The I in ID

> More assertion. We are finding out it is like a computer code. Even Bill
> Gates sees this.Please tell me you're kidding. Bill Gates is neither a programmer nor biologist. That's like me saying "Cold fusion is the answer to our energy problems. Even Jerry Falwel sees this."More to point, there is no "code". There are chemical bonds. You can call the chemical bonds "crap" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing more there than chemical bonds. You can try and read a code into the chemical bonds all that you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the only thing physically there is the bonded atoms. [quote]LM:
Great, then you agree with evolutionists that no other kind of intervention is needed.{/quote> I agree with the IDists who say no further intervention is required.
> Everything a population required was programmed in before that
> population came to be.Oh, really? What was God thinking when he programmed in these genes into pigeons:http://EvC Forum: Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?Or do you accept the incredibly well documented fact that new genes constantly form and other genes disappear, during the process of reproduction?> Again you are wrong. However IF this was all that was needed it tells me
> the scientists involved with the materialistic naturalisms' search for the
> origins of life are utterly useless. They are clue;ess. Maybe you should
> give them a hand.How do you come to this conclusion?>That is your assertion anyway. I bet you think the information on your hard
> drive arrived when the compounds that make the disk were mixed
> together.On a new hard drive, yes. A hard drive is a contraption that uses the laws of physics to arrange data in a particular readable pattern. However, if we had set the write head to write wherever it wanted, or simply kept the original state of the drive, you would have the same thing as if you had written to it: a disk of magnetizable components in a particular state. Why is one case information (where we've told it to write, changing the polarizations one wat or another), and the other not (where it is still uninitialized)?If you looked at the bits on the uninitialized drive, they would seem completely meaningless to you; however, so would the bits on the intialized drive. If you consider DNA to be your state information, how can you tell the difference between DNA that was "programmed" and DNA that was randomized? I.e., does "ATCGGAGGGCTTTATCTA" mean anything to you?If your answer is something to the effect of "DNA that was programmed can keep a lifeform alive all the way to reproduction", self-replicating computer code can be randomly generated, too. If the self-replicating code changes in a way that it no longer completes self-replication, it will die off. So, right there, that doesn't work as an argument to declare something as "information" - it only means that it's a stable cycle.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

> ID would be falsified if it could be shown that life can arise from non-life by
> nature acting alone.That would take a body the size of the earth and a billion years. Not going to happen. We have shown how *components* of life arise abotically, but that's not enough for you all, so there's not really any way we can prove this one to you. We've also shown how other forms of "life" can arise in a virtual environment with the advent of self-replicators in randomized computer code, but that's not good enough for you all either.> Another falsification would be to show the bacterial
> flagellum arose by step-by-step processes or any way nature acted alone.No; you will all just go pick on something else. ID theorists keep hiding God in the gaps. You'll just pick another gap. Not that we don't already have a number of possible mechanisms which this case could come into existance through - for example:"We begin with a type III export system, given that several proteins of the flagellum's basal body are homologous to the secretory machinery of this export system (type III systems secrete various proteins to establish symbiotic relationships with eukaryotic cells). Thus, the flagellum began as a protein secretion system. Next, we hypothesize that some protein, that is normally secreted, is mutated such that it can stick to itself and the secretory system. This forms our proto-filament. Filament formation is not difficult, as a single point mutation in the beta globin gene, responsible for sickle cell anemia, converts soluble hemoglobin into a filament. This filament then could serve the function of anchoring the cell to some other substrate. In fact, if we survey living bacteria, we'll find that there are indeed many different forms of nonmotile filaments that provide benefits to the cell (thus allowing us to propose a selective advantage to this step in the flagellum's evolution). Next, we again invoke cooption, as some other membrane protein somehow associates with the type III/filament system and fortuitously causes it to wiggle in some fashion. This slight movement confers motility to the bacteria, which in turn, is selectively advantageous. From there, mutations are selected that improve the motility function and finally, another set of proteins are coopted to confer the switching of rotation and chemotaxis response. Thus, we have a step-by-step account that involves at least three different functional state: protein export system transformed into nonmotile filament transformed into flagellum. Let us refer to this scenario as the Export-Filament-Motility (EFM) Hypothesis."It can also be mentioned that Y. pestis (bubonic plague) has a complex structure with 10 proteins similar to those found in flagella used not for motion, but for injecting toxins into host cells. So, that is another potential source of a flagellum.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."