Re: [asa] Innate design detector?

Matzke has provided what seems to me to be a plausible framework for the
evolution of the E. coli flagellum (google search with MATZKE
FLAGELLUM). Of course the ID enthusiasts deny that it is plausible or
sufficienty detailed .
Don

David Opderbeck wrote:

> Back to my original question then: are his criteria reasonable? If
> cooption were to happen, would the available components have to meet
> his criteria? Is there any published literature demonstrating
> plausible ways in which the criteria could be met? Or is it just a
> case of "there must be a way for the criteria to be met, because here
> we are?"
>
>
> On 11/8/06, *Randy Isaac* <randyisaac@adelphia.net
> <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>> wrote:
>
> I guess it's a matter of who has the burden of proof: show
> evidence of exactly how natural processes met each criterion step
> by step, or show evidence that natural processes could not have
> met those criteria. Take the inverse of that: what are the
> implications of not being able to show how natural processes met
> each criterion. What are the implications of not being able to
> show that natural processes could not have met those criteria?
>
> It seems to me that unless you can clearly show that natural
> processes could not possibly have met those criteria, there's no case.
>
> Too many double or triple negatives in all that, but I hope the
> idea comes through.
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Randy Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:44 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Innate design detector?
>
>
> /The flagellum exists. Therefore the criteria have been met./
>
> Right, I'm not summarizing this correctly. I think he's
> getting at that there's no evidence that any known natural
> process, including cooption, can meet those criteria. The
> literature cited by Miller et al. purporting to show how
> components of the flagellum could have existed elsewhere and
> been coopted doesn't meet these criteria. The question of
> probabilities then remains open. (Again, just summarizing his
> argument here).
>
> On 11/8/06, *Randy Isaac* <randyisaac@adelphia.net
> <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>> wrote:
>
> I don't understand how he can argue that "there is no
> evidence that they have been met." That seems the easiest.
> The flagellum exists. Therefore the criteria have been
> met. He might argue that there's no clear evidence of
> exactly how they were met and by what causal factors. It
> just seems to me that if the criteria can be met in
> principle and there's no clear argument from low
> probabilities, then the lack of definitive knowledge of
> exactly how and when each step occurred is of little
> significance. At least for this argument.
>
> I admit I'm still searching for the pony in the IC
> argument. Surely it must be there somewhere.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Randy Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Innate design detector?
>
>
> As I understand Angus' argument, it's not that they
> can't be met in principle, but in certain systems,
> particularly the bacterial flagellum, there is no
> evidence that they have been met. He is in particular
> responding to arguments by Ken Miller and others
> purporting to show how the flagellum could have arisen
> through cooption. He isn't offering any
> probabilities. I think this is more a defensive
> argument, responding to arguments against IC in
> general and relating to the flagellum in particular,
> than a positive argument for design.
>
> On 11/5/06, *Randy Isaac* <randyisaac@adelphia.net
> <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>> wrote:
>
> Dave,
> Ever since you posted Angus' criteria, I've
> been a little baffled by the significance.
> Certainly the criteria cited seem to be reasonable
> conditions that need to occur in the development
> of complex systems. But are there any indications
> that they cannot, in principle, be met? Or is it
> simply an argument of low probability for each of
> these criteria to be met? We're a long way from
> determining any probabilities quantitatively so is
> this one of the arguments from incredulity? that
> surely these conditions couldn't possibly be met
> so something else must have happened?
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck
> <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *....*
>
> What I'm asking is specifically whether those
> availability, synchronization, localization,
> coordination, and interface compability
> criteria are reasonable. Perhaps they are
> reasonable criteria and chance and regularity
> can meet them. I'm just curious whether the
> criteria make sense, and if not, specifically
> why not.
>
> //
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 8 22:37:24 2006