Best argument agenst Evolution?

It could have evolved from the type III secretory system (TTSS) which has many (but not all) of the "parts" of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum. This means that a mechanism that has function is simply a reduced version of the flagellum, giving us clues to the evolution of the flagellum and at the same time, refutes that the flagellum is actually irriducibly complex.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html

"The Type -III Secretory Apparatus

In the popular imagination, bacteria are "germs" – tiny microscopic bugs that make us sick. Microbiologists smile at that generalization, knowing that most bacteria are perfectly benign, and many are beneficial – even essential – to human life. Nonetheless, there are indeed bacteria that produce diseases, ranging from the mildly unpleasant to the truly dangerous. Pathogenic, or disease-causing, bacteria threaten the organisms they infect in a variety of ways, one of which is to produce poisons and inject them directly into the cells of the body. Once inside, these toxins break down and destroy the host cells, producing illness, tissue damage, and sometimes even death.

In order to carry out this diabolical work, bacteria must not only produce the protein toxins that bring about the demise of their hosts, but they must efficiently inject them across the cell membranes and into the cells of their hosts. They do this by means of any number of specialized protein secretory systems. One, known as the type III secretory system (TTSS), allows gram negative bacteria to translocate proteins directly into the cytoplasm of a host cell (Heuck 1998). The proteins transferred through the TTSS include a variety of truly dangerous molecules, some of which are known as "virulence factors," and are directly responsible for the pathogenic activity of some of the most deadly bacteria in existence (Büttner and Bonas 2002; Heuck 1998).

At first glance, the existence of the TTSS, a nasty little device that allows bacteria to inject these toxins through the cell membranes of its unsuspecting hosts, would seem to have little to do with the flagellum. However, molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed a surprising fact – the proteins of the TTSS are directly homologous to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. As figure 2 (Heuck 1998) shows, these homologies extend to a cluster of closely-associated proteins found in both of these molecular "machines." On the basis of these homologies, McNab (McNab 1999) has argued that the flagellum itself should be regarded as a type III secretory system. Extending such studies with a detailed comparison of the proteins associated with both systems, Aizawa has seconded this suggestion, noting that the two systems "consist of homologous component proteins with common physico-chemical properties" (Aizawa 2001, 163). It is now clear, therefore, that a smaller subset of the full complement of proteins in the flagellum makes up the functional transmembrane portion of the TTSS.

Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.

The existence of the TTSS in a wide variety of bacteria demonstrates that a small portion of the "irreducibly complex" flagellum can indeed carry out an important biological function. Since such a function is clearly favored by natural selection, the contention that the flagellum must be fully-assembled before any of its component parts can be useful is obviously incorrect. What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed. "

Here ya go notto...your article has already been addressed:

http://www.designinference.com/docum...r_Response.htm

Sum of evolutionary rationale --Dembski

In accordance, if you want to argue that there is an indirect pathway, show the path!

"In accordance, if you want to argue that there is an indirect pathway, show the path!"

In accodance, if you want to argue that there is an intelligent designer, SHOW THE DESIGNER!

So what? Evolution not proving something does not automatically make an alternate theory true.

This is why I wanted to know how someone call tell empirically whether or not something is irreducibly complex. How can you tell, within the bounds of ID, that something is designed?

Quite frankly, if all ID rests on is the inability of evolution to explain certain things right now, then ID is on far shakier ground than I thought.

Precisely. And this is exactly what ID has failed to do thus far.

At least evolution has a mechanism. Whether or not that mechanism is adequate to explain the current diversity of life is exactly what ID is about. But ID has yet to show a mechanism of their own.

Nice job of shifting the burden of proof guys, but this isn't the "best argument against creationism" thread, it's the "best argument agenst Evolution" thread. If you think "agenst" is spelled incorrectly, you are right, but it is to properly address the name of our thread.

So, I don't think you can hide under the umbrella of since you can't show us a designer, evolution is true. At best, you can say neither is true, but the argument above leaves you no wiggle room...you have to abandon evolution.

Ironically enough, the "best argument against creationism" thread has turned towards arguments against evolution.

Bad ones, of course.

Just to be fair, since you guys want to "go there" -- there being the aforementioned: ...go ahead and check out this article. I know you guys love Miller, so maybe you won't mind seeing his argument on the same topic thoroughly refuted

That's funny Martin...I always like how we sometimes spend all of our time talking about things other than what the thread was initially started as.