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.
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....
|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?
You got anything on that one? Design maybe?