I don't believe Dembski got the memo

[Oncedeceived]

I know I have more posts to make but I'm too tired tonight to get into those long posts. Sleepy.

 

[FishFace]

There's another problem here. The whole point of bringing up the TTSS was to posit it as an evolutionary precursor to the bacterial flagellum. The best current molecular evidence, however, points to the TTSS as evolving from the flagellum and not vice versa (Nguyen et al. 2000). This can also be seen intuitively. The bacterial flagellum is a motility structure for propelling a bacterium through its watery environment. Water has been around since the origin of life. But the TTSS, as Mike Gene (see citation at end) notes, is restricted "to animal and plant pathogens." Accordingly, the TTSS could only have been around since the rise of metazoans. Gene continues: "In fact, the function of the system depends on intimate contact with these multicellular organisms. This all indicates this system arose after plants and animals appeared. In fact, the type III genes of plant pathogens are more similar to their own flagellar genes than the type III genes of animal pathogens. This has led some to propose that the type III system arose in plant pathogens and then spread to animal pathogens by horizontal transfer.... When we look at the type III system its genes are commonly clustered and found on large virulence plasmids. When they are in the chromosome, their GC content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. In other words, there is good reason to invoke horizontal transfer to explain type III distribution. In contrast, flagellar genes are usually split into three or more operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome. There is no evidence that the flagellum has been spread about by horizontal transfer."
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/archives/dembski_flagellspin.htm

We've already said that the TTSS was probably not the precursor to the flagellum. But that does not mean that a secretory system was not the precursor to both structures. I gave you the example of something which secreted proteins which could digest insoluble mineral deposits in the surrounding environment. This would enable a bacterium to more efficiently gain nutrition. Think about a black-smoker environment - before the hypothetical secretory system, vesicles would have deposited proteins into the extracellular environment. The video posted previously shows the pathway by which a specific pore in the cell's membrane could form. This would make this process more efficient.
The video labels the secretory system as the type three, which we can say is probably not true for the moment. But that doesn't prevent it from being a secretory system similar to the type three.

Plausible, probable, or remotely likely is only that....you can not defeat anything with nothing to substantiate the capricious pathway.

Yes I can, because you are apparently arguing that known mechanisms are not adequate to explain the evolution of the flagellum. I don't have to provide the actual pathway, only a hypothetical one which uses known mechanisms.

That truly makes no sense. You realize that right?

I assume you mean that you don't understand.

I don't see where you are confused. I am claiming that the known evolutionary mechanisms are not adequate to explain the system and it function and that there are is no real evidence for the system to have evolved from a simpler form.

Then you are not making an argument from irreducible complexity. That's fine, but it means you have to have some other reason for claiming that known mechanisms don't account for the BF.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't see where you are confused. I am claiming that the known evolutionary mechanisms are not adequate to explain the system and it function and that there are is no real evidence for the system to have evolved from a simpler form.

At this point I really have to ask. I know that Behe has been asked the same question and from both the lectures I've seen of him and the court transcripts I read, I do not think Behe has a realistic answer.

What would you actually expect as evidence for the flagellum to have evolved from a simpler form. The only realistic way I can think of is by looking at homologous structures that point to functional precursors. This is going to be an explanation full of maybes and probablies. Tough luck, we're dealing with the real world here, where the flagellum evolved a long time ago. There is no realistic reason why we could expect to get anything more then that. Behe basically states that he wants a mutation by mutation pathway, but this is clearly unrealistic in the extreme. So what would you feel that such evidence would look like. Probablies and maybes are off, homologous structures also. What could we possibly present that would allow you to change your mind?

 

[JBJoe]

I haven't read anything from Herman Muller, I was only aware of who he was and that people use him as an example against Behe. I would have to look farther into this to comment.


LOL And you base this assumption on the discussion above with myself and loudmouth? That says quite a bit about you I am afraid. I've been on here a long time and have over 2,000 posts that you can go through.

My issue was that you stated with certainty that evolution doesn't predict irreducible complexity, yet decades before the biochemical process driving evolution was understood someone realized that evolution would predict IC. You shouldn't need to "look farther" because the statement should be obvious given what we know today. Since your 2,000 posts somehow confer (something, I don't know where you were going with this) how did you miss this? It doesn't seem like you really understand evolution. Even Behe has admitted that one serious flaw of his theory is that being irreducibly complex does not imply intelligent design. A flaw he hoped to correct (to my knowledge he never has).

Afterward you can provide those mined quotes that you think that I am so good at.

That really doesn't take much effort. Here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35050378&postcount=178

 

[Oncedeceived]

[/color]

We've already said that the TTSS was probably not the precursor to the flagellum. But that does not mean that a secretory system was not the precursor to both structures. I gave you the example of something which secreted proteins which could digest insoluble mineral deposits in the surrounding environment. This would enable a bacterium to more efficiently gain nutrition.

I have to apologize for not getting back before this but I have not had more than a few minutes at a time to be on the web.

If you claim that "a" secretory system was the precursor you would have to provide evidence that the system arose before metazoans. The evidence we do have supports only the system arising after them. The flagellum was present hundred of millions of years before.

Think about a black-smoker environment - before the hypothetical secretory system, vesicles would have deposited proteins into the extracellular environment. The video posted previously shows the pathway by which a specific pore in the cell's membrane could form. This would make this process more efficient.
The video labels the secretory system as the type three, which we can say is probably not true for the moment. But that doesn't prevent it from being a secretory system similar to the type three.

Tell me what you think a precursor secretory system would be like and what function it would provide. Explain to me what advantages such a system would have prior to the need of such a system.

Yes I can, because you are apparently arguing that known mechanisms are not adequate to explain the evolution of the flagellum. I don't have to provide the actual pathway, only a hypothetical one which uses known mechanisms.

You can but it doesn't make a very satisfying argument. Hypothetical explanations are not evidence, and the evidence does not support the hypothetical explanations.

I assume you mean that you don't understand.

You know what they say about "assume". LOL.

Then you are not making an argument from irreducible complexity. That's fine, but it means you have to have some other reason for claiming that known mechanisms don't account for the BF.

I am, I don't understand why you think I am not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My issue was that you stated with certainty that evolution doesn't predict irreducible complexity, yet decades before the biochemical process driving evolution was understood someone realized that evolution would predict IC.

Again, I haven't had the time to read any of the papers on this so I can't respond to this until I do. I would have to read it to see what his claims were.

You shouldn't need to "look farther" because the statement should be obvious given what we know today. Since your 2,000 posts somehow confer (something, I don't know where you were going with this) how did you miss this? It doesn't seem like you really understand evolution. Even Behe has admitted that one serious flaw of his theory is that being irreducibly complex does not imply intelligent design. A flaw he hoped to correct (to my knowledge he never has).

What do we "know" today that should be sufficient for looking no farther into a premise?

That really doesn't take much effort. Here: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35050378&postcount=178

[/QUOTE]

UHHH, this is the quote that you made your accusation from. I said that you needed to show that I continually mine quotes. I will consider your lack of evidence as adequate testament for my honor.

 

[Oncedeceived]

At this point I really have to ask. I know that Behe has been asked the same question and from both the lectures I've seen of him and the court transcripts I read, I do not think Behe has a realistic answer.

What would you actually expect as evidence for the flagellum to have evolved from a simpler form.

I would think that should a simpler form of the flagellum existed, we would have to have a system that would have function and that would be advantageous. Evidence of that would be found in organisms prior to the flagellum.

The only realistic way I can think of is by looking at homologous structures that point to functional precursors. This is going to be an explanation full of maybes and probablies. Tough luck, we're dealing with the real world here, where the flagellum evolved a long time ago. There is no realistic reason why we could expect to get anything more then that.

Ok, first you could provide homologous structures that point to functional precursors....but how do you determine if the precursors could function? Answers seem to bring more questions, yes?

Behe basically states that he wants a mutation by mutation pathway, but this is clearly unrealistic in the extreme.

Where does Behe state that he wants a mutation by mutation pathway? Please provide source of this statement.

So what would you feel that such evidence would look like. Probablies and maybes are off, homologous structures also. What could we possibly present that would allow you to change your mind?

Tell me what evidence provides you with such conclusive evidence that you are confident that evolutionary mechanisms were adequate to evolve the BF.

 

[Valkhorn]

Tell me what evidence provides you with such conclusive evidence that you are confident that evolutionary mechanisms were adequate to evolve the BF.

Natural selections and the Type III Secretory System.

Of course invoking the supernatural, which is what ID does, is not a valid or helpful explaination for anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Natural selections and the Type III Secretory System.

This is an extremely vague answer; natural selection of what?

Type III secretory system originated from the flagellum according to the evidence so how does this give you confidence of evolutionary mechanisms being adequate?

Of course invoking the supernatural, which is what ID does, is not a valid or helpful explaination for anything.

That depends really. Regardless, if it is shown that evolutionary mechanisms were not adequate, it would seem that we would need to think out of the box.

 

[Valkhorn]

This is an extremely vague answer; natural selection of what?

You have already been shown this.

Type III secretory system originated from the flagellum according to the evidence so how does this give you confidence of evolutionary mechanisms being adequate?

You've been shown this is incorrect.

Please read the following and get back to me:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/6/3027.pdf
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flag.pdf
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Why must you go 'round in circles?

That depends really. Regardless, if it is shown that evolutionary mechanisms were not adequate, it would seem that we would need to think out of the box.

Which boils down to "I don't know, therefore god".

Didn't I make this argument on the very first page if not the first post?

 

[Tomk80]

I would think that should a simpler form of the flagellum existed, we would have to have a system that would have function and that would be advantageous. Evidence of that would be found in organisms prior to the flagellum.

We don't have those and the fossils we have of microbial organisms do not allow such a determination, so that is impossible. Again, I'm asking for a realistic answer on how to determine this, not impossibilities.

Ok, first you could provide homologous structures that point to functional precursors....but how do you determine if the precursors could function? Answers seem to bring more questions, yes?

Why? If the homologues function, there is no specific reason why the ancestors for these homologues could not.

Where does Behe state that he wants a mutation by mutation pathway? Please provide source of this statement.

It's in the transcripts of Kitzmiller trial, I'll try to find the relevant bit when I have more time.

Ah, found it, although I was mistaken, it was on the immune system: And he requires a lot more then a mutation by mutation analysis:

Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?
A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

Tell me what evidence provides you with such conclusive evidence that you are confident that evolutionary mechanisms were adequate to evolve the BF.

The fact that of all the necessary proteins of the flagellum, we have found homologues of all but two. 13 others we have not found homologues of, but there we have evidence that these are not necessary for the correct functioning of the BF. The homologues fit together in various ways, combining to make more structures that could have been ancestral to the BF. The homologues provide a route toward the flagellum that is completely gradual and can be selected for at every step. And this route is mimicked in the assembly of the flagellum in the cell, which recapitulates the evolution of the flagellum nicely and which shows that the flagellum self-assembles (ie, you do not need extra proteins to assemble a flagellum, if the proteins are present at the cell membrane they will combine on there own). It's as conclusive as we can realistically get.

 

[FishFace]

I have to apologize for not getting back before this but I have not had more than a few minutes at a time to be on the web.

No problem at all!

If you claim that "a" secretory system was the precursor you would have to provide evidence that the system arose before metazoans. The evidence we do have supports only the system arising after them. The flagellum was present hundred of millions of years before.

But I'm not making the claim that secretory system was the precursor to the flagellum, I'm saying it could have been and that there is therefore a possible pathway by which the flagellum could have evolved. If we know there's a possible pathway, even if it's unevidenced, then you can't say that it's impossible for the bacterial flagellum to evolved through known mechanisms.

Tell me what you think a precursor secretory system would be like and what function it would provide. Explain to me what advantages such a system would have prior to the need of such a system.

At first the secretory system would simply be a selective pore in the membrane of the organism. This would allow digestive proteins out, but nothing else. This would be useful because energy would not need to be expended producing vesicles and dragging them to the cell membrane. In this situation the cell is digesting mineral deposits like H[sub]2[/sub]S and so can be assumed to already have transporters for getting the stuff into the cell once it's partially broken down.
The secretory system would make this process more efficient, since it would be able to pump enzymes out of the cell more quickly and, with further modifications, control when this was done.

You can but it doesn't make a very satisfying argument. Hypothetical explanations are not evidence, and the evidence does not support the hypothetical explanations.

But your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the bacterial flagellum cannot be evolved through known mechanisms. If we produce a hypothetical, possible pathway, this is false.

I am, I don't understand why you think I am not.

Irreducible complexity states that certain classes of structures cannot evolve because all possible precursors were nonfunctional and therefore nonselectable. I have given you a possible precursor that is functional and selectable.
Your argument relies on there being no possible way of the thing evolving - you can't claim that there's no actual way it evolved, unless you have positive evidence that something else caused it, or positive evidence of another mechanism being involved. As such a possible way of it evolving is enough to defeat the argument.

 

[FishFace]

Valkhorn's last link is highly informative and relates directly to the contention that TTSS evolved from the Flagellum. Note that in the relevant section, the author uses "Type 3 secretion system" to refer to any system based on the Type 3 Export system, not just the virulent TTSS we have been referring to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We don't have those and the fossils we have of microbial organisms do not allow such a determination, so that is impossible. Again, I'm asking for a realistic answer on how to determine this, not impossibilities.

I think that you are forgetting who started this discussion and what claims were made and who needs to support those claims.

I don't believe Dembski got the memo

I was looking around for some sort of shirt that is in support of Evolution and I ran across one against it from Dembski's webblog at

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

And then I looked at the top. He has a Bacterial Flagellum there.


Did he not get the memo or the peer-reviewed papers which showed that the Bacterial Flagellum has clear steps in evolutionary science?

Ok, so I probably shouldn't have pasted the entire post. Anyway, we have shown and you have agreed that this statement is false which was my point from the beginning.

The point is, we can not determine whether or not the mechanisms of evolution are adequate by hypothetical pathways due to the extreme variables involved, which is what you are saying as well. You are claiming that what you feel I am asking for is impossible yet you want me to believe that it is possible for evolution to evolve the BF within the same impossibility.

Why? If the homologues function, there is no specific reason why the ancestors for these homologues could not.

We are talking proteins and those proteins that are in other "homologous systems" do not mean that they could function outside of the system they are in. There are many configurations that proteins take yet each fits its environment like a puzzle piece. Those evolutionary mechanisms must work on those fittings to "make" it fit. Like proteins do not make a homologous system if the proteins can not fit to the system.

It's in the transcripts of Kitzmiller trial, I'll try to find the relevant bit when I have more time.

Ah, found it, although I was mistaken, it was on the immune system: And he requires a lot more then a mutation by mutation analysis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

Yes, I had read it on the immune system but I didn't think that he had said that about the BF.

The fact that of all the necessary proteins of the flagellum, we have found homologues of all but two. 13 others we have not found homologues of, but there we have evidence that these are not necessary for the correct functioning of the BF.

Yes, as I was saying above, the proteins are found in other systems but that doesn't take in consideration the fitting of those proteins into another functioning system.

I don't think that all 13 have been shown to be unnecessary, even so, the core is what Behe feels is IC due to its specialized function....I think that is what his position is.

The homologues fit together in various ways, combining to make more structures that could have been ancestral to the BF.

True but those combinations have to be functional for the organism and advantageous for them to continue in an other organism.

The homologues provide a route toward the flagellum that is completely gradual and can be selected for at every step.

Really, then perhaps you should provide that information to the scientists that are researching this because they don't feel that is true. Please provide a gradual pathway that can be selected for at every step.

And this route is mimicked in the assembly of the flagellum in the cell, which recapitulates the evolution of the flagellum nicely and which shows that the flagellum self-assembles (ie, you do not need extra proteins to assemble a flagellum, if the proteins are present at the cell membrane they will combine on there own). It's as conclusive as we can realistically get

What about the proteins that we do not have homologies for? You just forget about them?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No problem at all!

Thanks for your patience!!

But I'm not making the claim that secretory system was the precursor to the flagellum, I'm saying it could have been and that there is therefore a possible pathway by which the flagellum could have evolved. If we know there's a possible pathway, even if it's unevidenced, then you can't say that it's impossible for the bacterial flagellum to evolved through known mechanisms.

The statement of the op was that there was:
Quote:
I don't believe Dembski got the memo

I was looking around for some sort of shirt that is in support of Evolution and I ran across one against it from Dembski's webblog at

http://www.uncommondescent.com/

And then I looked at the top. He has a Bacterial Flagellum there.


Did he not get the memo or the peer-reviewed papers which showed that the Bacterial Flagellum has clear steps in evolutionary science?
That aside, how can you say something is possible if you can't see it, test it, or provide evidence for it? Is that not what you are claiming that I can't do for an intelligent designer? Why the double standard?

At first the secretory system would simply be a selective pore in the membrane of the organism.

This would allow digestive proteins out, but nothing else.

What was the pore selected from?

This would be useful because energy would not need to be expended producing vesicles and dragging them to the cell membrane. In this situation the cell is digesting mineral deposits like H[sub]2[/sub]S and so can be assumed to already have transporters for getting the stuff into the cell once it's partially broken down.

You would assume this why?

The secretory system would make this process more efficient, since it would be able to pump enzymes out of the cell more quickly and, with further modifications, control when this was done.

This is completely vague and uninformative.

But your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the bacterial flagellum cannot be evolved through known mechanisms. If we produce a hypothetical, possible pathway, this is false.

No it is not false. If you have no evidence to back up your hypothesis it can not be said to be possible or impossible...you can't know. If you can't know then it doesn't falsify the premise.

Irreducible complexity states that certain classes of structures cannot evolve because all possible precursors were nonfunctional and therefore nonselectable. I have given you a possible precursor that is functional and selectable.

No it doesn't, it says nothing of precursors being non-functional and non-selectable.

Your argument relies on there being no possible way of the thing evolving - you can't claim that there's no actual way it evolved, unless you have positive evidence that something else caused it, or positive evidence of another mechanism being involved. As such a possible way of it evolving is enough to defeat the argument.

If you could provide the possible way, but you don't know if it is possible or not without knowing all the dynamics and parts of the system and the precursor system as well. You don't.

 

[Valkhorn]

Please read the following and get back to me:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/6/3027.pdf
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flag.pdf
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Ph...s/flagella.htm
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Did you read this yet?

All I have seen from you are postings by Behe and "Mike Gene" - which are hardly qualified.

And, you still haven't explained how "I don't know, therefore god" is a valid argument. You are basically saying natural processes can't produce a flagellum so it has to be supernatural. Even though we have shown you how natural processes could have evolved the flagellum.

What makes more sense, a naturalistic processes from non-random natural selection from naturally varying replicators slowly adapts a flagellum from similar parts or magic?

You're arguing for magic.

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, so I probably shouldn't have pasted the entire post. Anyway, we have shown and you have agreed that this statement is false which was my point from the beginning.

No, because clear steps have been shown in the Matzke paper amongst others. That's the peer-reviewed literature on this. That is the literature that actually uses realistic ways of determining whether such a pathway is plausible, instead of unrealistic ones. We cannot determine those steps by looking at previous organisms. We can, however, determine them by looking at homologues of the same proteins in other structures.

The point is, we can not determine whether or not the mechanisms of evolution are adequate by hypothetical pathways due to the extreme variables involved, which is what you are saying as well. You are claiming that what you feel I am asking for is impossible yet you want me to believe that it is possible for evolution to evolve the BF within the same impossibility.

No, that is not what I am claiming. I am claiming that we have a plausible pathway that is substantiated by evidence that can be realistically obtained. I am claiming that what you have so far asked for as evidence is not realistic. I am further claiming that the evidence in no way points toward an impossibility to evolve the flagellum, which is the claim Behe makes. Just the opposite.

We are talking proteins and those proteins that are in other "homologous systems" do not mean that they could function outside of the system they are in.

Why would they need to? Nothing in the pathways proposed asks them to function outside the systems they are in.

There are many configurations that proteins take yet each fits its environment like a puzzle piece.

An incredibly large puzzle piece usually, with many different possible outcomes. Many proteins have multiple functions. Look for example at the proteins of the p450 enzymes that have a wide range of substances they break down and the specificity of this breakdown depends on the specific enzyme. Proteins work via a lock and key mechanism, but the lock and keys vary in specificity, locks can have different keys and keys can have different locks. There is a specificity in proteins, but it is not nearly as precise as you imply here.

Those evolutionary mechanisms must work on those fittings to "make" it fit. Like proteins do not make a homologous system if the proteins can not fit to the system.

But if the proteins are alike in shape, they can fit the system. That is because the function of a protein is determined more by shape then anything else and proteins can have varying levels of specificity in their tasks. You are pretending that a protein either does it's job or not, but that is not how proteins function. Many proteins function in different capacities in different environments.

Yes, I had read it on the immune system but I didn't think that he had said that about the BF.

How does that differ? Why would he make a different point for the BF? I do not think Behe is a logically thinking person, but I do grant him some consistency in his viewpoints.

Yes, as I was saying above, the proteins are found in other systems but that doesn't take in consideration the fitting of those proteins into another functioning system.

Why not? The evidence indicates the opposite. Protein homologues are proteins that have a similar shape as the proteins in the bacterial flagellum. This means that a small modification in shape might be necessary, but this is not a given.

I don't think that all 13 have been shown to be unnecessary,

Feel free to point out which haven't. That's what the guys who are actually researching this say.

even so, the core is what Behe feels is IC due to its specialized function....I think that is what his position is.

So what? Why would that matter? All of these have specialized functions in the environment they are in. But when bringing them together in a different environment, this changes. The bacterial flagellum did not evolve in the current environment, it evolved in one where no BF existed yet.

True but those combinations have to be functional for the organism and advantageous for them to continue in an other organism.

And they have been shown to be functional and advantageous. The video about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum illustrated this already quite nicely. For example, passive pores, which is the first step, give a selective advantage because they allow a balance between internal and external fluid concentrations. Selective pores, which are the result of a combination of the homologous proteins allow the cell to retain substances that are necessary for it. The entire model is full of these things where both the single proteins and combinations of proteins are beneficial and selectively advantageous and both have been found to occur as homologues.

Really, then perhaps you should provide that information to the scientists that are researching this because they don't feel that is true. Please provide a gradual pathway that can be selected for at every step.

You have already been provided with one. The scientists who are actually researching this do feel this is true. Matzke et al are an example, as well as other articles that have already passed the revue here. They are the ones doing the research, they are the ones who are determining these pathways, they are the ones who already have come up with answers to this. Behe is not the one researching this, he just ignores all research concerning this. Where do you think the models that have been provided in this thread come from? How do you think the scientists proposing these have arrived at them? Do you think they were inspecting there noses and pulled them from there?

What about the proteins that we do not have homologies for? You just forget about them?

What about them? They may not have homologues in living organisms anymore. They may have homologues that we have not discovered yet. There are a number of ways they can have arisen. We have to go with the data we have, not with the data we do not have. In my dreams I am omnipotent and have all the data, as well as a time machine which allows me a firsthand analyses of the creatures. I've also get infinite time in my dreams. When I wake up reality kicks in and I'll have to go with the data we have.

The data we have point towards a pathway for the BF to have evolved as described by Matzke et al. What they proposed is not the last word on it. It raises questions for further research that his group and other scientists are now working on. But the data we have does not indicate that it is impossible for the BF to have evolved. Some of the objections you raised above are interesting, definitely. Further research into homologues will provide some more interesting results. Other research teams may come to different pathways. The connection between the current BF and it's current homologues will be interesting. But none of these objections point to an impossibility of the flagellum to have evolved. Other objections you raised, for example about the specificity of proteins, point toward an unfamiliarity with how proteins work rather than to real objections. Meanwhile, the current research points toward the conclusion that evolution of the BF is plausible and points to possible pathways. The research is not definite and never will be. I'm afraid we, as humans, are not omnipotent or omniscient. That is what Behe requests in his fairytale view of science. Unfortunately, the rest of us live in reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you read this yet?

All I have seen from you are postings by Behe and "Mike Gene" - which are hardly qualified.

Hardly qualified? Behe has a PhD. Mike Gene has kept his credentials private but people who know him have said that he is a very successful biologist.

And, you still haven't explained how "I don't know, therefore god" is a valid argument. You are basically saying natural processes can't produce a flagellum so it has to be supernatural. Even though we have shown you how natural processes could have evolved the flagellum.

Providing an explanation that is not in evidence does not say anything more than "I don't know, therefore evolution".

What makes more sense, a naturalistic processes from non-random natural selection from naturally varying replicators slowly adapts a flagellum from similar parts or magic?

Why would God be magic anymore than natural selection? You claim natural selection but have no evidence what selections were possible.

You're arguing for magic.

No, I am saying that you don't know how the BF evolved, you don't know if the mechanisms of ToE are adequate, and you don't know a certain step by step evolutionary path for it. You are making a decision based not on actual evidence but on possibility.

 

[Valkhorn]

Hardly qualified? Behe has a PhD. Mike Gene has kept his credentials private but people who know him have said that he is a very successful biologist.

Credentials mean diddly squat if they are not practicing science which they aren't.

Unless you can come up with a naturalistic designer? Oh wait that's Natural Selection

Natural Selection (ever read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker?) can design these things that are promoted to be intelligently designed.

So you are arguing for Natural Selection (which is part of Evolution) or supernatural origin. One is science, one is not.

Why would God be magic anymore than natural selection? You claim natural selection but have no evidence what selections were possible.

Because natural selection isn't magic. Natural selection is a naturalistic process which makes organisms adapt to their environment so that over many generations (we're talking hundreds of thousands if not more) an organism or species can be extremely adapted to their environment.

You really do not know how powerful natural selection is. It is not magic, it is a natural process which is observable and testable and predictable. It involves no god whatsoever.

Yet Behe's ID requires a god or some sort of higher intelligence with the skill set to create a universe. And you don't realize how that isn't science? It's magic, and that isn't science.

No, I am saying that you don't know how the BF evolved, you don't know if the mechanisms of ToE are adequate, and you don't know a certain step by step evolutionary path for it. You are making a decision based not on actual evidence but on possibility.

No I am making my decision based on the papers which I linked to you (and which you have not read). I make my decision on the evidence.

Gene's paper isn't peer-reviewed by the way and merely claiming you have credentials when you are hiding them is just a cop-out. Especially when your paper has to argue philosophy and ends up saying "I don't know, therefore god".

Speaking of which, can you possibly address this? Can you possibly address why you think "I don't know, therefore god" is a valid argument?

I thought not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Credentials mean diddly squat if they are not practicing science which they aren't.

I of course can't be sure with Mike Gene but his scientific facts have not been questioned as far as I know. Behe is practicing science:

Michael Behe

Michael J. Behe was graduated from Drexel University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. He did his graduate studies in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and was awarded the Ph.D. in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease. From 1978-1982 he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-85 he was Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Queens College in New York City, where he met his wife. In 1985 he moved to Lehigh University where he is currently Professor of Biochemistry. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and one book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which argues that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. Darwin’s Black Box has been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and over one hundred other periodicals. He and his wife reside near Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with their eight children.




http://counterbalance.net/bio/behe-body.html

Unless you can come up with a naturalistic designer? Oh wait that's Natural Selection

In your opinion.

Natural Selection (ever read The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker?) can design these things that are promoted to be intelligently designed.

Dawkins has an agenda, so I feel that his information can be somewhat questionable. I have to admit that I have not read either. So I really can't honestly give comment.

So you are arguing for Natural Selection (which is part of Evolution) or supernatural origin. One is science, one is not.

Not necessarily. You can not say that natural selection is not in some way aided or guided by God.

Because natural selection isn't magic. Natural selection is a naturalistic process which makes organisms adapt to their environment so that over many generations (we're talking hundreds of thousands if not more) an organism or species can be extremely adapted to their environment.

I don't question that.

It involves no god whatsoever.

Sorry, you don't know that. You are making a claim that you can not possibly know. You can say in your opinion there is no need for a God, you can even say that you don't think God exists but you can not conclusively say that it does not involve God whatsoever.

Yet Behe's ID requires a god or some sort of higher intelligence with the skill set to create a universe. And you don't realize how that isn't science? It's magic, and that isn't science.

We are looking back in time and following evidence that is only a small part of what is known. If God's fingerprint is the complexity and design seen in nature then it is not magic at all, it is what science is examining.

No I am making my decision based on the papers which I linked to you (and which you have not read). I make my decision on the evidence.

Which is by its own admission only part of the story.

Gene's paper isn't peer-reviewed by the way and merely claiming you have credentials when you are hiding them is just a cop-out.

Sorry, but I am not hiding them. Mike doesn't provide them. Which by the way I made known. Many people have read his work and to date there has been no accusations against his science facts.

Especially when your paper has to argue philosophy and ends up saying "I don't know, therefore god".

Hey, it doesn't matter what my paper is claiming. The claim was made that there was a clear step by step pathway known for the BF and that is simply not true.

From your cited paper:

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 he simply is not understanding the concept, the evidence shows that TTSS evolved from the flagellum and not the other way around. It is not surprising that once the flagellum has arisen and has the materials needed for its existence that another with less required could be achieved.

Speaking of which, can you possibly address this? Can you possibly address why you think "I don't know, therefore god" is a valid argument?

Although, I do believe that God has created the universe and everything in it, I have not argued ID but rather that the statement made in the op was not true. In response to the comments during this thread ID of course has been discussed.

I thought not.

You are answering your own questions now.