Behe and whatever he has pointed out, along with Tour, your other hero, has been well and truly debunked, and shown in Tour's case anyway, to be nothing more then a crusade against science, in favour of his literal interpretation of an obscure book, written by obscure men, in an obscure age. Why even our other religious fanatics on this forum don't actually take the bible so literally.
Worthless innuendo. Tackle the details of my post - i.e. show how 'inevitably' gradual and aimless random genetic alterations can go from naught to a fully working flagellum - or shut up. And I'm betting your missus takes the bible very literally. In keeping with the Christianized pacific islander tradition.
What you completely seem to miss is the presence of a cytoskeleton before any of the more complex working flagella. You may want to familiarize yourself with "microtubules". The evolution of the cytoskeleton https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201102065 Standard View PDF LinkPDF https://rupress.org/jcb/article/194/4/513/54654/The-evolution-of-the-cytoskeletonThe-evolution-of IMO, there can be no lesser complexity than the self-organizing microtubules which consists of a dimer of two bio-chemical tubulin. OTOH, MT offer an astounding range of complexity in function, long before any more complex organelles are formed and functionally supported by microtubules. For more information, see : Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules? Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Sep 7, 2018. And we have come full circle.........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah yes your #1 obsession. So having implied microtubules will come to the rescue - actually detail just how microtubules can give rise to flagella - from scratch, via totally unguided evolution.
They self-assemble! No ID is required! Read on and learn! p.s. your obsession with Tour and Behe is unhealthy.... borders on religious fanaticism....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is false. Darwinian theory is not at all "aimless", and nothing in my posts claims that it is. The assumption that they would be "unfit for any useful purpose" is not common sense. Your assumption that the structures of intermediary steps are "useless" is utterly ignorant (and begs all questions). In Darwinian theory they would almost certainly (high probability) have been selected for - which implies great usefulness and benefits large enough to outweigh their costs. (There is also the possibility - which has been observed - that the genetics were dormant and passed on for a while by chance, simply because they cost little and so were difficult to select against). Your responses reveal - once again - that you have essentially no idea how Darwinian evolution works in theory or in practice. In this respect you are typical of your fellow travelers - the phenomenon of someone understanding Darwinian theory and rejecting it is very, very rare.
I don't have to show anything. I have given plenty of links debunking this fanatical bible basher as well as yourself. Plus of course Abiogenesis still stands as the only scientific answer to how life arose. Yeah but my Mrs aint on a white charger preaching nonsense and claims against science, as you and your heroes are. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your link is useless. Again, actually try to detail how flagellum can arise via blind genetic changes. Each primitive step somehow imbuing an additive 'advantage' to the bacterium. I say it's pure fantasy. One needs everything to come together at once for survival functionality i.e. a working flagellum.
Really? And where is this notion worked out with some rigor in the literature? Selection from random genetic changes that inexorably give rise to a working flagellum, starting with nothing but a 'bare' bacterium. Point to where some rudimentary initial change, on the long unguided path to a working flagellum, can be shown to confer any advantage.
The link I provided is useless? Based on what knowledge do you make this assertion? If you do not read you will never learn the details how flagella evolved and any assertions trying to debunk any evolutionary processes without knowing that flagella did in fact evolve and provided a survival advantage to archaea and later Eukaryota is worthless drivel on your part. Archaeal origin of tubulin Abstract Findings https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-10 Read some 90 pages on the subject of MT evolution and function in the thread on microtubules. And what's you got...huh? And you are claiming knowledge? Yea... knowledge like "gnosticism".....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What is Religious Knowledge? https://www.lifepersona.com/what-is-religious-knowledge# And which has now been acknowledged as supporting Evolutionary processes by the Papal Academy of Sciences. But of course that's science and does not count as "knowledge"......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.....and round'n round we go.
The link in question was originally in the email notification version and led just to your home page. Rather stupid. You since must have realized that and deleted it as edit. Refresh your memory of how complex and specialized is the flagellum (Don't fret, just 3 minutes long.): Now, you claim to understand how it all could happen bit-by-bit. So explain it here. Explain how self-assembling MTs figured out how to get all that complexity to come together finally, but bit by blind evolutionary bit. No teleology allowed! But you will have to resort to teleology, and that will be hilarious to see unfold.
If I deleted it I must have found the error, no. In bookkeeping a corrected error is no longer an error. Oh yes, that refreshed my memory alright. I believe I covered this some years ago when I started reading the Kitzmiller trial, where Behe made that claim and was corrected by a cadre of authoritative scientists. I need not explain anything to you. I have an entire thread devoted to the evolution and function of microtubules and just one of their several evolutionary adaptations to motility. (90 pages). Don't tell me that my posts lack evidentiary support. But the fact is you refuse to learn, as religious people are wont to do, in favor of a vague understanding of the metaphorical nature of scripture as told by holy rollers. btw. bacteria like the Paramecium have a variation of the flagella , but are short and numerous . They're called cilia and in addition to the more powerful flagella are just one of the many functions MT perform, including muscle contraction in animals. , Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cilia and flagella are cell organelles that are structurally similar but are differentiated based on their function and/or length. Cilia are short and there are usually many (hundreds) cilia per cell. On the other hand, flagella are longer and there are fewer flagella per cell (usually one to eight). Though eukaryotic flagella and motile cilia are structurally identical, the beating pattern of the two organelles can be different. The motion of flagella is often undulating and wave-like, whereas the motile cilia often perform a more complicated 3D motion with a power and recovery stroke. Cilia and Flagella https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/ciliaandflagella/ciliaandflagella.html#: The variety of locomotive organelles speaks of evolutionary processes, each type adapted for their specific environment and efficient survival strategy. THE TRIAL OF KITZMILLER V. DOVER .......... Note; If a hypothesis is not testable, it cannot be used as proof of anything. Behe's hypothesis is not testable hence it is not admissible. It is just an incorrect interpretation of the evolutionary facts, which have been tested and verified by fossil remains and more recently by E https://www.aclu.org/other/trial-kitzmiller-v-dover And all these scientists did come up with testable proofs and therefore had scientific standing, whereas Behe and cohorts did not. They had just speculation, clever to be sure, but wrong nevertheless. Therefore if Behe has no scientific standing, how can you claim any scientific knowledge at all? You have belief...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Large or small, there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity" that's religious creationism.
Antenna (biology) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Large antennae on a longhorn beetle Antennae (singular: antenna), sometimes referred to as "feelers", are paired appendages used for sensing in arthropods. Structure[edit] Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Electron micrograph of antenna surface detail of a wasp (Vespula vulgaris) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(biology)#
I covered this in earlier posts. Kenneth Miller's 'refutation' consisted in pointing to the similarities between some components of a flagellum and type III secretory system, and then merely asserting the former appeared by sequestering the latter on it's way to evolving into a working flagellum. No details. No step-by-step processes worked out. No explanation of how the type III secretory apparatus itself came about (and as posted earlier, it's now known the flagellum came first). Enough of a half-baked argument though to satisfy those who want to believe such a fantasy was possible. Scientific naturalism by definition cannot allow an IDer so it's no surprise all those scientists opposed ID. To not do so amounts to career suicide.
And therefore Behe and Troup are proven correct and the rest of science is proved wrong. Do you see how far you are straying from any kind of scientific method, in favor of a nice "feel good" fantasy. And for Behe and Troup to not do as they do would amount to financial suicide......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Throughout it - beginning with "On The Origin Of Species" by Charles Darwin. "Inexorably"? "Random genetic changes"? A "bare" bacterium? Ok: a rudimentary molecular arrangement that creates or abets a pore in the cell membrane or wall or both of a bacterium. Bacteria benefit by having pores, only a small and simplified fraction of the modern flag's structural molecules is needed for a pore. * Done. The third or fourth such demand from you I've met - none acknowledged so far. So you have plenty to deal with before changing the subject again. *(You have made an impossibility claim - it is refuted by any reference to possibility, no establishment of existence is necessary. As the actual path followed is unknown (as far as I know), any Just So story will do - that suits my sloth: how about the observation that bacteria gain advantages by having various kinds of pores or openings in their walls through which substances can be imported and exported, and even rudimentary versions of the flagellum's wall structure - without the flagellum itself, without the "motor" setup, without the sophistication of control and precision of arrangement, etc etc - will do that. So I'll just point to them.) Also, since the current structure is apparently singular - the tens of thousands of flagellated species of bacteria share this one basic setup, its evolution something that may have happened exactly once - we are permitted fairly large probability jumps: something that has to happen only once in a half a billion years, somewhere on the surface of an entire planet, among trillions of relevant situations (trillions? gross underestimate), can be quite unlikely as an individual event and yet reasonably postulated as a step on an evolutionary path. It's different from the situation we face with eyes, where the dozens of radically different setups imply dozens of discrete evolutionary origins, knocking on to generally high probability of the category of event and most of its means.
The whole problem with your rudimentary pore claim is that even that much is dubious. Recall that the sole plausible evolutionist blind chance way a cell wall can initially come about is via an accidental enveloping of a rudimentary self-replicating assemblage by a lipid bilayer. A miraculous event in itself, it would leave the cell wall i.e. lipid bilayer genetically isolated from the enclosed reproduction part. The newly acquired cell wall is a foreign invasion and unable to respond to a hoped for cell division process. But unless that division happens, the miraculous cell dies a lonely death. That dilemma and many others are ignored totally or at best hand-waved away by the unguided abiogenesis 'experts' and enthusiasts alike.
As a previous exchemist said...... Adding of course even less reason to treat yourself with any such authority on Abiogenesis, particularly when so many links and references, have rebuked his bible bashing oriented opinions/claims. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman:
What possessed me? An Intelligent Designer is so much more credible than an "unguided" abiogenesis event ! Instead of handwaving away the dilemma, let us enthusiastically embrace the guiding comfort and security of a motivated supernatural being who can conjure irreducibly complex miracles for his own (and of course human) pleasure. Chemical evolution consists of Oxidation reduction, Hydration/Dehydration reaction, Acid base reaction, Polymerization/Depolymerization reaction. Add the Table of Elements and the Electromagnetic spectrum and the Universe becomes the greatest laboratory imaginable. No Intelligent Designer is necessary and does unneccesarily complicate demonstrable fundamental Natural Evolutionary processes. Stop making it so complicated, there is no irreducible complexity. You cannot prove it, ever...., so do not try to replace real science with it. Of course you can pray for it, for eternity as far as that is concerned. I wouldn't hold my breath though.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
