The design argument

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's not quite true. There is a process called conjugation by which they can exchange genetic information. So where reproduction happens at the same time as genetic sharing with us, it is a delayed process with bacteria.

I didn't consider horisontal gene transfer, since it's not really the same as reproduction (though it's often considered the bacterial equivalent of sexual reproduction, I know). In any event, that is not relevant to the experiment we're talking about, as the samples with modified DNA never got to interact with samples that started out without modified DNA.

Originally posted by C Hess
Single-celled organisms (like bacteria) doesn't interbreed, they divide. Just thought that might be relevant. There is no he or she in bacteria, to put it simply.

Technically you are correct, but are you aware of the following:

Bacteria do not have an obligate sexual reproductive stage in their life cycle, but they can be very active in the exchange of genetic information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48203/bacteria/272363/Exchange-of-genetic-information

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Ecoli doesn't breed, the ecoli in this experiment is asexual. Secondly, the differing variations of ecoli had nothing to do with each other in the experiment.

It would help the discussion Ron if you at least had a vague notion of what was being discussed instead of clogging up the thread with your usual ignorance and name calling.

Yes they did. 😏

Originally posted by C Hess
Irreducible complexity is a cop-out. It's basically the same as saying: "I don't understand how this part of an organism could have been useful without this other part, so I give up." Real scientists look at the same problem and realise that every part of a complex organism could have evolved independently, serving other functions to begin with, and then sets ...[text shortened]... educibly complex even after it's been demonstrated not to be, well, that's just dumb obstinence.

That's like speculating over how a toaster oven, vacuum cleaner, food processor, coffee maker, etc etc (all serving useful functions) could have come together (without showing how) to become a refrigerator. So taking some general idea of independently different functions and then suggesting how they could have combined (without showing how) to form some other biological function is an absurd counter argument to irreducible complexity.

If you reduce irreducible complexity to saying I don't believe it could have happened therefore it didn't happen, then of course it becomes an argument from incredulity... because you've reduced it to the point where it no longer resembles irreducible complexity.

Evolutionists necessarily need to focus on and demonstrate how a known level of complexity can be achieved through natural (and not intelligently guided) forces. So an argument (or counter argument) suggesting another level of complexity doesn't help to support your argument... it just piles on more complexity in need of an explanation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Technically you are correct, but are you aware of the following:

Bacteria do not have an obligate sexual reproductive stage in their life cycle, but they can be very active in the exchange of genetic information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48203/bacteria/272363/Exchange-of-genetic-information

The cells have to come into contact for that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes they did. 😏

Yes they did what?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Technically you are correct, but are you aware of the following:

Bacteria do not have an obligate sexual reproductive stage in their life cycle, but they can be very active in the exchange of genetic information.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48203/bacteria/272363/Exchange-of-genetic-information

The post above yours. Read it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
That's like speculating over how a toaster oven, vacuum cleaner, food processor, coffee maker, etc etc (all serving useful functions) could have come together (without showing how) to become a refrigerator. So taking some general idea of independently different functions, and then suggesting how they could have combined (without showing how) to form some ...[text shortened]... y... because you've reduced it to the point where it no longer resembles irreducible complexity.

If toaster ovens, vacuum cleaners, food processors, cofee makers, etc. etc. had the ability to reproduce themselves, and if we could observe that when they do, their offspring is always unique (slightly different from their parents), and if they were all made up of essentially one or two different kinds of parts, then yes, you might have a point. It seems unwise, comparing inanimate objects that consists of literally hundreds of different parts in different materials, to living organisms which basically consist of one or two basic types of cells (depending on the organism), using the same building blocks across all variations.

Also, the explanation for how a flagellum could come together, I would have thought is an explanation for how it could come together. You make little sense to me here.

Originally posted by C Hess
If toaster ovens, vacuum cleaners, food processors, cofee makers, etc. etc. had the ability to reproduce themselves, and if we could observe that when they do, their offspring is always unique (slightly different from their parents), and if they were all made up of essentially one or two different kinds of parts, then yes, you might have a point. It seems un ...[text shortened]... have thought is an explanation for how it could come together. You make little sense to me here.

I fail to see why you dismiss the toaster argument since after all just to get
to the wonderful world where evolutionary theory supposedly is real that
was exactly what needed to happen! Non-living material needed to become
living material in a world void of life. If that argument makes little sense to
you, I'd ponder it a little more, you should at least grasp it before you throw
it away as meaningless, evolutionist do way to much of that when it comes
to that which does not show evolution in a good light.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I fail to see why you dismiss the toaster argument since after all just to get
to the wonderful world where evolutionary theory supposedly is real that
was exactly what needed to happen! Non-living material needed to become
living material in a world void of life.

The world we observe has life. That is all that is needed for evolution to take place. Abiogenesis is an observation of the facts of the universe and not a consequence or prerequisite for evolutionary theory. Your statement is like saying that without the moon there would be no gravity.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Non-living material needed to become
living material in a world void of life. If that argument makes little sense to
you, I'd ponder it a little more, you should at least grasp it before you throw
it away as meaningless, evolutionist do way to much of that when it comes
to that which does not show evolution in a good light.

My friend believes that 200 million years ago god created the first mammal and then let evolution take over.

What do you say to that Kelly?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
My friend believes that 200 million years ago god created the first mammal and then let evolution take over.

What do you say to that Kelly?

I say biological evolution is a fairy tale. It never happened and it does not happen today nor will it ever happen. 😏

Originally posted by DeepThought
The cells have to come into contact for that.

They did.

Originally posted by lemon lime
That's like speculating over how a toaster oven, vacuum cleaner, food processor, coffee maker, etc etc (all serving useful functions) could have come together (without showing how) to become a refrigerator. So taking some general idea of independently different functions and then suggesting how they could have combined (without showing how) to form some [ ...[text shortened]... n't help to support your argument... it just piles on more complexity in need of an explanation.

The mechanism driving the flagellum works like a motor. You're asking me to imagine functions taking place within bacterium that have nothing to do with what a motor does, or how those parts could naturally come together to form a functional motor.

So my analogy and comparison of functions actually does make sense. A refrigerator has a motor and a system for removing heat. Vacuum cleaners and food processors have motors. Air conditioners have a similar system for removing heat (as well as a motor). Toaster ovens and coffee makers might have useful parts for jerry rigging a refrigerator together, but it doesn't really matter because we are assuming non-motor functions of a bacteria helping to build an actual motor. So using a few examples of everything you might find in your home, it is feasible to imagine building a refrigerator from parts you already have available.

As to the difference between living systems and machines in your home... in order to build a refrigerator from household appliances (and other structures in your home) we need to consciously apply creative imagination and intelligent guidance. But with bacteria we are not allowed to presume any hint of intelligent design or guidance.

A functional motor wired directly into a controlling mechanism, spinning a flagellum for (the unintentional purpose of) mobility, must necessarily happen by happenstance because the evolutionary process of selection is blind... it can't see or know or anticipate anything.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The mechanism driving the flagellum works like a motor.

Is it your claim that no known life form has the motor without the flagellum or the flagellum without the motor?
If I can find such a life form, will you admit that your whole argument if flawed?