The myth of the "Nested Hierarchy of Common Descent"

[Oncedeceived]

The burden of proof lies with you to show how the bacterial flagellum arose through intelligent design.

That is not what I said Loudmouth. We were talking about the Bacterial Flagellum arising from the type III. That is the claim and I asked for substantiation for that claim.

 

[[serious]]

Here's another example from the paper:

"Other cases have been documented within the insects. Sexlethal (Sxl) is a ‘master regulatory gene’ that controls sex determination in Drosophila melanogaster through a well characterized pathway of alternative splicing. This pathway appears to be present in at least two other Drosophila species, based on alternate splicing of transcripts. In several other dipterans — including Ceratitis capitata and Musca domestica — however, Sxl is almost certainly not involved in sex determination: although the gene is present, it is not alternatively spliced and is not expressed at the correct time....

...Once again, we can summarize these examples with a quotation from de Beer, “homologous structures need not be controlled by homologous genes”."

http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/abouheif/articles/Wray, Abouheif 1998.pdf

That one is actually far easier. Sex determination is something that has evolved multiple times across different lineages. But it's also important to distinguish between triggering genes, such as the presence of a male determining factor on the human Y chromosome and the Sxl gene on the X of fruit flies, and the mechanism of actually making a male or female. For example, the Sxl is a dose dependant signal that, if there is enough of it, triggers the female phenotype. Let's look closer at the gene:

http://www.sdbonline.org/sites/fly/gene/sexlthl1.htm

You see once again we have interplay between several genes. Sxl is primarily a regulator of other gene's expression, which would make sense since sex determination existed in insects far before fruit fly's Sxl system of triggering it. Switching from Sxl to some other mechanism of triggering sex determination isn't really any different than establishing Sxl sex determination in the first place.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's another example from the paper:

"Other cases have been documented within the insects. Sexlethal (Sxl) is a ‘master regulatory gene’ that controls sex determination in Drosophila melanogaster through a well characterized pathway of alternative splicing. This pathway appears to be present in at least two other Drosophila species, based on alternate splicing of transcripts. In several other dipterans — including Ceratitis capitata and Musca domestica — however, Sxl is almost certainly not involved in sex determination: although the gene is present, it is not alternatively spliced and is not expressed at the correct time....

...Once again, we can summarize these examples with a quotation from de Beer, “homologous structures need not be controlled by homologous genes”."

http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/abouheif/articles/Wray, Abouheif 1998.pdf

Would you consider the femur in the chimp to be homologous to the femur in humans? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not what I said Loudmouth. We were talking about the Bacterial Flagellum arising from the type III. That is the claim and I asked for substantiation for that claim.

Where is the ID research showing that it came about through intelligent design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where is the ID research showing that it came about through intelligent design?

Where is the research showing it arose from the type III?

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is the research showing it arose from the type III?

I don't know of any. We may not know how the bacterial flagellum came about.

Now, where is the research showing that the bacterial flagellum came about through intelligent design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know of any. We may not know how the bacterial flagellum came about.

Now, where is the research showing that the bacterial flagellum came about through intelligent design?

It wasn't your claim.

 

[[serious]]

What isn't supported by his sources?


Provide substantiation on the bacterial flagellum arising from a type III secretory structure rather than the other way around.

My apologies, I should have said "evolved form secretory structures which also developed into type 3 secretory structures."

 

[Loudmouth]

It wasn't your claim.

Where is the ID research demonstrating how the bacterial flagellum arose through intelligent design?

Are you saying that the "icon" of intelligent design has zero research behind it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

My apologies, I should have said "evolved form secretory structures which also developed into type 3 secretory structures."

Ok, so you are saying that both the Bacterial Flagellum and Type III arose from some previous secretory structures? Do you have evidence you could provide for that scenario?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where is the ID research demonstrating how the bacterial flagellum arose through intelligent design?

Are you saying that the "icon" of intelligent design has zero research behind it?

I am saying that I am not discussing that at the moment.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, so you are saying that both the Bacterial Flagellum and Type III arose from some previous secretory structures? Do you have evidence you could provide for that scenario?

Do you have any evidence showing that the bac flag arose through intelligent design? Or do you not require the same of your beliefs that you require of science?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am saying that I am not discussing that at the moment.

Your silence says it all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you have any evidence showing that the bac flag arose through intelligent design? Or do you not require the same of your beliefs that you require of science?

My point is that I would like evidence showing what Serious claimed. Claims need to be supported. Do you see me claiming in this thread that ID was how the BF arose? It doesn't matter that is what my position is if I am not making a claim in this discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your silence says it all.

It says that I would like Serious to provide support to her claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is that I would like evidence showing what Serious claimed.

My point is that I would like evidence for the intelligent design of the bac flag. Are you saying there is none?

 

[Loudmouth]

It says that I would like Serious to provide support to her claim.

You don't require evidence for your belief that the bac flag arose through intelligent design?

 

[[serious]]

Where is the research showing it arose from the type III?

You are getting off track. The reference was made as an example of homologous structures gaining novel function.

If you are simply curious outside the bounds of this conversation, Wikipedia has a decent writeup on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

If you are looking to revisit Behe's discredited irreducible complexity arguments,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Either way, I'd rather focus on the homologous structures lifepsyop brought up.

 

[lifepsyop]

That one is actually far easier. Sex determination is something that has evolved multiple times across different lineages. But it's also important to distinguish between triggering genes, such as the presence of a male determining factor on the human Y chromosome and the Sxl gene on the X of fruit flies, and the mechanism of actually making a male or female. For example, the Sxl is a dose dependant signal that, if there is enough of it, triggers the female phenotype. Let's look closer at the gene:

http://www.sdbonline.org/sites/fly/gene/sexlthl1.htm

You see once again we have interplay between several genes. Sxl is primarily a regulator of other gene's expression, which would make sense since sex determination existed in insects far before fruit fly's Sxl system of triggering it. Switching from Sxl to some other mechanism of triggering sex determination isn't really any different than establishing Sxl sex determination in the first place.

So originally you said:
"The underlying genetics will differ with analogous structures, but be shared with homologous structures."

Are you amending this statement to include the possibility that the developmental pathways of homologous structures can be controlled by entirely different genes? (Also that the development of analogous structures can be controlled by homologous genes.) This seems to be a significant departure from your original claim.

More importantly, I would like to know why you appear to accept that certain genes involved in the development of homologous morphology can be changed, yet other genes involved in development can not be changed, (if that is what you're implying) If the gene doing the signaling can be swapped at some stage of "evolution", why exactly can't other genes encoding for specific morphological organization?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are getting off track. The reference was made as an example of homologous structures gaining novel function.

If you are simply curious outside the bounds of this conversation, Wikipedia has a decent writeup on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

If you are looking to revisit Behe's discredited irreducible complexity arguments,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

Either way, I'd rather focus on the homologous structures lifepsyop brought up.

Ok, we will let this go. I've read your links prior to today.