In my research, I have recently come across the self-assembling proteins and molecular machines called nano-machines one of them being the bacterial flagellum…
Have you ever wondered what mechanism is involved in the self-assembly process?
I’m not even going to ask the question how the self-assembly process has supposedly evolved, because it would be offensive to engineers who struggle to design assembly lines that require the assembly, operation and supervision of intelligence… So far engineers can’t even dream of designing self-assembling machines…But when they do accomplish that one day, it will be used as proof that random, natural processes could have done too…in life systems.. lol
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, just watch this video:
The first thing that came to my mind when I debating the self-assembly process was one of Michael Behe’s books The Edge of Evolution. I wanted to see whether he mentioned any known, or unknown, mechanism driving the self-assembly process of nano-machines, like the flagellum…
In the Edge of Evolution Behe uses an illustration of a self-assembling flashlight, which parts possess the many different types of magnets that only fit the right type of part into it; each part having the affinity for the corresponding magnet…something like that…
It’s not clear to me whether Behe questions that the magnetic attraction is sufficient for the self-assembly of the flagellum (I might have to read the parts of the book on the theme again). Behe seems to question the ability of Darwinian processes to be able to evolve the sequence and the fitting process of each part of the flagellum, by random processes of random mutation and natural selection…
This is what BIOLOGOS have to say on the theme of self-assembly of the flagelum:
“Natural forces work “like magic”
Nothing we know from every day life quite prepares us for the beauty and power of self-assembly processes in nature. We’ve all put together toys, furniture, or appliances; even the simplest designs require conscious coordination of materials, tools, and assembly instructions (and even then there’s no guarantee that we get it right!). It is tempting to think the spontaneous formation of so complex a machine is “guided,” whether by a Mind or some “life force,” but we know that the bacterial flagellum, like countless other machines in the cell, assembles and functions automatically according to known natural laws. No intelligence required.1
Video animations like this one (video no longer available) by Garland Science beautifully illustrate the elegance of the self-assembly process (see especially the segment from 2:30-5:15). Isn’t it extraordinary? When I consider this process, feelings of awe and wonder well up inside me, and I want to praise our great God.
Several ID advocates, most notably Michael Behe, have written engagingly about the details of flagellar assembly. For that I am grateful—it is wonderful when the lay public gets excited about science! But I worry that in their haste to take down the theory of evolution, they create a lot of confusion about how God’s world actually operates.
When reading their work, I’m left with the sense that the formation of complex structures like the bacterial flagellum is miraculous, rather than the completely normal behavior of biological molecules. For example, Behe writes, “Protein parts in cellular machines not only have to match their partners, they have to go much further and assemble themselves—a very tricky business indeed” (Edge of Evolution, 125-126). This isn’t tricky at all. If the gene that encodes the MS-ring component protein is artificially introduced into bacteria that don’t normally have any flagellum genes, MS-rings spontaneously pop up all over the cell membrane. It’s the very nature of proteins to interact in specific ways to form more complex structures, but Behe makes it sound like each interaction is the product of special design. Next time I’ll review some other examples from the ID literature where assembly is discussed in confusing or misleading ways.”
To me personally, the self-assembly process, especially that of the molecular nano-machines like the bacterial flagellum, involves much, much more than random motion of molecules and the affinity of their binding sites for one another…
There has to be not only some kind of energy directing force but also some hidden information source to direct that energy…I have a hunch what that could be and there is only one way of finding it out…
Does anybody know what I have in mind? No, I don’t think it’s Jesus …
You have already made a monkey of yourself and you supplied your own script:
“Allan MillerWednesday, February 13, 2013 6:04:00 AM
Venter: I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me.
Allan Miller: Hmmm. It’s counterintuitive to everyone! “
If you agree with Venter that single ancestor is counterintuitive to you, doesn’t really matter what exactly it is?
You can read your monkeying in full here…
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/02/craig-ventor-discusses-tree-of-life.html
I assume that Allan Miller who commented is not your relative? After all, you got me the link. Remember?
I especially enjoyed how you argued with Larry Moran on the single origins of life… It was an eye opening show for me especially…
Thanks!
Let’s not forget that it can be experimentally tested whether a flagellum can self assemble without quantum help…
We already know that bacteria without flagellum can’t evolve one… a mutation in the flagellum gene disables it… I’m not even going to mention what happens to bacteria with a slightly defective flagellum… Darwinism with its omnipotent natural selection impotento lol
Maybe Allan Miller would like to be part of this experiment that if successful will turn him to ID proponent? I think he has faith that Darwinism can’t be proven wrong … 🙂
J-Mac,
Yep, that’s me. In fact I already quoted other responses from the Sandwalk exchange (with another poster with a curious fondness for ellipsis, John Witton…) in full when Venter came up previously, to save me typing them out again. I pasted that some time in 2017 IIRC.
But here’s the particular claim you make here: the different release factors between prokaryotes and eukaryotes are among the reasons Venter ‘denies common descent’.
I’m seeing a tacit admission from you that Venter did not, in fact, make that claim. Are you prepared to shame the devil and make that explicit?
J-Mac,
Quantum help? What the hell is that? Is it like wiffly whizz-bang, or porkonensis?
That’s because it is untrue.
Speak clearly: did Venter make that claim or not?
You could always explain it to the onlookers.
If one wants to beat a dog, any stick will do… especially if a baseless ideology called also considers as science is to be defended…
Let Darwin live! Right or wrong…
For those who have a bit of logic and brains:
If quantum mechanics is essential in the self-assembly process, what would happen to the flagellum assembly process if say …a quantum process like entanglement (assuming it’s involved) were disrupted?
Can anyone think what that would mean?
I’m not going to ask what that would mean for Darwinism because I probably wouldn’t get any answers with the exception of CharlieM…lol
It’s your turn. You said it was untrue… proof please! 😉
Seriously? You say something and I have to prove it untrue? Fine, Dembski worships gerbils. Prove me wrong.
Nuh… You are too low-ball for me… I don’t have time to teach kindergarten QM…
Here… let me help you a bit… my kids says its really good
Quantum Physics For Dummies
Stop embarrassing yourself! Kids read this…
Have some dignity… that is if you know what that means…
Nope. I doubt you do either.
You are just gibbering. Are you buying this, Charlie? “Hmmm, quantum entanglement, of course”. Cargo cult science. Fire up the Orgone Accumulator.
You doubt? It’s better than saying its untrue and embarrassing yourself by not providing and basis for the false accusations…
Anyways, its been nice chatting with you for a while…
My kids highly recommend the book… You will know what I’m talking about regarding QM and self- assembly when you read it… 🙂
Good bye!
I think Allan is ready to cry guys… end it!
So Venter did not, in fact, say that release factors are a reason he doubts common descent, and somewhere in a primer for QM I will find how QM assembles flagella … but I’m the one embarrassing himself.
I’m sure your kids are loving this, waving their “Go, dad!” pennants.
A bunch of accidents to an accidental light sensitive spot kept making an accidental light sensitive spot better at focusing, able to see colors, able to shift focusing ranges. More accidents doubled the light sensitive spot, so it could now use binocular vision, perceive depths; become perfectly round, work faster than the best machined lenses, regulate the amount of light through a precise aperature that was also an accident. More accidents provided it with a night time lens cap, and with a self service car washing feature. More accidents refined the accidental light spot for flight, or night vision, or for precise movement detection. And each little accidental improvement, made all previous accidental improvements obsolete.
Fine. Prove it wrong.
phoodoo,
You are attempting to lampoon me lampooning J-mac’s approach – ie, you too are lampooning J-mac’s approach. I’m sure he’s very grateful for your help.
Not that I had high hopes of a substantive interchange but it’s still a bit disappointing.
Sorry! 😁
I guess that was one of J-Mac’s kids.
Allan Miller,
I was thinking more of this:
Give me one reason why I should even attempt to explain it to an ignorant like you?
If one wants to beat a dog, any stick will do
You are too low-ball for me
Stop embarrassing yourself! Kids read this…
Have some dignity… that is if you know what that means…
I think Allan is ready to cry guys
Empty bluster as a substitute for useful dialogue.
Alan Fox,
I know, I was being a bit ironic! But I do check myself before posting and extending or enabling a bicker-fest, and wonder whether I ought.
What about structures produced by the likes of puffer fish, or bower birds, or spiders. Would you not consider these as designed objects?
It’s not only what we actually design, it is also what we attempt to design that you need to consider. The fact that humans cannot design living systems from scratch does not mean that the attempt is not being made. What we can’t design today, we may be able to design tomorrow.
Of course now that we have studied bacterial flagella, any human design that emulated them could not be considered as totally original; they would be copies inspired by the original bacterial design.
I don’t even agree with who? Apart from animals and humans, I have not proposed any designers in this thread. Please quote me if you disagree.
Department of Energy, Office of Science. “Can we beat mother nature at materials design?.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 28 June 2016.
To take a specific example, we need only study bone at the macroscopic and microscopic level to see the wisdom in its design.
They aren’t designing, they are at best assembling.
Which is where the syllogism crashes and burns. We could ‘attempt to design’ literally anything material, and probably a fair few things immaterial as well. How helpful is that in determining whether any given thing is, in fact, designed? It’s the Electric Monk again. Everything’s pale pink.
Sure, reverse engineering. Still, I’d be happy enough to see the assembly part implemented, if only to hold (the collective) you to a similar standard: the test of (ta-dah!) ‘Experimental Proof’.
You are careful to add ‘in this thread’. If you don’t go for a personal God, you go for something else instead, and therefore disagree with those that do. You have denied being a Creationist and, as much as I have been able to glean from your rather vague handwaving, go for ‘something else’ as the source of Design. You might have decided that you and Creationists are in fact talking about the same thing, I dunno.
In the twelfth minute, she says
And here in the twenty-eighth minute she talks about the magic of how the robosomes identify the appropriate AUGs” (start codons)
If you watch it from about here, you will hear her say:
Those are the places where I noticed that she used the word. I must admit it is all very magical as in remarkable and awe inspiring as opposed to ‘woo’ inspiring.
For those of us who delight in learning this stuff a video is worth a thousand words.
CharlieM,
Robosomes. 😃 Good one, if unintentional.
You are fooling no one but yourself.
If something is assembled for a purpose then it is safe to assume that it was designed. You know, purposes such as attracting a mate or catching food, that sort of thing.
What is using reverse engineering in order to build something similar if not copying a design?
Implemented by who? Humans have been inventing and making things that have been inspired by nature for long enough. It is not necessary for me to experiment, all I have to do is observe. Have you heard of velcro?
I have been quite clear in the past about my opinion on the source of nature’s designs. Whereas humans have reached a stage where we have the ability to use wisdom and intelligence in an individual way, animals have an instinctive wisdom, which can be said to be group wisdom. The wisdom they possess has not yet condensed to the level of individual organisms. Individual beavers did not invent lodge building, they were invented at the group level and so, barring abnormal development, it is a skill that is instinctive to all beavers It is in their nature, and we do not need to seek for a designer of lodges other than within the group which we call beavers. No speculation of an external designer is necessary.
I can see you’ve attended a creationist college.
The blind watchmaker first sketches out his designs on paper and only then sets out to assemble them, and upon assembly they turn out to be far better than the original design.
I don’t need an argument to know that you are wrong and only you are to blame for not correcting it.
At least Darwin didn’t mangle Paley’s argument.
I didn’t say Paley was right, I merely told dazz he could read Paley in order to become familiar with the argument. He would learn it doesn’t take the form he thinks it takes. But he doesn’t seem willing to do that.
Moved a comment to Guano.
Please refrain from calling other members ignorant.
I was reading this book on evolution the other day and to be honest phoodoo about nailed it. The author as much as admitted that’s how evolution works. I’ll have to dig that up.
It just goes to show, I can’t compose a few posts without making a typo, but replisomes
I don’t think dazz was referring to Paley’s original argument, so he is not the one to blame for mangling it.
Paley’s argument has also moved on a tad.
So you think that if every bower bird of a given species builds its nest in the same way, each of them is ‘designing’ it in a strict sense of the word? Well, if that’s what you think … accepting your point for the sake of argument (only – I think you are wrong), all I need to amend my statement is that I know of no non-biological designers.
What’s the purpose of a fish, or a leopard?
You notice that word “sure”? It is usually used to indicate agreement. Copying design, reverse engineering … I wan’t disagreeing, so I’m not sure why you seem to think I was.
Well, it was J-Mac who was insisting experimental evidence was the gold standard. I’d agree that observation is perfectly legitimate. If you observe someone designing a fish – better yet, assembling one – call me over.
Have you heard of non sequitur?
So you lengthily agree with me that you disagree with Creationists as to the source of the design, which is exactly what I was saying.
I started to eye-roll round about the point where an advanced eye was then duplicated. If that’s ‘nailing it’ in your book, you have low standards. Anyway, haven’t we already got a thread about the eye?
CharlieM,
In the context of the thread, it was perfect – a beneficial mutation. 🙂
It’s interesting that you would be so wound up about the use of the word. Do you think she intended it to mean actually magic, or an expression of wonder / admiration (or something else)? Does it matter which one she intended? If not, why not? If yes, then why being so wound up about the word? Why try and point this to J-Mac who doesn’t care about what people mean, but prefers to take those as “admissions” about magical beings in the sky, or as “absurdity” in scientific endeavours?
I don’t know what he was referring to, but it sounded like a mangling of Paley’s argument to me. 🙂
He called it “the classic creationist argument.” But maybe’s he’s never heard of Paley. To me Paley would be an example of “the classic creationist argument.’
I could have asked him which classic creationist argument he had in mind but that would probably have been as fruitless as asking him to read Paley as an example of the classic creationist argument so that he could see how wrong he was.
I think that they each demonstrate the same instinctive behaviour in an individual way and thus their designs vary depending on the circumstances. I believe you when you say that you know of no non-biological designers. And the only designs I am aware of are natural.
This is not a sensible question because neither fish nor leopards have been designed for a purpose. They are individual organisms which develop according to their own nature. But we can say that structures such as bird’s nests, human ear drums or bacteria flagella have been designed for a purpose because we can see the use to which they are put.
So, even though you wrote that we are the only beings you are aware of that produce designed objects, you are now agreeing that designing objects is not exclusive to humans?
You wrote the above in response to my last sentence above.
Previously You had written:
You were saying that you didn’t know so I was trying to clarify things for you. There may be creationists who believe that everything on this earth was designed by God. I do not believe this.
I had written a fairly lengthy post which included, among other things, references to self-replicating machines and ribosomes, and rather than discuss these interesting subjects you prefer to concentrate on an aside I made about the coincidental use of the word “magic” which i would have thought is of little further interest to most of us here.
Is there anything more interesting and relevant that you would like to discuss?
CharlieM,
If only you’d really thought of that as an aside, but you ensured that J-Mac would see that particular word. That means that you thought that word was central to your thesis, or “made your point,” or something like that.
Should I take this to mean that you now understand the foolishness of making so much out of that word? I mean, once we start understanding how the stuff works, we find binding constants, with enthalpies, entropies, free energies, shit like that, but no tiny intelligent beings directing anything, let alone magic. So, I’d think that was an expression of wonder, rather than an admission about magical beings in the sky. Right?
Nice elision from ‘biological’ to ‘natural’.
I don’t really know where you think this word gaming gets you. If I assemble a flat pack from IKEA, I am implementing a pre-existing design. I am assembling. The bower birds are likewise not coming up with the designs; they too are assembling, like any production-line robot. The basic plans are wired-in – they are not copying, nor are they coming up with them from scratch. They have some latitude in their assembly, intelligence even, because they have to deal with the variability of materials and position. But I really don’t think they are designing.
But like I say, even if they were, so what? You’ve done a gotcha on an internet nobody who doesn’t think that other creatures design? Take a victory lap.
Is this the new syllogism: because there exist creatures other than humans which design, those creatures were themselves designed? It’s not an improvement.
So the individual components have a purpose but the thing itself does not? Building a nest has the ‘purpose’ of making more birds, but birds, a composite of such elements with broadly the same purpose, have no purpose.
I have a machine that goes ‘bong’ at random intervals, if you’re interested. What’s its purpose? Going ‘bong’.