DNA origami shows why design is the best explanation

DeepFaceNine

1 Like

Rumraket has said all that needs to be said on that question. How about this: why don’t you produce evidence that flagella are designed?

2 Likes

Inb4 “it’s a motor”.

1 Like

Indeed. Word shuffling always reminds me of an old friend who used to say that most people, when they say they are “thinking,” are merely rearranging their prejudices.

2 Likes

i just want first to show you why the flagellum is probably a motor even according to your own definition. so i started with this question: do you think that artificial flagellum is a motor by definition since it was made by design?

Called it!

2 Likes

@Rumraket did indeed call it.

I think that we should stop using the word “motor” altogether as it is clear that it will not be possible to un-confuse you so long as that word is used in any way here at all. You should instead explain WHY, other than by reference to a claimed definition for some word or other, you regard the proposition that flagella are designed as being supported by credible empirical evidence. Cite that evidence. Do not bother arguing over the definitions of words, which cannot change a thing.

2 Likes

the evidence is the motor itself. since all motors we know of are the result of design and we know of no natural process which can make a motor. in addition, we cant made a motor by small functional steps. for instance: can you as a designer make a motor from non motor in small steps?

No, that’s not evidence at all. You need evidence. Actual evidence. Not bad arguments by analogy to human-manufactured motors. Evidence.

By the way, in case that was unclear: evidence. Nothing but evidence. Best if you leave “arguments” out of it entirely as your arguments are unhelpful.

Did I mention evidence? I would suggest basing your remarks on evidence. Evidence bearing on the question at issue, not upon analogous questions such as whether a Studebaker V-8 requires human manufacture.

The other thing: evidence. Evidence that flagella are designed would really help. Nothing you have said is helpful in any way.

4 Likes

what you will consider as evidence?

It’s not a matter of what I will “consider as evidence.” You will find that outside of creationist circles, there is literally nobody anywhere who thinks that verbal shuffling like relying on the characterization of a flagellum as a “motor” is evidence. So this is not some particular peccadillo of my own.

With that in mind, the world is your oyster. Wait. I just realized that you’ll probably try to eat the world if I say that. Never mind. The point is: anything which a biologist would consider evidence will do. Nothing in the category of word play.

2 Likes

but many biologists do think the flagellum is evidence for design. so what next?

Evidence for that assertion would be a start.

No, they really don’t, apart from a few nuts. And it’s not. I’d suggest you look for actual evidence.

As for what specific type: it’s your hypothesis so I leave that to you. But, you know, it’d be evidence of some type which is ordinarily employed for just this sort of thing. When one proposes that a mechanism is at work in the world, the best thing to do is to show it actually at work, doing the very thing you claim it does. There are other avenues. Word play is not among them, however.

Bear in mind: what you need is not an argument that will persuade ME. You need evidence that compels any reasonable person to arrive at the same conclusion. I don’t fret about the fact that the overwhelming evidence for evolution fails to convince every last crank on earth; that would be an unreasonable expectation. Likewise: convincing me, personally, would just add me to the list of cranks and would do nothing to advance your argument. What you need is the sort of evidence that shows that belief in design here is not just the sign of a weak mind. Once you have that, who cares whether I agree?

1 Like

such as?..

You made the assertion, so you figure it out. Or better yet, don’t make assertions when you don’t have evidence that they are true.

It is fairly clear from this that you have no idea whether “many biologists do think the flagellum is evidence for design” or not. So maybe you should not have said it.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

a self contradiction.

but this isnt a word play. this is why i asked you to explain why flagellum isnt a motor according to you. but you refuse to do so and i wonder why.

arent you a reasonable person? and again, what kind of evidence will convince you the flagellum was designed?

figure out how flagellum is the result of design? the flagellum is a motor so its the result of design. very simple.

No, I’m contradicting you, and you are not my self.

No, it’s word play. Why would you care what my definition of a word is? Words have no power to reshape reality. And I’ve already acknowledged that some definitions of “motor” would include flagella while others would exclude them. The definition of “motor” has no bearing at all on the merits of your argument. You simply would like to use the ambiguity of a broad definition to make this argument:

  1. A Studebaker V-8 is designed.
  2. A Studebaker V-8 is a motor.
  3. Ergo, motors are designed.
  4. A flagellum is a motor.
  5. Ergo, flagella are designed.

If you do not see what is the matter here, I am sure I cannot help you. It’s word play, not reasoning.

Sure, but you want me to accept an unreasonable argument. If you succeed, all you do is convert me from a reasonable to an unreasonable person. This does you no good.

As for what kind of evidence: I’ve already indicated that the best thing would be to show that this supernatural design and manufacturing process actually, observably happens. But it’s your hypothesis, and surely you should be the one to figure out what evidence will advance it. If you continue to insist on forms of argument which resemble puns more than they do reasoning, you will find that you gain no traction with anyone.

3 Likes

Stricken as non-responsive. The question was not “how flagellum is the result of design” but whether “many biologists do think the flagellum is evidence for design” or not.

1 Like