Posted: Jun 25, 2010 1:28 am
by CharlieM
The entire basis of Intelligent Design is refuted if we can point to a plausible sequence within natural evolution which leads to the observed result. Which is what Cali's long post at the beginning of this thread has already done. So ID is already toast, because it's already falsified in its main prediction (the prediction that evolutionists will not be able to provide a naturalistic explanation).

Then show me how the hook protein (FlgE) developed from the common ancestral protein of it and its homologs. I'll even provide links to their DNA and amino acid sequences if you wish. Its easy to say that they all derived from a common ancestor, in fact it might very well be true. But that does not tell us how the one derived from the other.

All I see here are assertions such as FlgE has homologs, therefore they must have arisen from a common precursor, therefore unguided mutations must account for their present differences. That, to me, is a leap of faith. One does not necessarily follow from the other. The statues, "David" and "Pieta" might have been carved from the same seam of marble, but it does not then follow that they were fashioned by erosion. We can be fairly certain that they were carved by Michaelangelo.

In fact the hook protein (FlgE) is somewhat similar to the tail protein, flagellin (FliC). But there is no sequence or even structural homology. One of those lucky coincidences that chance throws up, I suppose:

"It is curious how hook protein and flagellin with very different structural characteristics form tubular structures with basically the same architecture and helical symmetry", Ferenc Vonderviszt and Keiichi Namba (mentioned in the above article)

Charlie M wrote:I take it you are referring to my comment, "Note that Behe is not saying that it is impossible for an irreducibly complex system to be assembled by known naturalistic means."

That is a serious misreading of Behe's point as far as Intelligent Design.

I'm only going by what the man himself says. From "Darwin's Black Box":
"There is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism is logically impossible. But the hurdles for gradualism become higher and higher as structures are more complex, more interdependent."

He never tries to use "intelligent design" to explain things which we are already certain of, such as, the genetic basis for human's need of dietary Vitamin C. Why not ?

Because he is going by the evidence. For example he says about hemoglobin, "I would say that hemoglobin shows the same evidence for design as does the man in the moon: intriguing, but far from convincing."

Whereas he does think the evidence for design is convincing when studying the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum.