Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 22 2008,16:33) | | Since I am on a roll. Let me offer you something sure to cause a loud howl from the Group Think mentality that holds court here. |
Interesting pre-emptive strike, but also a red herring. Whether one or thirty people question your ideas is not the point; the point is, as noted before, if the ideas have any merit.
| Quote | The evolutionary origin of centrioles, cilia and flagella (which have the same basic structure of nine microtubule doublets or triplets arranged in a larger cylinder, but with additional motor proteins) is unclear. According to the endosymbiotic theory,57 our eukaryotic cells arose from symbiosis, an invasion of simple bacteria-like prokaryotes by mitochondria which supplied energy, and by flagellates (e.g. spirochetes) which brought cytoskeletal proteins providing structural support, compartmentalization and internal organization, movement and perhaps intelligence and eventually consciousness. The origin of flagellates is unknown.
There is some question as to whether centrioles, cilia and flagella (i.e. flagellates) could have evolved purely by natural selection, as they are said to exhibit “irreducible complexity”.58 Darwin said in The Origin of Species:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Innumerable small, randomly chosen steps of incremental changes in proteins to form tubulin, and tubulin to form microtubules, and microtubules to form centrioles, cilia and flagella would seem to offer no advantages “along the way”. Consequently centrioles, cilia and flagella have been suggested as examples of “intelligent design”.58 Designed by what, or by whom? This question leads some to “Creationism”. But there is also the view that intelligent design reflects the type of Platonic information embedded in the Planck scale suggested by Roger Penrose.59,60 If so, then via quantum states living systems are in touch with a deeper reality. Does this imply that quantum information devices, for example, would also be “alive”? Not necessarily, as only organic molecules and cytoskeletal protein lattices may have the inherent flexibility to harness ambient energy for quantum coherent states, interact with the Planck scale via quantum gravity processes, and utilize photons as phase-ordered matter. |
followed by untested quantum woo...
A troika of brief group-think points/questions.
1) Presumably you are aware that "irreducible complexity", contra Darwin's 19th century perspective, can arise from well-known evolutionary mechanisms. If not, see here and here. In other words, there is no necessity for a design inference based on this notion of IC.
2) So when are you going to define design and tell us how you measure it, as requested? Passing the job off on those of us who are not arguing for design is frankly dishonest. You are arguing that there is design; you need to define your terms and metrics.
3) And if not, when are you (or anyone) going to test some predictions derived from the quantum woo above? Given that these allegedly IC systems can arise from standard evolutionary processes, the onus is again on you to prove that your notions are a better explanation. That will require predictions and experiments and publications, as per the usual group-think that happens when scientists get together...
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
