Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(260)
-
▼
February
(10)
- Richard Dawkins is Sure
- The Scale of the Universe
- Flying Squid
- Allopatric Speciation Tested in Martinique
- Worshipping the Creature
- Genes Have Play, Stop and Pause Buttons
- Frog Genome Shares Substantial Similarities With M...
- Did Fish Evolve From Terrestrial Creatures? Scienc...
- Mouse-to-Elephant: Evolution in Action
- Evolutionist Accuses Others of Lying
-
▼
February
(10)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDarwin saw the cell as a blob of protoplasm. If he had seen these videos I believe he would have been keen enough to dismiss evolution as did Alfred Wallace.
ReplyDeleteThe cell is screaming irreducible complexity.
Neal -
DeleteDarwin saw the cell as a blob of protoplasm. If he had seen these videos I believe he would have been keen enough to dismiss evolution as did Alfred Wallace.
Well that's just plain wrong. Schneider and Flemming were producing very detailed drawings of cells, complete with chromosomes in the 1870's-80's. Darwin himself, in 1882, published in the Journal of the Linnean Society London about chloroplasts. They obviously didn't know as much as we do, but no-one thought there were just 'blobs of protoplasm', least of all Darwin. People have known cells were very complex for well over a century.
Your problem is complexity does NOT necessarily imply design.
The cell is screaming irreducible complexity.
Not it isn't. The cell is easily reducible.
"The cell is easily reducible."
DeleteEasily? Do you really believe that? There is nothing easy about the function of the cell. There are functions within the cell that scientists don't understand. How can you show that a functional structure is reducible when it function is not fully understood? You're stepping way out of science.
---
The completely inadequate argument by evolutionists against IC is like believing the space shuttle is reducible too because its door handle can be used as a paper weight and the clip board in the cockpit can be used as a tie clip.
Isn't there a minimal amount of stuff that a cell needs before it can function as a cell? If so, then it is irreducibly complex. And how did the first cells get all that stuff?
DeleteSomebody should remind the IDiots that Behe's "Irreducible Complexity disproves evolution" brain fart was examined and rejected by the scientific community over a decade ago. None of the top ID bigwigs use it any more. IC systems can and do arise through naturally occurring evolutionary processes.
DeleteGuess there's always the bottom 2% that doesn't get the word.
natschuster,
DeleteI think so. Not only the structures but all the levels of synronization, coordination, and vast communication networks within the cell. It's an integrated whole on a level that humans can't even conceive of duplicating. It makes the space shuttle look like a wooden cart being pulled out of a cave.
Ritchie,
DeleteThey obviously didn't know as much as we do, but no-one thought there were just 'blobs of protoplasm'
From:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_02.html
Darwin had proposed that the first cell could easily have formed "in some warm little pond."238 One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life," known as Bathybius haeckelii ("Haeckel's mud from the depths"), is an indication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by the founders of the theory of evolution.
wg -
DeleteAnd that is absolutely wrong. Read Darwin's own words. He is talking about choroplasts and how they move in the cell:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1801&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
I know it's shocking to think a site called 'Darwinismrefuted.com' could possibly turn out to be scientifically factually inaccurate, but I guess miracles do occasionally happen after all.
Ritchie,
DeleteSo the Bathybius Haeckelii hypothesis didn't really happen then?
And Darwin never wrote about the "warm little pond"? Please elaborate on which part of my previous post was wrong.
wg -
DeleteYou were certainly wrong to suppose that Darwin believed this to be the case.
You are juxtaposing a very short-lived claim made by Huxley with the beliefs of Darwin (well, actually you are just quoting from a website which is doing it for you).
For one thing, the reference to life beginning "in some warm little pond" makes no reference to how complex that life would have to be, let alone how complicate cells are NOW (remember, given evolution, cells themselves have become progressively MORE complicated over time. Cells now are more complex than the first cells).
For another, this Bathybius haeckelii was not a logical extension of the theory of evolution or an accurate representation of the beliefs of any 'Darwinist' other than Huxley himself. Instead it was a conclusion drawn (rashly, as it turned out) from a discovery Huxley made from mud samples he collected. He imagined he had discovered a new organic substance of primordial matter. But when his 'discovery' turned out to be nothing more than the result of precipitation, he admitted his mistake.
If you wanted to pull me up on my wording that 'NO-ONE thought [cells] were just blobs of protoplasm' then fine, I suppose I'll have to give you that. I cannot speak for the beliefs of, for example, the insane, very young children, the scientifically uneducated lay people, etc. My point however was that it was not the generally-accepted scientific belief of the time, and it certainly was not Darwin's belief.
So Neal's comment that "Darwin saw the cell as a blob of protoplasm. If he had seen these videos I believe he would have been keen enough to dismiss evolution" is indeed nonsense.
Better now?
Bringing a couple older comments forward:
ReplyDeleteT. Cook, I'm not suggesting a value 'D', but rather looking at the pattern over time with many generations. Unbounded change over a large number of generations would clearly show the mean continuing to move past the previous range again and again (off the page, again and again so to speak).
Darwin's finches show an oscillation back and forth. A speciation event here is defined by mating preferences based on bird song and beak size, but not strict interfertility. We observe a pattern of diverging and merging. Different "species" of finches mating to form successful hybrids after previously diverging into different "species".
Plotting it, you would see a slight divergence from the previous mean and then an oscillation back with a slight merging.
Artifical and natural selection show nothing more than a radiation of genetic variety that is bounded (think dogs, cats, cattle, finches, peppered moths, e-coli. A slight divergence and then merging, again, and again. The fossil record show abrupt appearance of species followed by slight radiation of variation.
Evolutionists extrapolate about what "could" happen, but what we never observe is it actually happening. That's why I say that not a single empirical example of evolution exists in the history of science.
A large flat field can't be extrapolated as evidence for a flat earth unless you lack a horizon (unbounded).
Tedford the idiot
DeleteA large flat field can't be extrapolated as evidence for a flat earth unless you lack a horizon (unbounded).
Tedford the idiot sure love that stupid and inappropriate analogy. It's his new security blanket.
Hey idiot - a flat piece of land is a physical object. It's can't be extrapolated over time. Evolution is an empirically observed process. It's effects can be extrapolated back through time, and such earlier effects can be inferred from the evidence the process left behind.
It's no different that the process of plate tectonic movement, or erosion caused by a flowing river. Science can empirically measure plate movement, can observe colliding plates causing the Himalaya mountains to rise a few cm a year and extrapolate back to explain the mountains' formation. Science can empirically observe the Colorado river still cutting into the Grand Canyon and extrapolate back to explain the whole canyon's formation.
No one is screaming that geologists are frauds who need to build a new Mt. Everest or a new Grand Canyon in the lab to demonstrate the claims.
Tedford is an idiot who just doesn't get it.
Troy, bird eating mice.
ReplyDeleteAre evolutionists really this desperate for examples?
Seriously? We've had a few mice in our house (before we had cats), so I'm familar with these criters to some degree.
First, mice will chew on nearly anything, we had to replace our microwave oven because they chewed the insulation off the electrical cord. Other stuff too, like house insulation, wood, paper, foam, etc. So mice eating meat is not at all surprising. They sampled some at our house. The diet in meat would probably explain their increased size.
Second, they are very adaptable and smart. They learn the traps and avoid them. That's why I'd recommend the careful use of Dcon (or cats).
This is certainly not unbounded change, but adaption to a rich meat diet. They probably reached this size within just a few generations and the big boys took over the island.
Mastiff to Chihuahua dogs. Even humans. Species size can easily vary this much. This is not uncommon and has nothing to do with evolution. Certainly not unbounded change.
Selective breeding of the biggest mice on the island and a continued diet rich in meat may yield a somewhat larger mouse in proportion to the population, but do you really expect their size to be unbounded?
Plotting the data over time would probably show a quick increase in size over time from the original island arrivals and then a leveling off in size within a stable range. If the vast supply of rich meat were to begin to taper off, expect their size to oscillate back to smaller size mice.
No evolution here.
Neal,
DeleteTroy, bird eating mice.
Are evolutionists really this desperate for examples?
Seriously? We've had a few mice in our house (before we had cats), so I'm familar with these criters to some degree.
Good for you. So am I. My cat brings live mice into the house and then can't be bothered to finish them off.
The reason I brought up the mice is because they met your strange definition of unbounded change. The mean size has increased way beyond the original range.
Now you are of course shifting the goalposts instead of admitting the example meets your (weird) criteria. Not that I am surprised by your antics, mind you.
Neal,
DeleteI agree with troy. You have yet to specify how to determine any specific bound. It leaves you plenty of room to always move the goalposts. My point is that you have a hunch that there is some point beyond which change is impossible. My question is how do you know this? How can you identify this point for any particular organism (make predictions)?
What if the source of meat changed? The temperature changed? A new predator found the island? A Tsunami wiped out 90% of the population? Random mutations occur? Rinse and repeat for thousands of years. Neal you are thinking In one dimension. Changing just one variable. OT, we have had good success with one from Home Depot which electrocutes the varmint
ReplyDeletevelikovskys,
DeleteEvolutionists extrapolate about what "could" happen, but what we never observe is it actually happening. That's why I say that not a single empirical example of evolution exists in the history of science.
If evolution was actually happening, unbounded and directional change should be easily documented. What we see is adaptive radiation from the mean that is bounded.
I think the predictive ability of my view would lead me to see that in thousands of years the mice population will still be easily identified as mice. We see what has happened with the selective breeding of dogs over thousands of years. Big dogs, little dogs, different colors, etc, but all easily identified as dogs. Certainly bounded change has been observed. Speculation can be helpful in science (or not) but it is not the same thing as empirical evidence.
"...we have had good success with one from Home Depot which electrocutes the varmint."
DeleteWould that be the Victor Multi-Kill? A dandy invention.
Again,not a biologist.So your prediction is that no matter how much time passes mice stay mice. Ok,when is the first appearance of a modern mouse in fossils? I've found some pretty well preserved in my walls,but my house is less than a hundred years old. This could provide empirical proof to your claim.
DeleteSpeculation is necessary to science, don't you listen to Scott?
Velikovskys, I haven't researched mouse fossils, but what we see from the fossil record does not jive with evolution.
DeleteThe most glaring example of this is the abrupt appearance of 3 dozen phyla (body plans) in the Cambrian fossils and then bounded adaptive radiation following. Darwin predicted the gradual development of new body plans over eons. Nearly all body plans that have ever existed first appeared in the Cambrian. It turns Darwinism on its head.
Darwinists point to few tiny worms and sponges and a handful of precambrian fossils, but that doesn't even begin to jive with Darwins prediction of gradual development. The Cambrian Explosion was not named by creationists either. Three dozen new phyla but just a few precambrian fossils? Doesn't fit.
Tedford the idiot
DeleteVelikovskys, I haven't researched mouse fossils, but what we see from the fossil record does not jive with evolution.
Feel free to give us your alternate explanation for the spatial and temporal distribution of forms in the fossil record.
The most glaring example of this is the abrupt appearance of 3 dozen phyla (body plans) in the Cambrian fossils and then bounded adaptive radiation following.
Where 'abrupt' means over 5-10 million years.
Darwin predicted the gradual development of new body plans over eons. Nearly all body plans that have ever existed first appeared in the Cambrian. It turns Darwinism on its head.
Only in Tedford-the-idiot land. All it means is that in that specific instance Darwin was wrong. That doesn't affect in the least all the other things he got right, or all the huge amount of supporting evidence that has been amassed since his time.
Darwinists point to few tiny worms and sponges and a handful of precambrian fossils, but that doesn't even begin to jive with Darwins prediction of gradual development.
So? Again, the current ToE doesn't depend on such a prediction.
The Cambrian Explosion was not named by creationists either. Three dozen new phyla but just a few precambrian fossils? Doesn't fit.
Again idiot, feel free to give us your explanation for the spatial and temporal distribution of forms in the fossil record. Any time.
I think the coolest part is that with this newly discovered spliceosome code, they are now getting an idea of how often the same protein parts are reused. So now you make one mutation, and instead of just affecting one little walker protein, you may be affecting 10 different proteins in different stages of life and in different tissues. I hope Berry makes many more of these. I've shown his DNA and RNA polymerase to many people. I didn't remember that he got his inspiration from Goodsell. I check his stuff on PDB every month... it's like a treat.
ReplyDeleteI'm just so glad hydrogen preserved itself this way.
CH -
ReplyDeleteAll very interesting, but exactly what point were you trying to make?
Was it "Biologists are just making this up?" In which case you'd have to actually present a case explaining why the presentation is false, or at least, unsupported.
Was it "Look how complex it all is?" (seems likely, considering bascially the only argument of ID proponents is 'complexity therefore design.') Which is nonsense because it's completely begging the question.
For the long version, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo
Meyers could practically have been talking with Cornelius specifically in mind.
Ritchie, is there a level of complexity that could hypothetically be observed in a living organism that you would conclude could not be produced via evolution? Just hypothetical.
DeleteIt seems to me that you've made up your mind that nothing could be found, even hypothetically, that would change your mind. In your mind there is absolutely nothing that could be found in nature that is even worth considering that evolution was not responsible. By default. Case closed. Right? Would you know the difference between a designed system and an evolved system if you saw it?
If you could, what would be the characteristics of this hypothetically designed system? If not, then how do you justify your current view against design?
Neal -
DeleteRitchie, is there a level of complexity that could hypothetically be observed in a living organism that you would conclude could not be produced via evolution? Just hypothetical.
Yes. And if such happened then we would look for another NATURAL mechanism which could create such complexity.
The point you seem to have missed again is that "complexity therefore design" is a fallacy, no matter how complex you discover something to be.
The nonsense coming from the ID crowd seems to be "Look, this is REALLY REALLY complex, therefore design", and when the logical fallacy of this argument is pointed out, they just ignore it and say "Oh my gosh, we've discovered new things, it's even MORE complex than we thought..."
Complexity does not imply design NO MATTER HOW COMPLEX THAT THING IS.
If you could, what would be the characteristics of this hypothetically designed system?
You are asking ME to identify the features of a designed universe? So that I can then refute that hypothesis? Sorry, the onus is on you to do that. You are the ones invoking agency and design. And if you are doing so, then you need to say exactly how you are identifying them.
Ritchie, let's ask a different way.
DeleteIs there anything in all of the history that man has designed and manufactured that you would consider to be irreducibly complex?
If so, what properties does it possess that make it irreducibly complex?
Neal -
DeleteI get the concept of irreducible complexity. I also see that many things PEOPLE have manufactured are indeed irreducibly complex. The problem is that we have not observed irreducible complexity in nature.
I don't know why you have this inability to challenge the perception that everything that exists must have been deliberately crafted. Has every lightning bolt been carefully crafted? Were the pebbles on every beach hand-placed by a conscious being? Were the clouds all designed?
When you study these objects in minute detail, they are all incredibly complex objects. Therefore they must have been designed!
Praise FSM!
It's not just about complexity, Ritchie. It's about complexity and organization in the same place, at the same time.
ReplyDeleteEugen
DeleteIt's not just about complexity, Ritchie. It's about complexity and organization in the same place, at the same time.
Evolutionary processes have been empirically demonstrated to produce mechanisms that are both complex and organized. So where's the problem?
The physical universe is pretty complex, is it designed? Or is it just life on earth?
DeleteHave you thought of the reverse of your argument? If life is designed why is it so complex? The simpler a design the more elegant it is and less prone to failure. We have two kidneys( redundant) but one heart and one liver,failure is fatal. You could eliminate whole systems if humans could use photosynthesis, instead we consume our energy thru food, complicating the whole process. Complexity speaks of constraints in the design, the Designer is has no constraints. At least that is the fine tuning argument .
Velikovskys, "You could eliminate whole systems if humans could use photosynthesis".
Delete--
Wouldn't give us enough energy.
Why do you think that organisms are more complicated than they need to be?
Look at how complex manmade robots are that do very little compared to humans. Neither can they reproduce or self heal. Their constructed from the outside by humans bringing in components and assembling them. Look at the video again. The cell is a masterpiece of elegance.
Darwinists think God must be constrainted to be a neurotic engineer that is obsessed with being a minimalist and narrow minded effiency freak with everything else like art, beauty, and even humor being irrelevant to design.
But evolutionary tales of what would be a better design are truly laughable. They have not made their case as to poor design no matter how hard they try.
You seem to be missing the point, your Designer created energy. It does what He wills. He is not a human designer. You seem to be saying God is constrained.
DeleteSo in your view God's design can be simple or complex, inefficient or efficient , beautiful or ( no link necessary,right?),natural or supernatural,
the Mona Lisa or Elvis on velvet, elegant or good enough.
Maybe He is testing us to see if we can take a joke.
Eugen, because stowaway mice jumped ship to an island and grew larger and adapted to prefer bird meat, all the complexity of the cell is easily explained by evolution.
ReplyDeleteTedford the idiot
ReplyDeleteEugen, because stowaway mice jumped ship to an island and grew larger and adapted to prefer bird meat, all the complexity of the cell is easily explained by evolution.
After comments like that, does anyone really wonder why I refer to Tedford as an idiot?
He is the flame to their strawman
DeleteVelikosvskys, of course the stowaway mice were an obvious oversimplication, but bird beaks, peppered moths, e-coli and everything else that evolutionists have posted as evidence on this site is of the same quality of non-evidence.
DeleteComparing the origin of kinesin and dynein to water eroding rocks in the Grand Canyon is ridiculous.
I've seen many cell animations over the years, but they continue to remind me of the words of King David 3000 years ago... we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The evolutionists here view it and think water erosion against rocks.
...And moth to a flame.
DeleteSmith, evolution of kinesin and dynein, just like water and rocks, right?
DeleteDon't you believe the source of kinesin and rocks and water are the same? That mice , sunsets, puppies, skin cancer, butterflies,birth defects,tsunamis are designed and created by the same being? Correct?
DeleteSmith might call this " green elephant problem" or the "pea pachyderm paradox". You are willing to believe in a being creating everything with no direct evidence( green elephant),while maintaining hyper skepticism towards any evidence (facts) of an alternate theory.
He is a double eagle to their snowman
Deletevelikovskys
DeleteHe is a double eagle to their snowman
LOL, but I bet non-golfers won't get the reference. :)
Neal: Smith, evolution of kinesin and dynein, just like water and rocks, right?
DeleteHardly. Though both are intricate, beautiful and resilient. Much like rocks and water. A fine piece of granite truly is something to behold.
And yes, certainly a 3P (pea, pachyderm...) The struggle with elephants isn't their size or their colour, it is that we believe them to be something else entirely. Often this manifests as a burden of proof we place upon another, regardless of position. We become so enamored with the surface of the argument that we forget its possible depth. It is why such arguments become, as Mr. Hunter might say, so religious - each side demanding the other bend to its will without first demanding that same respect of itself.
Everyone imbibes deeply within a 3P complex. But there is a sharp difference between those who know it and those who do not.
There is a granitic dome nearby called Enchanted Rock. It is beautiful pink granite standing 400 ft above the surrounding countryside. Great place to camp and make the walk to the top in the moonlight.
DeleteA hike can be so pleasant for the mind.
DeleteAs a long stretch of highway miles can be
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThorton
ReplyDelete"Evolutionary processes have been empirically demonstrated to produce mechanisms that are both complex and organized. So where's the problem?"
I was thinking more of OOL.
Not just complex and organized. Balanced and tuned. Adaptable and regulated. Hierarchical and logical. Goal oriented and resilient.
Could you expound a bit upon the purpose of OOL?
DeleteThings are not "goal-oriented" by themselves, they can only be so described by an observer, and in relation to some explicit or implicit intent. And without inherent goal, there is no proper way of talking about "tuning", &c.
DeleteEugen
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Evolutionary processes have been empirically demonstrated to produce mechanisms that are both complex and organized. So where's the problem?"
I was thinking more of OOL.
Not just complex and organized. Balanced and tuned. Adaptable and regulated. Hierarchical and logical. Goal oriented and resilient.
OK. What evidence makes you think the first organic self-replicators (however they originated) were "Balanced and tuned. Adaptable and regulated. Hierarchical and logical. Goal oriented and resilient."?
Iincredulity is not an argument.
ReplyDeleteTroy, no shifting of goal posts.
ReplyDeleteAll species exhibit a larger range of adaptive variation that tends to not be fully quantified from a small population or an isolated population.
What I mean by unbounded change is the mean continuing to move past the previous ranges over time again and again, not just a burst of radiation and a stablization or oscillation back and forth from the original mean. Adaptive radiation plotted over time is like inflating a balloon. Over time, as the species is subjected to various selective pressures the data plotted in 3 dimensions would radiate out but reach an extent. Like a balloon it could be stretched to its limits by intense selective pressure, but after that... pop, extinction. The point is the balloon and the genetic change plotted over time has limits. This is what everything that is observed in nature is clearly reflecting.
Evolution would see the genetic change as a cloud that continues to radiate out, disperse and change forms over time and so on. No empirical observation of unbounded change exists.
Neal -
DeleteIn that case, you must surely accept ring species as demonstrations of evolution in action?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtnyx0Yo9I
Two distinct species, unable to interbreed, yet linked by a chain of intermediaries. These species haven't oscillated around a mean, have they? They have split irrevocably and irreversibly. They have speciated. They have evolved.
Neal,
DeleteYou are shifting the posts. Now you're basically saying that bounded means that variation doesn't reach infinity, which corresponds to a more standard mathematical definition of bounded, but which is also trivial in the case of any natural process (possible exception black holes?)
What you are really trying to say, I'm quite sure, is that there are magic boundaries between "kinds" that cannot be traversed by evolution. But you're finding it hard to clearly define what those boundaries are. And the reason is that there is no evidence for such boundaries, nor a theoretical reason why they should exist. It's creationist hand-waving.
Tedford the idiot
DeleteWhat I mean by unbounded change is the mean continuing to move past the previous ranges over time again and again, not just a burst of radiation and a stablization or oscillation back and forth from the original mean.
Examples of which science has already documented.
Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites
"Abstract: There are very few high-resolution studies of the fossil record from which to assess the relative frequency of gradualistic and punctuated evolution. Here I report some of the first detailed evidence of phyletic gradualism in benthic macroinvertebrates, based on a study of ~15,000 trilobites from central Wales. Over a period of about three million years, as many as eight lineages underwent a net increase in the number of pygidial ribs, a species-diagnostic character. The end members of most lineages have previously been assigned to different species and, in one case, to different genera. In view of intermediate morphologies and temporary trend reversals, however, practical taxonomic subdivision of each lineage proved impossible. The apparent success of earlier Linnean nomenclature (with its implications of discrete species) could easily have been misinterpreted as evidence of punctuation and stasis, and it is probable that detection of many other gradualistic patterns has been hindered by ready application of binominal taxonomy to fossils."
Trilobite evolution over 3MY
BTW Tedford, we're all still waiting for your alternate explanation for the spatial and temporal distribution of forms in the fossil record.
Tedford could save himself tons of embarrassment if he'd only research before speaking. But he won't. He's an idiot.
Ritchie,
DeleteDo you have any data to show that the ring species do not interbreed because they are not interfertile under any Cirumstance. My guess is its just preference which is common.
Do you have observable evidence of a species leaving the ring? Are the ring species just subspecies?
Tedford the idiot
DeleteDo you have any data to show that the ring species do not interbreed because they are not interfertile under any Cirumstance. My guess is its just preference which is common.
Do you have observable evidence of a species leaving the ring? Are the ring species just subspecies?
In the case of the Ensatina salamanders, the two groups that overlap at the end of the ring do not naturally interbreed. The two populations do not experience genetic mixing, which makes them two distinct species by definition. Interfertility has nothing to do with it. Lions and tigers are interfertile, but no one claims they are one species.
Along the rest of the ring there are distinct clines - zones where only limited interbreeding and limited gene flow takes place. This is a classic case of speciation caught in the act.
Here is a good layman's overview of this ring species, and how it developed over time:
Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation
A much more technically detailed study is here
STRONG SELECTION AGAINST HYBRIDS AT A HYBRID ZONE IN THE ENSATINA RING SPECIES COMPLEX AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS
Don't read them Tedford! I wouldn't want your fat head to explode.
Thorton, I have to call foul on Tedford's behalf. Whithout reading the links, I know that the explanation for the ring species, depends on evolution as an explantation. However, I've never personally seen these species develop over time.
DeleteHow'd I do, Neal?
Thorton:
DeleteIn the case of the Ensatina salamanders, the two groups that overlap at the end of the ring do not naturally interbreed.
From your link:
Two distinct forms of Ensatina salamanders, differing dramatically in color, coexist in southern California and interbreed there only rarely.
They can, and do, interbreed. Would you like to emend your comments?
Smith
ReplyDeletePurpose of OOL? I don't know what is the purpose of our existence at all, Schmidt. Never mind OOL.
You seem to be a philosopher, you would do better with that. I'm just a village philosopher but more often village fool.
Anyway, I'm reading on the cell regulatory systems. I'll write something about that one day, I get bored with that stuff easily.
Until than check my article on UD.
I'm disappointed it was barely challenged by anti ID side.
Thorton(and others) please comment, positive or negative I don't care.
Congrats on making it to the show
DeleteAn enjoyable read, Eugen. Thanks for linking. What is more striking than the illustrations (to me) are the metaphors they create. Some of the answers to the questions they pose in will most likely go unanswered. Where many may see inefficiency via a Rube Goldberg-esque setup, others may see multiple intent or a clever way to illustrate the unseen.
DeleteI do feel that we forget the inherent symbology in the artifacts we create and the manner in which we use them.
Perhaps we neglect that in what we perceive to be natural as well.
Sorry Eugen, but there is no much to challenge there. All you have is an argument from incredulity, which is exactly the same thing this very post is.
DeletePS: There are more than 20 tRNAs, remember they need to match codons, which are far more than the 20 amino acids.
I forgot to mention, there is something that reflects how badly anthropomorphising your view of nature is. You talk about "nano technology" and "miniaturisation", but those terms are used in relation to our human "meso scale". On what grounds can you say the ribosome is a miniaturised machine if you don't know what are the working scales of the designer?
DeleteAlso, why didn't you use some software with font anti-aliasing? Add Microsoft Visio to your Amazon wish list!
DeleteEugen
ReplyDeleteUntil than check my article on UD.
OK, I read it. two big things that jump out are
1) lots of 'gee whiz it's sooo complicated!!" personal incredulity, and
2) the mention of FSCO/I, which is an undefined and completely meaningless buzzterm invented by Gordon E. Mullings (GEM of TKI) and not used by anyone else on the planet except him (and now you) on UD.
I'm disappointed it was barely challenged by anti ID side.
When you present it on a site that has banned virtually every scientifically knowledgeable person who ever posted there, what do you expect? If you want a real critique by real working scientists, post it on TalkRational Life Sciences BB
Thanks Thorton
ReplyDeleteRemember it's not just complicated,it's also organized.
Would you at least consider this a n alien nano technology?
TalkRational seems interesting. Some posters have more than 25 thousand comments. How can I compete with that.
Eugen
ReplyDeleteThanks Thorton
Remember it's not just complicated,it's also organized.
So? Evolution also produces things that are complicated and organized. That's what the process does.
Would you at least consider this an alien nano technology?
Not without evidence that it was actually produced by aliens, no.
TalkRational seems interesting. Some posters have more than 25 thousand comments. How can I compete with that.
It's quality not quantity that counts. Look at all the blithering 5000+ word monstrosities Batspit77 and kariosfocus generate that don't contain a single coherent thought.
Ritchie said, "I get the concept of irreducible complexity. I also see that many things PEOPLE have manufactured are indeed irreducibly complex. The problem is that we have not observed irreducible complexity in nature"
ReplyDelete--
Can you give a specific example? What criteria would you use to determine that this was irreducibly complex?
Tedford, when will you presenting your detailed analysis pointing out the flaws of this paper Troy offered:
DeleteA formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
You said you'd do it, remember?
Troy "You claim that common descent is not supported by the data. So if I show you a scientific paper that concludes common descent from the data, you will be able to point out the flaws in the analysis, is that correct?"
--
Neal TedfordFeb 8, 2012 11:18 AM: "Yes."
and
Neal TedfordFeb 8, 2012 11:42 AM: "I'm waiting for your paper."
Been a whole week now of you posting your usual idiocy but nary a peep out of you on your analysis. Seems like you conveniently "forgot" to keep your word. What a surprise.
Troy said, "You are shifting the posts. Now you're basically saying that bounded means that variation doesn't reach infinity, which corresponds to a more standard mathematical definition of bounded, but which is also trivial in the case of any natural process (possible exception black holes?)"
ReplyDelete--
I thought I posted a reply to this last night, but can't locate now.
--
No, it does not involve "infinity". It does not need to. I am only dealing with what is actually observed, not what evolutionists think "could happen", but never has been observed to happen.
Stowaway mice, bird beaks, peppered moths, and such do not show a pattern of unbounded directional change. Some examples show neither, some fail to be either directional or unbounded.
When looking at the larger mice and plotting this one characteristic (size) over time, the data would show a directional change over a relatively short period of time and then stasis. Mice are omnivores, so the bird meat thing is curious, but not a directional change. There is no evidence of any other kind of directional change occuring in the stowaway mice. The size has reached it's limit or is very close to it. I don't expect the mice to be running down caribou in a thousand years.
And such is how the story plays out in the real world for bird beaks, peppermoths, fruit flies and every other example of so called evolutionary change given by Darwinists. Change is never observed over time to be both unbounded and directional.
Evolutionists see the history of life as a cloud that radiates out with portions continuing to change form over time. A bear shaped cloud gradually breaks up and a portion of it changes into a whale and so on.
The fossil record does not indicate such a gradual transition of life forms, but shows single data points in time of new life forms and then bounded change of that new form.
Evolutionists can talk about implications, extrapolations and what "could happen", but the fact is that we have never observe it actually happening. Evolutionists comfort themselves with their imagined extrapolations and the assumption that the experts tell them evolutioni is a settled fact. When you peel back the onion of so called evidence, one never really gets at it. Secretly it must be frustrating for evolutionists to see the ball beginning to roll slightly up hill, but never, ever keep it rolling to seal their argument. Oh well, perhaps its over the next hill.
Tedford the idiot
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not involve "infinity". It does not need to. I am only dealing with what is actually observed, not what evolutionists think "could happen", but never has been observed to happen.
The spatial and temporal distribution of the forms in the fossil record have been observed.
The incredibly close correlation between the fossil phylogenetic tree and the genetic one has been observed.
Natural processes that create new genetic information have been observed.
No barrier or limit to what new genetic information can be created has been observed.
When will you offer your explanation for and deal with those observances?
The fossil record does not indicate such a gradual transition of life forms, but shows single data points in time of new life forms and then bounded change of that new form.
Liar.
He is the Sisyphus to their rock
DeleteI'm the rock to their Costa Concordia. ;)
DeleteIceberg to their Titanic?
DeleteSisyphus to an iceberg...
DeleteNavy SEALs to their bin Laden.
DeleteCaptain Kirk to their Klingon ship.
DeleteWindshield to their bug
DeleteComparing water erosion in the Grand Canyon to evolutionary change is a glaring admission by evolutionists that their theory is one of gradualism. Gradualism is contradicted by empirical evidence and the fossil record.
ReplyDeleteThe erosion process is understood, repeatable, and the unbounded (not infinity), directional change is observable and can be plotted over time T+n...
Change in living species over time is like erosion of the Panama canal. Large battleships have rubbed the concret sides of the canal with enough pressure to cause the cement to bubble from the heat, but the changes to the canal over time and use are bounded... unless intelligent designers decide to change it.
Surely, the fossil evidence and observable evidence is screaming which analogy is more accurate.
Cornelius, the new two security words feature required for posting is very difficult to read.
ReplyDeleteTedford the idiot
ReplyDeleteComparing water erosion in the Grand Canyon to evolutionary change is a glaring admission by evolutionists that their theory is one of gradualism. Gradualism is contradicted by empirical evidence and the fossil record.
Hey idiot, the erosion example was to highlight the stupidity of your "extrapolate a flat piece of land" analogy. Just like the process of evolution, the process of erosion can be extrapolated backwards and provides a consilient explanation for observed empirical data. And just like evolution, the rate of change of erosion is not fixed but varies greatly depending on environmental conditions.
The erosion process is understood, repeatable, and the unbounded (not infinity), directional change is observable and can be plotted over time T+n...
The evolution process is understood, repeatable, and the unbounded (not infinity), directional change is observable and can be plotted over time T+n.
Change in living species over time is like erosion of the Panama canal. Large battleships have rubbed the concret sides of the canal with enough pressure to cause the cement to bubble from the heat, but the changes to the canal over time and use are bounded... unless intelligent designers decide to change it.
"We didn't see it happen in real time" doesn't mean "it's impossible to happen" you idiot. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Surely, the fossil evidence and observable evidence is screaming which analogy is more accurate.
They are screaming. They're screaming "TEDFORD IS AN IDIOT" so loudly that everyone can hear.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteApparently you have never been in the desert during a thunderstorm. The change is not gradual,huge amounts of debris is carried away in a short period.Then until the next rain, little changes.
But in deference to the 3p principle, I don't think this Canal vs the Colorado is a helpful analogy. There is no qualitative difference between the erosion at the Canal or the Colorado. Man can affect the speed and direction but ultimately as the Corps of Engineers is finding out on the Mississippi ,nature is relentless and given geologic time frames will overpower the works of man. The point of using the Canyon is it demonstrates erosion is a more spectacular way
Is this your point?
velikovskys
DeleteThe point of using the Canyon is it demonstrates erosion is a more spectacular way.
The point of the erosion / Grand Canyon analogy is to demonstrate that it's perfectly acceptable for science to extrapolate an observed process (erosion) to account for a much bigger cumulative effect (1 mile deep canyon). We don't have to see another 1 mile deep canyon carved in real time to know the history and cause of the GC that took millions of years to form.
That's why Tedford's demand to see a whole new phylum evolve in just the few hundred years science has been making observations is so stupid. We can observe the process of evolution at work in real time, and we have ample evidence that it is responsible for a much bigger cumulative effect. We don't have to see a new phylum appear in real time to know the history and cause of changes that took millions of years.
Even though Tedford is an idiot he still gets the point of the analogy. He just can't admit it, because then his whole stupid cartoon version of evolution falls apart. So he blusters and waves his arms and tosses out diversions, hopes no one will notice.
velikovskys said, "I don't think this Canal vs the Colorado is a helpful analogy"
Delete--
I agree, the canal analogy wasn't a good one. Taking the analogies too far takes the focus off of the complexity within living organisms.
Evolutionists seem to have an all or nothing approach to discussing genetic change. Evolutionists have made a huge assumption that little genetic changes can continue to accumulate directionally to account for all living organisms. Water erosion is not evidence for biological evolution. Saying, just because water does such and such is not evidence for biological evolution.
By quantifying the amount of change over time that we observe, we can see if biological change follows a pattern that is unbounded and directional or not. Evolutionists must quantify their observations and accurately interpret what they see and not equate what they think could happen with what they actually observe happening.
It can not be an automatic assumption. Live reproduces with amazing fidelity and error correction (as the video above describes). Are evolutionary mechanisms capable of overcoming that amazing fidelity? What I'm asking evolutionists to do is to quantify unbounded and directional change by observational evidence and not just speculate about it or give their interpretation of events that happened 100 million years ago. Experts are still trying to figure out exactly what happened during the assination of President JFK 50 years ago and they have video tape! Are we to assume that evolutionists have an accurate interpretation of something that happened 100 million years ago?
This is why I believe that plotting the pattern of observed change over time is more helpful than speculating about distinct boundaries vs evolution. It quantifies the observations and brings it back into the realm of the scientific method. It should go without saying within this group of readers to know that even the best scientists in history who were certain about their hypothesis turned out to be just flat out wrong.
Regarding ring species, from what I can see, all of the animals in the ring are still part of the same species, but subspecies. It doesn't look like this is a clear case of speciation. Furthermore, reproduction is probably just a preference (especially with the Warblers). I haven't found any research that tells us this or not.
It is kind of ironic for evolutionists to use a "RING" as an example of evolution since a "ring" is a bounded pattern! LOL
Tedford the idiot
DeleteWater erosion is not evidence for biological evolution. Saying, just because water does such and such is not evidence for biological evolution.
No one ever argued that water erosion is evidence for biological evolution. Damn but you're an idiot.
By quantifying the amount of change over time that we observe, we can see if biological change follows a pattern that is unbounded and directional or not. Evolutionists must quantify their observations and accurately interpret what they see and not equate what they think could happen with what they actually observe happening.
Once again the idiot demands to see millions of years worth of change happening in a few weeks in the lab.
It can not be an automatic assumption.
It's not you idiot. It's based on several hundred years' worth of positive evidence.
Live reproduces with amazing fidelity and error correction (as the video above describes). Are evolutionary mechanisms capable of overcoming that amazing fidelity?
Yes. Evolutionary mechanisms are empirically observed causing genetic changes.
What I'm asking evolutionists to do is to quantify unbounded and directional change by observational evidence and not just speculate about it or give their interpretation of events that happened 100 million years ago.
Why do you limit science to just real time observations? We have over 3 billion years worth of fossil data you need to account for idiot. In science you don't get to ignore huge amounts of data just because you don't like the ramifications.
Are we to assume that evolutionists have an accurate interpretation of something that happened 100 million years ago?
We have an interpretation that explain all the evidence in a clear, consilient manner. You're too much of a coward to even offer an alternative one.
This is why I believe that plotting the pattern of observed change over time is more helpful than speculating about distinct boundaries vs evolution.
Already done you idiot.
Plotted pattern of observed change over time
Ignoring the data won't make the data go away.
Regarding ring species, from what I can see, all of the animals in the ring are still part of the same species, but subspecies. It doesn't look like this is a clear case of speciation. Furthermore, reproduction is probably just a preference (especially with the Warblers). I haven't found any research that tells us this or not.
Yes you have you idiot. You just ignored it, just like you ignore all scientific evidence you can't explain. That's because you're an idiot.
Smith,Geoxus
ReplyDeletethanks a lot for comments. It's getting late here.I'll reply tomorrow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeoxus
ReplyDeleteThere is no font anti aliasing problem. You see conversion and compression artifacts. MS Publisher file was converted from original to jpg than to png and than I decided to enlarge the picture. Publisher is quirky, too; sometimes it refuses to connect line to a box.
Scientists described the ribosome process with words; I just translated words into a map. Now you don’t have to imagine the process, you can see it. That’s all. As a setup it is amazing but functionally it is repetitive and mindless. Template comes in, protein comes out. Again and again. My interpretation is that this could be a nano machine. What is your interpretation?
Yes there is also initiator tRNA which sets up the reading frame.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579309009600
Mea culpa, didn't read it yet.
What really bugs me is in footnote 4 (btw that’s where my article ends). How ribosome’s A site attracts correct tRNA from the mess in front of it? Maybe there is a pre alignment of aminoacyl tRNAs to mRNA template while all is still outside of ribosome.
Scientists described the ribosome process with words; I just translated words into a map.
DeleteThy described them in goal-oriented terms because that's a useful device for describing systems. But useful metaphors are just that (though I don't deny many biologists may not realise they are working with a metaphor, or could have some reasons to disagree with me on this). I could send you a brief text on this if you're interested. I have a Gmail account that matches my Blogger pseudo.
As a setup it is amazing but functionally it is repetitive and mindless
Nature is choke-full of repetitive systems, and you could descrive them all in goal-oriented terms.
My interpretation is that this could be a nano machine. What is your interpretation?
I think I could call it a nano machine as well, depending on the definition of "machine". I'm not sure what kind of interpretation you're asking for.
What really bugs me is in footnote 4 (btw that’s where my article ends).
Actually, I thought the first half was the good part.
How ribosome’s A site attracts correct tRNA from the mess in front of it? Maybe there is a pre alignment of aminoacyl tRNAs to mRNA template while all is still outside of ribosome.
It is my understanding that the ribosome doesn't "attract the correct tRNA", but that many different tRNA molecules are "tried out", until you get the porper codon-anticodon match. You can see that in your own diagram.
PS: MS Publisher is evil.
I understand that we need more than just erosion and weathering to explain the Grand Canyon. Geologists aren't clear exactly how the Colorado River got over the Kaibab Plateau. There are different theories about backcutting, orogeny, etc, But it isn't so simple.
ReplyDeletenatschuster the troll
DeleteI understand that we need more than just erosion and weathering to explain the Grand Canyon.
Which doesn't change one iota the point of the analogy. But it is pretty funny to see the board's lying troll try to stick up for the board's idiot.
It does indicate that there may be a limit to how far a simple process like erosion can go by itself. Eventually, you stop going downhill. So, by analogy, maybe evolution can only go so far.
ReplyDeleteTroy, Theobald's article.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't get off to a good start by saying that Darwin was the first to propose universal common descent. Which he wasn't. This muddled inaccuracy is pretty representative of the rest of the article. It makes we want to go and read an algebra book to get back to clear thinking again.
That genetic sequences don't match the tree of life based on morphology is totally missed by Theobald.
Mainly though, the hypothesis he is testing against is not common design. He compared UCA against the notion that sequence similarity (convergence, etc) might orginate by chance as opposed to universal common descent. Does he have the name of the one person in the history of the world that actually held to such a notion?
Thanks for your comment, Geoxus
ReplyDeleteI think if we rely on random tRNA entry and then on error correction to reject misfit, ribosome would be very slow. That is why I think, just from the process analysis standpoint; there should be some queuing or sorting of tRNA.
Videos are great help but they always show tRNAs floating randomly like butterflies and then are suddenly attracted to A site. Instead, there could possibly be a loose little line up on the entry side.
Just thinking loud, I didn’t read much on this issue.
I'm quite sure I'm right, unless I've been missing something really big (Nobel prize big). Forget about process optimisation and ribosomes as little robots. This is chemistry, you need to think in terms of reaction kinetics.
DeleteYou can have fun doing your own calculations with this:
http://www.chem.ucsc.edu/~wgscott/courses/chem200c_save/final_presentations/Wintermeyer.pdf
Here's a snippet:
The initial step in the interaction of EF-Tu¢GTP¢aa-tRNA with the ribosome is rapid, to form a kinetically labile initial complex (21, 22). At about 10^8 M^(-1)s^(-1)(20 °C), the value for k1 is unusually high, compared to typical second-order rate constants of 10^5–10^7 M^(-1)s^(-1) found for formation of other macromolecular complexes.
(My emphasis.)
----------
Videos are great help but they always show tRNAs floating randomly like butterflies and then are suddenly attracted to A site. Instead, there could possibly be a loose little line up on the entry side.
The problem is that videos are greatly simplified and slowed down. Chemistry is not easy to visualise.
The CAPTCHA is becoming increasingly challenging. I'm starting to think I might be a robot.
Delete"Hybridization in the south of the ring between the unblotched E. e. eschscholtzii and the blotched E. e. klauberi is RARE or,
ReplyDeleteat ONE site, nonexistent, SUGGESTING complete species formation "(Wake et al. 1986, 1989).
--
So hybridization between the non mating Ensatina is rare, but possible. Apparently at one site it hasn't been observed, but at others it has. They think that at this one site the data suggests a species formation.
--
Once again the ball starts rolling but stops short of showing any empirical observation of any substantial directional change. It certainly falls way short of showing a unbounded change. Certainly if biologists had solid evidence for a speciation formation we would see something more than a subspecies naming convention going on within the ring species.
--
I'm not even claiming that it is always at the species level that change is bounded... but it would sure be helpful to at least see a clear cut and solid example of a genuine speciation event that is beyond speculation.
What I'm claiming is that when the data is plotted out over time t+n... there is not an observation of unbounded and directional change. Some animals have very short generations and lifecycles so making excuses that there isn't enough time to observe the change is an excuse. The changes that we do see happening occur quite rapidly... bird beaks, peppered moths, etc. None of them demonstrate evolution, only bounded change that diverges and merges with no net directional gain over time. Again, what "could happen" is not evidence, and using water erosion to justify what "could happen" is not evidence for biological evolution either.
Neal Tedford:
DeleteYou may be interested in knowing that your motion of variation around a mean was used by Fleeming Jenkin, a contemporary of Darwin, and an engineer. He caused Darwin to lose a lot of sleep. There's a website someplace where you can find his article.
Here's a link.
PaV Lino
DeleteYou may be interested in knowing that your motion of variation around a mean was used by Fleeming Jenkin, a contemporary of Darwin, and an engineer. He caused Darwin to lose a lot of sleep. There's a website someplace where you can find his article.
LOL! Good one PaV. Post to an article written 145 years ago, in 1867. That sure has relevance to the modern ToE and all the additional information about the process we know today.
Here's a few other good ones from that era:
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction".
-- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." -
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895
I always knew Creationists were in the last century. I didn't realize some of you fools are two centuries behind.
"LOL! Good one PaV. Post to an article written 145 years ago, in 1867. That sure has relevance to the modern ToE and all the additional information about the process we know today.
Delete"
How is this any different from someone referencing Darwin's text?
Smith
Delete"LOL! Good one PaV. Post to an article written 145 years ago, in 1867. That sure has relevance to the modern ToE and all the additional information about the process we know today."
How is this any different from someone referencing Darwin's text?
Try reading the bolded sentence again, more slowly this time. Follow with your finger if it helps.
And...?
DeleteJenkin's argument was actually a big problem back then. Darwin had some clues, but the solution came from an Austrian monastery...
DeleteAh.
DeleteIt did seem silly for him to discount a text because of its age while at the same time referencing other information generated in the same era that has undergone revision.
Was Lino just making a historical observation?
DeleteThat would be up to Lino.
DeleteOf course
DeleteGeoxus,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link, I'll check it later.
I'm not disputing it's all chemistry. Maybe I'm seeing too much or maybe you are seeing too little. Time will tell.
Substrate is a playground for information.
Believe it or not, I came up with this one. Not too shabby, eh?
10 dollars on geoxus for the win,10 on Eugen to place
Deletevelikovskys
Delete10 dollars on geoxus for the win,10 on Eugen to place
But just wait until the clowns at the Discovery Institue spin it:
"IDer finishes second, Evolutionist finishes next to last!"
:)
LOL
ReplyDeleteVelikovsky you gambler!
The inner life of a cell – Harvard University – video
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
Programming of Life – Eukaryotic Cell – video
http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/6/WVCwDOMCpXY
Ben Stein – EXPELLED – The Staggering Complexity Of The Cell – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4227700
Journey Inside The Cell – Stephen Meyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg
Through the Virtual Cell – video
http://www.youtube.com/user/ndsuvirtualcell#p/u/4/YM2X1c4K1x0
The Central Dogma (English version) – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ygpqVr7_xs
Molecular Biology Animations – Demo Reel
http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/
DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis
http://vimeo.com/33882804
Here is a neat little video clip that I wish was a bit longer (they say a longer one is in the works):
The Flow – Resonance Film – video
Description: The Flow, from inside a cell, looks at the supervening layers of reality that we can observe, from quarks to nucleons to atoms and beyond. The deeper we go into the foundations of reality the more it loses its form, eventually becoming a pure mathematical conception.
http://vimeo.com/groups/7286/videos/25430131
Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video
ReplyDeletehttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630
The ATP Synthase Enzyme - exquisite motor necessary for first life - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4
Powering the Cell: Mitochondria - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrS2uROUjK4
Molecular Machine - Nuclear Pore Complex - Stephen C. Meyer - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4261990
Kinesin Linear Motor - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeJwQ0OXc4
Ribosome Translation High Quality - video
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/multimedia/85/ribosome/translation_bacterial.html
Myosin - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8F5GGPACkQ
The Virus - Assembly Of A Molecular "Lunar Landing" Machine - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4023122
The following article has a list of 40 (yes, 40) irreducibly complex molecular machines in the cell:
Molecular Machines in the Cell -
http://www.discovery.org/a/14791