simplified and generalized to really gain anything substantial from it... it is just a news site for science. It is a good introduction as I don't read the latest copy of Nature as I'm too busy with school (and not like I would if I had more free time.. I'd probalby go drink with buddies or something) but that's it.. you can't really extract much else from it. It's funny I actually read that same exact article about Behe yesterday or the day before... and the bridge example does not work. A bridge can be anything connecting point A to point B. Proteins on the other hand are far more complex structures with alpha-helices, beta barrels, zinc fingers, cofactors, alpha-loop-helix, etc etc etc. that take on a far more specific function because of precise folding interactions and placement of active residues. Let me change the focus from the irreducible complexity of protein structures to the organization of metabolism. Let's take glycolysis for example. As you know, glycolysis is a series of reactions that generate pyruvate from glucose so that it can enter TCA... catalyzing each step are a series of enzymes that modify glucose thru a series of modifications like phosphorylation and isomerization. Now, let's consider the evolution of one of these enzymes. Let's start with the first, hexokinase, which phosphorylates glucose to glucose-6-phosphate... Now let's imagine the early earth where glucose is not being utilized as an energy source... one day, hexokinase appears in a cell for the very first time... it phosphorylates glucose. So what? The point of hexokinase in glycolysis is to provide a precursor for the next step of glycolysis which is then used to make the next intermediate which ultimately forms pyruvate. However, glycolysis hasn't yet evolved and so hexokinase would not serve any purpose and so why would this enzyme be evolutionarily conserved? This and other enzymes of glycolysis do not serve any other purpose other than to perform glycolysis... wouldn't all the glycolytic enzymes have had to appear at once in order to carry out this process?
Actually the bridge example does work, and is a wonderful example. The reason we use the bridge rather than your protein is because such an example would take days, hundreds of pages, and is not common knowledge (if indeed our knowledge of exactly how this protein evolved is existent). It is a simple reduction done to illustrate a point. Trying to confuse the point by making it unnecessarily complex doesn't actually win you the argument, believe it or not.
Not at all. You are assuming these metabolic pathways existed in the same form upon inception as they do now billions of years later. Life did not initially grow on glucose as their source of carbon and energy, in fact that would be impossible since there was no oxygen on earth for the first billion or two years of life until cyanobacteria evolved the ability to use water as the electron donor for photosynthesis. Without oxygen, the oxidation of glucose produces almost no energy at all. So what did they grow on as sources of energy instead? Lots of things (CO2, ferrous iron, hydrogen sulfide, methane, etc.) that don't use O2 as the terminal electron acceptor. But as life evolved, so did their ability to use and make new substrates to live on. Which brings me to my second point: you are assuming enzymes cannot be promiscuous. In other words, the first hexokinase was almost certainly not a hexokinase at all but rather a more general kinase that due to its lack of specificity acted on many different things, including glucose. Once glucose became a readily available source of energy (billions of years after the beginning of life...most likely after the advent of oxygenic photosynthesis), then hexokinase came about via gene duplication and selection. But how could the rest of the enzymes evolved at the same time? This seems difficult to reconcile at first, but what you need to remember are two things, the first of which I already mentioned (enzymes can be promiscuous), and second is that the reactions carried out by the other enzymes in glycolysis are very general enzymatic processes (phosphorylation, mutases, NAD-dependent oxidations, etc) common to countless other metabolic processes that were without a doubt already in existence at that time (because, again, life and all the simple but necessary enzymes were made and working at that point). In other words, there is nothing unique about the enzymatic reactions glycolytic enzymes carry out except for their substrate specificity, which is something that can be selected for in a relatively short period of time. For example, glycolytic intermediates (such as glycerol-3-phosphate) are precursors for many other essential cellular components (trigylcerides, amino acids, etc) that were most certainly already in existance prior to the advent of glycolysis. Therefore, there were enzymes already in existance capable of handling, synthesizing and breaking down these substrates that simply required some fine tuning (again, this "fine tuning" can be done in such a short period of time that it can be observed in a laboratory with the appropriate selective pressures). Which brings me to my last point...which is that in your scenario you're also assuming hexokinase was the first enzyme in glycolysis to have evolved because it is the first step in this pathway, and that glucose existed in the early stages of life. Most certainly neither are true, in fact it is much more realistic to imagine the reverse of glycolysis, i.e. gluconeogenesis, evolved first. Simply put, all of the enzymes in glycolysis did not need to come about all at once because a fully functional glycolytic pathway as it exists today is not necessarily how it existed initially nor is it the only way to generate energy and carbon for a cell. And for the record, your entire argument boils down the same thing every proponent of ID uses, which is, "The fact I can't explain something is evidence for ID." There is no logic to this. The lack of one's understanding for one idea is not proof for a competing idea. PS- WTF is an alpha-loop-helix? (sorry, just couldn't help but be an ass about that... ...protein structure, function and evolution is what I do for a living; I'm defending my PhD in a few months).
haha well put... i actually wrote this after being up all night so don't be too harsh u know i mean helix loop helix . And yes, I was hoping someone would not bring up the fact that ancestral proteins could have been used for various other purposes. And the fact is yeah, I don't really have much of an argument other than to appeal to the complexity of life... but just trying to play devils advocate here.
Yeah my apologies for being harsh on the alpha-loop-helix. But in all seriousness, why does the complexity of life drive you to support ID? Why is your (and other ID proponent's) lack of understanding in a certain area of science reason to throw up your arms and declare the development of life as impossible to understand without invoking some mythological creator? This is one of the fundamental differences between real science and ID: real science takes our lack of understanding as a challenge to figure out more and more; it's what drives us to do what we do...while ID/creationists, when presented with a difficult question, just make something up and declare it as problem solved. It makes no sense, and makes science boring as hell. Curiosity and uncertainly should always be a driving force to learn and discover more, not a reason to stop thinking all together. ID/creationism is purely a result of a lack of intellectual curiosity because ID/creationism, by definition, claim to have the origin of life completely figured out without needing any supporting evidence while every evolutionary biologist will readily admit they do not completely understand the origin of life and use that lack of understanding to drive further research.