Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (97637)	3/11/2005 12:02:32 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 108807

A schematic drawing and electron micrograph of a bacterial rotary motor is on this site: aip.org About 50 proteins are needed for the assembly and operation of the flagellar motor. Genetic studies have shown that only three of these--FliG, MotA, and MotB--are directly involved in torque generation. bioscience.utah.edu

To: Brumar89 who wrote (97637)	3/11/2005 12:26:52 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Emergent phenomena vs. ID in evolution... It is actually more mysterious and grand to NOT have intelligence in the design but for the intelligence to rise out of the chaos by itself. Theoreticians who study chaos, emergence, genetic algorithms and complexity can show for a fact that simple systems can give rise to very complex behavior. Life is different from these emergent phenomena in its details, but not in kind. The "unambiguous example" asked for by Margolis is a red herring: It is like saying that someone can't prove that the rate of the Earth's spin can be slowed while not acknowledging the validity of the tools that make the measurement. The development of species occurs over millennia and unambiguous needs definition: "unambiguous to whom"? It is likely that bacterial evolution driven by the use of antibiotics meets the requirement of "probable" speciation but I doubt it would satisfy those looking for "unambiguous". Similarly, the Abert/Kaibab Squirrels meet the requirement of speciations from common ancenstry yet can still interbreed. Science is characterized by doubt and probability. Faith is characterized by unambiguous certainty. Margolis is abandoning science in this requirement. People that are predisposed to put Intelligent Design into the shake and rattle of a complex universe are failing to grasp the simplest of scientific principles: that of Occam's Razor. There is no need to add ID to Darwin when other tools that are more rigorous (and independently observable in a variety of systems) can serve to explain an accelerated development process by the introduction of an observable property: emergence. IF, emergence is simply a property of dynamic systems (as we can see from simulations and desktop experiments), THEN complexity (such as life) is simply a by-product of emergence. Wait long enough and self-sustaining systems will appear in a suitably stable environment that is far from equilibrium. This is especially true if we add the billions of years possible with a panspermia model.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (97637)	3/11/2005 6:55:10 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Brumar, do you have a definition of ID? The reason I ask is that arguments for it seem to cover a huge range. On one end you have people using ID as code for creationism. You seem to be presenting the opposite extreme, that Darwin works fine for critters big enough to observe with the naked eye but you need intelligence as a precursor supplement. That's a huge range of thought. It covers everything from God planned every detail to Darwin is great but has its limits. The opposite ends have almost nothing in common other than an assertion that there's a deity behind it all. I'm finding the notion of ID very confusing. What is the point of advocating ID if all one is saying is that Darwin has limits? Karen