DNA origami shows why design is the best explanation

[AlanFox]

Names of those many biologists you claim think the flagellum is evidence for design.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

• A Studebaker V-8 is designed.
• A Studebaker V-8 is a motor.
• Ergo, motors are designed.
• A flagellum is a motor.
• Ergo, flagella are designed.

Or this:

1. A flagellum is a result of natural evolution
2. A flagellum is a motor
3. Ergo, motors evolve
4. A Studebaker V-8 is a motor
5. Ergo, Studebaker V-8 motors naturally evolved.

A Studebaker V-8 is a motor, so it’s the result of evolution. Very simple.

Furthermore, @scd will be happy to know that it can be deducted that the evolution of motors was by reproduction.

1. Human beings reproduce
2. Human beings are composed of matter
3. Ergo, matter reproduces
4. Studebaker V-8 motors are composed of matter
5. Ergo, Studebaker V-8 motors reproduce.

Combine the rigorous logic of these two irrefutable arguments and it is just obvious that the existence of Studebaker V-8s is due to reproduction and evolution, probably descended from some common ancestor like a potter’s wheel.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@RonSewell

…probably descended from some common ancestor like a potter’s wheel.

Indeed! And we do have something of a faunal succession to view, too. The Studebaker 289 V-8 was clearly descended from the 259. And as a Studebaker fan who has visited more than a few junkyards in search of obscure stainless steel trim pieces, I can attest that the fossil record is rich.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@RonSewell

… , probably descended from some common ancestor like a potter’s wheel.

Well done. A clear demonstration of the folly of argument by bad analogy.

[scd]

@AlanFox

Names of those many biologists you claim think the flagellum is evidence for design.

basically any biologist who is also a creationist.

[Tim]

@scd

basically any biologist who is also a creationist.

And are the numbers of creationist biologists “many” in comparison to the total number of biologists? I think not.

[AlanFox]

@scd

basically any biologist who is also a creationist.

Name some.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@scd

@AlanFox

Names of those many biologists you claim think the flagellum is evidence for design.

basically any biologist who is also a creationist.

Okay, so putting that statement back in it’s original context:

@scd

@Puck_Mendelssohn

The point is: anything which a biologist would consider evidence will do.

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

LOL

But yeah, @Puck_Mendelssohn has to eat his own words now that creationists who are biologists have been invoked(there are bound to be some regardless of how you cut the definition of biologist), and they think the flagellum is evidence for design. So the challenge was met, surely, and now we have to accept that the flagellum is evidence for design, right? - because creationist biologists think so. This is where an appeal to authority will get you. Someone goes and finds someone who qualifies as an authority. So now you have to invoke the appeal to popularity in response, which is equally fallacious, and just provokes the response that majority views have been overturned before and… on and on this same circus goes every fucking time.

So now we have to start all over again and ask what it is about the flagellum that make creationist biologists think it is evidence for design. And I think we can all guess where this is going.

It’s a motor.

Hello face, meet desk.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Rumraket

Hello face, meet desk.

There are some times when a person should not engage in correspondence without donning a protective helmet first. Desks are hard!

[scd]

@AlanFox

Name some.

@Tim

but whether “many biologists do think the flagellum is evidence for design” or not.

you can find some of them in that list:

Creation scientists

@Puck_Mendelssohn

No, it’s word play. Why would you care what my definition of a word is?

because you are the one who asked for evidence for design. not me. i do think the flagellum is a motor and therefore is the result of design.

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Sure, but you want me to accept an unreasonable argument.

why its unreasonable to think a motor is the product of design?

@Puck_Mendelssohn

I’ve already indicated that the best thing would be to show that this supernatural design and manufacturing process actually, observably happens.

we do see designers (humans) produce genomes by genetic engineering.

[Witchdoc]

@scd

because you are the one who asked for evidence for design. not me. i do think the flagellum is a motor and therefore is the result of design.

I think the flagellum looks like a type III secretory system, from whence it evolved.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/MillerID-Collapse.htm

[Tim]

@scd

@Tim

but whether “many biologists do think the flagellum is evidence for design” or not.

you can find some of them in that list:

Creation scientists

Wot? That few?

Even laying aside that only a fraction of the “Creation Scientists” on that list are biologists, and the fact that at least some of them will in all likelihood think that, although they accept creation, they think that bacterial flagella specifically, or the Argument from Design more generally, are bad arguments for it, this is evidence only that a pathetically minuscule number of biologists think the flagellum is evidence for design.

I have to wonder if we counted up the number of biologists who believe Elvis is still alive (admittedly a shrinking number as time goes by), or biologists who believe in UFO abductions, would we come up with a similar order of magnitude?

There are hundreds of thousands of biologists (maybe even millions).

Addendum, I can find a number of mentions of 3,150,000 biologists worldwide, cited to International Federation of Biologists, over a decade ago, but no confirmation on this figure.

[AlanFox]

@scd

you can find some of them in that list:

creation.com

Creation scientists - creation.com

I think @Tim covered the points I would have made but I looked at your link and struggled to find a living biologist at all on that particular list. Anyway, I thought you knew some biologists, at least their names, among the (you say) many who think the various bacterial flagella are evidence for “Design”.

Though I do wonder, taking Creationists in the broadest sense, who among them don’t think the whole universe is evidence of God’s design.

[scd]

@Witchdoc

I think the flagellum looks like a type III secretory system, from whence it evolved.

i can say the same about a compass, which is also similar to a watch (image from wiki):

but there are no no small steps from a compass to a watch.

@Tim

a pathetically minuscule number of biologists think the flagellum is evidence for design .

that was Puck request (biologists who think the flagellum was designed).

@AlanFox

Though I do wonder, taking Creationists in the broadest sense, who among them don’t think the whole universe is evidence of God’s design.

as far as im aware most biologists believe in higher power.

[Tim]

@scd

@Tim

a pathetically minuscule number of biologists think the flagellum is evidence for design .

that was Puck request (biologists who think the flagellum was designed).

False.

Your unsubstantiated assertion of “many biologists do think the flagellum is evidence for design” was NOT in response to any “request” from @Puck_Mendelssohn. It was in response to this statement:

@Puck_Mendelssohn

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. [my emphasis]

So what does @scd offer as pathetically inadequate substantiation for his “many biologists”? A (tiny) bunch of creationist biologists – precisely proving @Puck_Mendelssohn’s original statement.

You really are just throwing any ol’ thing at the wall and hoping it will stick, aren’t you @scd?

[scd]

here is what he said:

@Puck_Mendelssohn

The point is: anything which a biologist would consider evidence will do.

so basically even a single biologist is enough to meet the demand, and this is what i did.

[Tim]

Full quote:

@Puck_Mendelssohn

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. [My emphasis]

Given that explicit caveat in the first paragraph, do you really think @Puck_Mendelssohn will be even remotely impressed by your pathetically short list of creationist biologists?

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

My goodness. Evidently among your talents at word play is the deliberate misconstruction of others’ statements. Obviously what is meant here is the sort of evidence which biologists use to draw conclusions about similar questions. That there are some small number of biologists who are insane, senile, or otherwise incapable of good judgment isn’t evidence for your proposition. Actual biological evidence is what you need.

[scd]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Actual biological evidence is what you need.

great. what kind of evidence i need to show you in order to believe that the flagellum motor is evidence for design?

[Tim]

@scd

do you think that biologists who also are creationists are pathetic?

No comment.

But I do know of one creationist who appears to have missed English grammar in school to the extent that they don’t know the difference between a “pathetically short list” and “pathetic creationist biologists”.