Mike PSS
Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (afdave @ Dec. 21 2006,18:26) | It's incredible that you would ask that, but I will patiently explain ...
Why is a design origin more plausible than an evolutionary origin for this bacterial motor?
Simply because we know of a case where a motor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer ... namely, electric motors.
So it is logical to think that it is highly likely that a motor in nature might also require a designer.
IOW from our experience, MOTORS REQUIRE DESIGNERS.
Therefore, why would we make an exception for THIS motor--the flagellum driver--and say "Nope. No Designer required." ??
|
We know of a case where a nuclear reactor REQUIRES an Intelligent Designer. Namely a water moderated uranium fuel nuclear reactor.
So it is logical to think that the hypothesised(1956) and actual discovered (1972) natural nuclear reactor should show the hallmark of design also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo_natural_reactor
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf.
LOOK. I USED MY INTUITION TO CORRECTLY IDENTIFY ANOTHER ACT OF THE DESIGNER!
(By Using My Newly Discovered Skills In The Field Of AFDavology).
********************
Dave, you then said.... | Quote | | When the idea of extrapolating micro-evo to create motors from something less complicated has NO experimental support whatsoever!! |
In fact, the idea of extrapolating historical human designs that created more complex motors from prior motors has DOCUMENTED support.
Human designers have modified/improved/changed/altered/optimised almost every design ever spoken/written/built.
So we should then assign these same attributes (changes in designs to lead to new/improved/altered/optimised/surprise functions) to biologic systems if we are to compare them with human design systems.
*****************************
One final muse.
Why does Mitochondria contain its own DNA? Why doesn't the cell nucleus control everything in the cell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA
You got anything on that one? Design maybe?
|
