Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Job 33:6]

3 things:

1) homologous proteins arent the same proteins. they are actually different.
2) we can also remove parts from a car (like a gps system) and the car will still be functional. but it doesnt mean that a gps system can evolve a step by step.
3) as far as i remember the ttss sysem has some parts that the flagelum doesnt has. so its not true that we can remove parts from the flagellum and get a ttss.

If I viewed you as a credible source, I would hear you out. But I'm afraid I dont.

The point is that structures of the flagellum, are homologous with independent structures that are in fact functional without needing to be part of a flagellum.

Much like how a feather can have a function and purpose without needing to be part of a wing. While all feathers are not identical (homologous structures are part of different systems which serve different purposes and have different parts), this doesn't change the response. And no you can't remove a cars engine and expect it to still run.

What this means is that individual parts of the flagellum may have evolved for purposes unrelated to a flagellum. Just as feathers may initially evolve for warmth rather than for flying as part of a wing.

If you have a logical argument against this, you're welcome to raise it.

If there was no feasible explanation for why feathers might exist (aside from being for flight), we might consider a wing irreducibly complex. But observing homologous feathers im non flying animals (like an ostrich) indicates that they could evolve for purposes other than for being part of a wing used for flight (flagellum), even if an ostriches feathers are not perfectly identical to eagle feathers which are used for flight.

The flagellum is reducible into independent homologous parts that are functional in varying systems.

 

[xianghua]

You must have missed the part where I said, "Sometimes such duplications retain the original functions, e.g. multiple leg segments of centipedes, millipedes; and sometimes they are modified by evolution, providing novel functions, e.g. grasping forelimbs."

ok but many biological systems suppose to evolve step by step. so i bring the gps analogy. do you think that a gps can evolve by mixing existing parts in a car?

 

[xianghua]

Once again you forgot that cars do not reproduce. Your analogy is worthless.

how it has any connection to ic systems? lets go with you criteria. say that we have a s elf replicating car. do you think that such a car can evolve a gps step by step?

 

[xianghua]

If you have a logical argument against this, you're welcome to raise it.

sure. lets take a compass for instance:

(image from wiki)


a compass is very similar to a watch and share several parts with it. very similar to the case of the ttss and the flagellum. but if we want to change this compass (even by a designer that can change anything he want- like mutations) into a watch we will be unable to do that, since you will need at least several new changes at once to do that. by the way: as a general note english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general.

 

[Aman777]

Yes, nonsense is easily refuted

Deuteronomy 14:18 Interlinear: and the stork, and the heron after its kind, and the lapwing, and the bat;

Deu 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Depends on your translation. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Thank you for backing me up. It doesn't happen often.

Birds of a feather, huh?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... i bring the gps analogy. do you think that a gps can evolve by mixing existing parts in a car?

No; neither gps nor car parts are living, and cannot evolve.

 

[Job 33:6]

sure. lets take a compass for instance:

(image from wiki)


a compass is very similar to a watch and share several parts with it. very similar to the case of the ttss and the flagellum. but if we want to change this compass (even by a designer that can change anything he want- like mutations) into a watch we will be unable to do that, since you will need at least several new changes at once to do that. by the way: as a general note english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general.

But you need fewer changes to take a finger from a compass and to move it to a watch, than you do going from nothing straight to a watch.

Irreducible complexity suggests that if a single piece of said watch, were removed, such as a gear or the finger, that the entire watch would be rendered useless. Hence it is "irreducible".

But the reality is that, if you reduce say...the fingers of a watch, those fingers can still have a beneficial function for a system (they can serve as fingers in a compass, or a toothpick, or...a hair pin, etc.).

The rest of the watch can also hold beneficial functions. If the watch is big enough, we can use its body for a cup to hold liquid, for example.

So the point is that, while the watch as a whole might not function as a watch without a certain piece, those pieces can individually function without needing to makeup a full watch.

The concept of irreducible complexity suggests that not even a single piece can be removed from the whole system, because every single part of that system relies on another part in order for the system to be functional, because it has irreducible complexity.

But the simple reality is that there really is no such thing as an irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum, because its individual parts can serve independent and unique beneficial functions.

And thats all im going to say on this topic, at least in regards to conversation with you (i will go ahead and put you back on the ignore list). If you dont understand it or have your head in the sand and cant accept this, its not my fault.

All the best,

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Deu 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Depends on your translation. Amen?

My translation when in question is ALWAYS the original Hebrew, not some translation into a different language. Had God wanted English to be the defining language, He would have originally written it in English.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you need fewer changes to take a finger from a compass and to move it to a watch, than you do going from nothing straight to a watch.

Irreducible complexity suggests that if a single piece of said watch, were removed, such as a gear or the finger, that the entire watch would be rendered useless. Hence it is "irreducible".

And hence in experiments when any part of the genome was mutated or removed that controlled the flagellum, it no longer functioned. I.e. it was irreducible....... likewise if any part is removed, it will no longer function.....

So why in the light of actual experimentation and testing are you arguing against the very thing experiments showed to be true?????

 

[Job 33:6]

And hence in experiments when any part of the genome was mutated or removed that controlled the flagellum, it no longer functioned. I.e. it was irreducible....... likewise if any part is removed, it will no longer function.....

So why in the light of actual experimentation and testing are you arguing against the very thing experiments showed to be true?????

Someone could also rip the feathers off of an eagle and easily conclude that wings for the purpose of flight are irreducibly complex. Because by removing the feather (parts) you defeat the functionality of flight.

But this is irrelevant because the question is, could feathers have evolved without the other parts if not for the purpose of flight in other homologous animals?

And the answer is yes, an ostrich could evolve feathers for warmth and flight could come as a later product because the individual parts can have purposes beyond flight.



You could reduce a flagellum into pieces and fathom how those pieces could evolve without it originally being for the purpose of constructing a flagellum.

And I'm sorry if you are in denial or if you have your head in the sand. Thats all there is to it and you're wrong.

The flagellum is logically reducible and it's parts can hold functions beyond being purposed for a complete and Irreducible flagellum

Now you're back on the ignore list as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

The concept of irreducible complexity states that of a complex system, every single part is needed for the system to function. And if the system is reduced in any way, it will not function.

Therefore, it is impossible for parts of said system to evolve independently, because independently they can't serve the function of the final and complete system which gives them purpose.

If a system is in separate parts, it won't function, therefore it's parts cannot evolve separately because they individually have no benefit to the organism as they are without function.

------------------------------------------------

With that said, individual parts of the flagellum can hold functions without being part of a whole flagellum. They simply could have served other purposes beyond being purposed for the construction of the flagellum.

If feathers are taken from an eagle, the system fails and the eagle can't fly. So one might conclude that flight is an irredibly complex process which involve parts such as feathers and wings and hollow bones. And that without all parts, a bird cannot fly and therefore the bird would die and the parts would not evolve, theyd just go extinct.

But in reality, feathers can serve many functional in many different animals. Such as keeping an ostrich warm. And so individual pieces can evolve for different purposes rather than only evolving for the purpose of a flying eagle.

Much the same, parts of a flagellum cod evolve for different purposes beyond just being for the purpose of making up a flagellum.

And the flagellum is no more irreducibly complex than a flying eagle with feathers. Which is to say that it isn't irreducible at all, it's reducible and it's parts hold function independently even when separated and reduced from a full blown feathered flying eagle.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Someone could also rip the feathers off of an eagle and easily conclude that wings for the purpose of flight are irreducibly complex. Because by removing the feather (parts) you defeat the functionality of flight.

But this is irrelevant because the question is, could feathers have evolved without the other parts if not for the purpose of flight in other homologous animals?

And the answer is yes, an ostrich could evolve feathers for warmth and flight could come as a later product because the individual parts can have purposes beyond flight.



You could reduce a flagellum into pieces and fathom how those pieces could evolve without it originally being for the purpose of constructing a flagellum.

And I'm sorry if you are in denial or if you have your head in the sand. Thats all there is to it and you're wrong.

The flagellum is logically reducible and it's parts can hold functions beyond being purposed for a complete and Irreducible flagellum

Now you're back on the ignore list as well.

And then do so... reduce the flagellum into its component parts and show how each functioned separately.....

Or is this the part where you stick your head in the sand and just keep claiming it's possible?????

Except feathers DIDN't evolve..... The oldest bird found has complete feathers. Oh my bad, this is where we resort to "missing common ancestors" to prove your beliefs, right??????

 

[Aman777]

My translation when in question is ALWAYS the original Hebrew, not some translation into a different language. Had God wanted English to be the defining language, He would have originally written it in English.....

Amen, but your translation leaves you thinking that there is but one world/firmament, which also leaves you without the ability to understand Genesis. History shows that God chose the KJV to communicate with the most people since we are living today in the last days. It will be really hard to overtake God's choice. Amen?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Amen, but your translation leaves you thinking that there is but one world/firmament, which also leaves you without the ability to understand Genesis. History shows that God chose the KJV to communicate with the most people since we are living today in the last days. It will be really hard to overtake God's choice. Amen?

Oh, shooting yourself in the foot again. That must hurt.

The KJV is not the most read bible in the world. Your back to your view of the US being the only place with people.

 

[Aman777]

Oh, shooting yourself in the foot again. That must hurt.

The KJV is not the most read bible in the world. Your back to your view of the US being the only place with people.

I notice that you don't name the most read Bible...in Australia or America.

Wiki:Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars. With the development of stereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford, and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualified title "King James Version" usually indicates this Oxford standard text.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I notice that you don't name the most read Bible...in Australia or America.

Wiki:Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars. With the development of stereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford, and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualified title "King James Version" usually indicates this Oxford standard text.

Why would I tell you the most read bible in Australia? Let me guess - you assume that's where I live based on my comment I live on the other side of the world?

Fyi currently the most widely read version of the bible is NIV. But more importantly, the majority of Christians are not English speakers. Your ridiculous theology is based on an assumption that all Christians would understand your preferred English translation. I'm guessing you don't see a problem with that, but let me tell you it is a HUGE impediment to your claim that KJV is God's choice of bible.

 

[Aman777]

Why would I tell you the most read bible in Australia? Let me guess - you assume that's where I live based on my comment I live on the other side of the world?

Fyi currently the most widely read version of the bible is NIV. But more importantly, the majority of Christians are not English speakers. Your ridiculous theology is based on an assumption that all Christians would understand your preferred English translation. I'm guessing you don't see a problem with that, but let me tell you it is a HUGE impediment to your claim that KJV is God's choice of bible.

Thanks for the personal opinion of someone God tells us CANNOT understand Scripture. I agree.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Thanks for the personal opinion of someone God tells us CANNOT understand Scripture. I agree.

Lol. It's not personal opinion, it's supportable, evidence based fact. Your theology is personal opinion, and for some reason you think we should all share it despite the evidence against it.

The evidence currently supports a claim that I understand scripture a lot better than you do. Perhaps you should listen to those who know better?

 

[DogmaHunter]

ok but many biological systems suppose to evolve step by step. so i bring the gps analogy. do you think that a gps can evolve by mixing existing parts in a car?

Mechanical non-living devices, aren't subject to biologocal evolution.