This is it. This made the evening worth while. Pandas Thumb shall love this Q&A, which is good because Im going to need their help to link to posts on the evolution of the bacterial flagellum :) Alas, it was hard to hear the questioners anyway, as their mics werent very loud, and there was much hooting/applause/heckling in this Q&A, so I missed some words in Dr. Klebbas great comments. Sorry for the (??), and maybe some of you can fill the gaps for us :) But dont worry-- Dembskis mic was turned all the way up!
Dembski-- YOUVE GOT ONE QUESTION AND A FOLLOW UP!
Masked Man-- First Id like to say I appreciate this discussion, and Im glad you came and spoke to us...
Dembski-- DID YOU SIGN THIS?? Were you one of the 180 that signed here??? *holds up paper, maybe a campus petition against ID, maybe a Chinese take-out menu*
MM-- *totally confused as to why Dembski is waving paper at him* No... I did not...
Dembski-- *silent* Okay.
MM-- I enjoyed this discussion. Now my question to you-- "If I explain to you the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, will you repudiate this theory of Intelligent Design?"
Dembski, in a voice like a little asshole-- Why dont you go... write it up.. (blithers for a minute or two) Im not going to go through the time here...
MM-- It will only take a minute.
(audience: "LET HIM DO IT!!! DO IT!! DO IT!! RIGHT NOW!")
(Ian "Whats this guys name?" Me "Im sure Logan asked." Logan didnt ask. But he made up for it with his Q later :P )
Dembski-- *flips through his slides to a pic of the flagellum* THIS'L WORK FOR YOU?
MM-- The problem is, that human intelligence has a limited ability to understand complexity, and it must go through the steps. The evolution of this system, bacterial flagellum, came in four different steps. (explains three steps, including one not visible on Dembskis slide, but I can barely make him out-- Ill post some links to the evolution of the bacterial flagellum here)
Dembski-- And you have a way of taking ATP synthase and turning it into the bacterial flagellum motor?
Dembski-- And you have every change that would be required to do that.
MM-- There is one fourth stage, which is the evolution of (?????). This is research that has just come to our understanding in the past year or two. Another rotatory motor that (???). You see these four components together, and the step-wise progression of an organelle which can recruit from the cell, and rotate through proton motor force. And thats exactly what happened with the bacterial flagellum.
Dembski-- Well Im sorry, but that is exact? You KNOW this? I mean this is is is is your your your your absolutely your your...
MM-- The steps are clear.
Dembski-- The steps ARE clear. Can you show me what genetic changes would have had to happen, how probable they were... If you have broken it down into four steps, why not two more?
(audience murmurs with disapproval)
Dembski literally breaks down into nonsense at this point-- I mean this is this is this has to happen at a genetic yur neodarwinism level yur yur systems that are out homologues protein folding... (for a while. it was strange.)
Young gentleman at the other mic interrupts his meltdown, so calmly it was hysterical-- How many steps would be sufficient to prove that?
Dembski, back on planet Earth-- Im sorry?
Young gentleman-- How many steps... (cant hear the rest, audience clapping and hooting too loudly)
Dembski-- I mean I want it detailed...
(audience breaks into chaos and laughter because Dembski wont answer)
MM brings calm to the audience like only an experienced teacher can-- ... What is the function of each of the individual adaptations. The first one is the adherence to surfaces. The second one is the ability to secrete (proteins?/protons?). The third one is the ability to rotate. The fourth is essentially the combination of all of those into a motility device. So these are...
Dembski-- Its its a great just so story!
(audience goes into chaos again)
Dembski-- YOU GOT THE PILLI! Now show me show me how you get from that to the next step! Youve got another one there-- another system along the way! Step by step, do the genetic changes, and make it work! You dont haaaaaaaaaaaaaaave that!
MM-- Yes we do. One thing you dont show here is...
Dembski-- BASICALLY what youve done is youve taken, youve added two more steps! And by the way, those steps, you arent getting them, they arent embedded in the flagellum at this point!
MM-- Oh yes they are...
(audience totally tweaks out)
MM-- The proteins that make the bacteria flagellum are so closely related genetically, to those that make up the secretory complex and bacterial pilli-- the genetic sequences are virtually identical. So they are just components of different systems that have been adapted for an alternate function.
Dembski-- *dead silent*
MM-- Youre obviously a very intelligent man. You have multiple degrees from many different fields. But if youre gonna lecture on this particular subject, then I suggest you take an advanced degree in biochemistry.
(audience goes wild again)
Dembski, oozing condescension-- (something about soooooooo intelligent) biologists can confidently say Im not a biologist. Im not a biologist. Write this up. Ill run it by my people...
(audience laughs sommore)
Dembski-- But it sounds like to me a just so story. You put in two more points. You havent told me what happens genetically. This system of the pilli, okay, how close it it? How many changes are required to turn it into this? I DONT KNOW! He hasnt quantified anything!
MM-- This is a just so story just as all biological systems are. They are perfectly adapted to the functions they perform. Thats why theyre just so stories.
Dembski-- Theres a history there. If it happened the way you say it happened, there is a series of genetic changes thats quantifiable, you havent given me ANYTHING! And I dont think its unreasonable! (goes ON AND ON-- intermediates, quantifiable, steps, intermediates, show, steps, happened, functions, genetic, intermediates) When you go from this to this, how many changes? How many functional changes? How many structural changes? I think we need to stop this. I mean write this up. You could be a POSTER CHILD for RICHARD DAWKINS for bringing down ID!
MM-- I have no desire to do that. In fact, Ive answered my own questions, so Id just like to thank you for coming. I enjoyed hearing your talk. Ive had my question answered.
Dembski-- *tries to get the last word, audience is clapping too loud for it to matter*
- Ian coined the term 'Who was that Masked Man!', and I insisted on keeping it, as there is a retarded heading in 'Edge of Evolution' that is 'WHO WAS THAT MASKED MAN?' so I thought it would be funny. But no one read 'Edge of Evolution' to get the joke. Oh well :P
- I hope the Pandas Thumb crew stops by to give us some good links to learn about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, hint hint :)
- What was the deal with "DID YOU SIGN THIS???" Was Dembski going to use that as an excuse not to answer Dr. Klebbas Q?
- Dembskis meltdowns into gibberish were disturbing in person, and disturbing again when I re-listened to it. I wonder if he always does that? Was he just shocked? Was he on acid? It went in phases-- freak out-->recoup to be an asshole-->freak out--> asshole....... Weird.
- Dembski totally ran for cover in safe, warm, YEC territory-- "You made two more steps!
- JUST SO STORY!
- Dont be stupid, Dembski. You know who the poster child is going to be for bringing down ID, and its not Dr. Klebba.
- Everyone get this straight-- IDCs dont have to attain our 'pathetic level of detail':
Dembski-- As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”
but we have to provide mutation by mutation, protein fold by protein fold, accounts to 'disprove' them. But they havent done anything. Lazy little bastards.
So in summary-- "If I explain to you the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, will you repudiate this theory of Intelligent Design?" Answer? "No." And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Creationists are not scientists, and why Creationism will never be science.