Are there transitional fossils?

[doubtingmerle]

This post is somehow misplaced - I am not Justatruthseeker, and I was responding to Justatruthseeker, not you.

My sincere apology. I misunderstood. I will fix that post.

 

[xianghua]

Ok, you just made a hard claim, the claim that "hard claims need proof." Please prove your hard claim.

you said that a spinning motor can evolve naturally. its not a hard claim? i think that most peoples will disagree with this belief.

 

[Speedwell]

you said that a spinning motor can evolve naturally. its not a hard claim? i think that most peoples will disagree with this belief.

I doesn't matter whether they disagree or not. Stepwise evolutionary pathways leading to the flagellum have been figured out long since.

 

[mark kennedy]

hi. still waiting to continue the discussion about the burden of proof. so you agree that a motor can evolve naturally. hard claims need hard proofs do you have such a proof?

That sounds like old the argument of irreducible complexity, comparing the flagellum to five part mouse trap, take away one part and it doesnt work. There is no real burden of proof here, it's a variation of the watch and stone analogy of Paley in his famous book on Natural Theology. A man walking along the beach discovers a watch and a stone, any number of explanations could account for the stone but clearly the watch was designed. Paley goes into great detail about the spring mecanism and the gears.

The book was admired for its elogace and required reading at Cambrige. Darwin read it and said he enjoyed it very much. In college he simply accepted what he was taught and read, later he started having doubts and eventually developed an alternative way of seeing this. Behe went through the same thing, in college he accepted what he was told about Darwinian natural history until he couldn't find an explanation for this molecular mechanism.

While exploring the world through the lens of natural science two men have thought about many of the same things and came to different conclusions. Nothing is wrong with the lens, science is a way of exploration of natural phenomenon. It doesn't dictate the conclusions of the observer. No need to feign moral indignation or get carried away with highly emotive dramatic theator.

What intelligent design propenants conclude is matter of fact or opinion the vast majority of the time.

 

[pshun2404]

I doesn't matter whether they disagree or not. Stepwise evolutionary pathways leading to the flagellum have been figured out long since.

Can you describe the "stepwise evolutionary pathways" leading to the motor like flagellum in bacteria? As far as I can tell these are apparent in some of the earliest bacteria with zero pre- or semi- bacteria or pre- or semi- flagella ever found. So I would be interested in hearing about these alleged pathways (which may be true but I have never heard about them).

So if you can share here Speed that would really be cool!

 

[Speedwell]

Can you describe the "stepwise evolutionary pathways" leading to the motor like flagellum in bacteria? As far as I can tell these are apparent in some of the earliest bacteria with zero pre- or semi- bacteria or pre- or semi- flagella ever found. So I would be interested in hearing about these alleged pathways (which may be true but I have never heard about them).

So if you can share here Speed that would really be cool!

There are apparently a number of possibilities. Since the ID argument is an a priori argument, viz, that there is no possible pathway, an hypothetical pathway is sufficient to refute it. Google is your friend; here's a link to the first hit.

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

 

[doubtingmerle]

What about the many scientists that describe flagellum in similar terms in peer reviewed Journals are they allegedly idiots in your opinion?

For one example try Atsumi T, McCarter L, Imae Y (1992). "Polar and lateral flagellar motors of marine Vibrio are driven by different ion-motive forces". Nature. 355 (6356): 182–4.

They are most apparently "motors" in bacterium but they are accepted as being motors none the less....

Another once rejected now accepted concept is "molecular machines"...the recent language of published scientists

And eyes have lens but eyes are not made in a glass factory.

And noses have bridges, but they are not made in a structural steel factory.

And arms have elbows, but they are not built in a pipe fitting factory.

Get the point?

 

[doubtingmerle]

you said that a spinning motor can evolve naturally. its not a hard claim? i think that most peoples will disagree with this belief.

The point is that there is no fixed rule that says, if you ask a person for his opinion, then he is required to give you proof of his opinion. So I asked you to prove your assertion that, whenever you ask an opinion and the person responds, he is then required to give hard proof for his answer. I see you did not make the slightest attempt to backup your silly assertion. I take it you realize that this was a silly thing to ask.

Talking to you must be fun:

"Do you think it is going to rain tonight?"

"No."

"Hard claims need proof. Prove it is not going to rain"

"Say what?"

​

I am not the one who brought up the subject of cellular motors. You did. You asked me for my opinion. I gave it. Did you thank me? No. Instead you jump all over me and insist that I prove it. Hello?

I am no expert on cellular biology. But I can tell you that molecular biologists overwhelmingly say that the flagellum evolved. After all, bacteria with the flagellum are quite similar to some bacteria without it. And when two phenotypes are very close, generally that means the DNA is very close. And when that is the case, that generally means both DNA pools evolved from the same source. All that is known and accepted overwhelmingly by biologists.

Questions for you:

1. Do you agree that where the phenotype of two living things is close, generally the DNA is close?
2. Do you agree that the main way that DNA changes is through evolution?
3. If you do not think God did it through evolution, how do you think he did it? Do you support the KABOOM hypothesis, where God made the matter that forms these cells suddenly out of nothing, and he kept on doing that for millions of years for different creatures?​

 

[doubtingmerle]

Can you describe the "stepwise evolutionary pathways" leading to the motor like flagellum in bacteria? As far as I can tell these are apparent in some of the earliest bacteria with zero pre- or semi- bacteria or pre- or semi- flagella ever found. So I would be interested in hearing about these alleged pathways (which may be true but I have never heard about them).

So if you can share here Speed that would really be cool!

And do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that for millions of years bacteria, and zebras, and bats, and lobsters and kangaroos just kept popping up out of nowhere as God made them?

So I would be interested in hearing about these alleged KABOOM pathways (which may be true but I have never heard about them).

One would think if animals just keep popping up out of nothing, I would have heard about it.

 

[pshun2404]

T

There are apparently a number of possibilities. Since the ID argument is an a priori argument, viz, that there is no possible pathway, an hypothetical pathway is sufficient to refute it. Google is your friend; here's a link to the first hit.

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

No they are not "sufficient", and demonstrate ZERO, and I am well aware of the three hypotheses for possibilities (that are controversial even among evolutionists) but you said "Stepwise evolutionary pathways leading to the flagellum have been figured out long since" and they have not! The most obvious unfounded possibility which will be repeated so much it will be believed is defaulting to "the common ancestor" assumption. But as I already indicated there are no known ancestors period. The earliest bacterium with flagella appear in the fossil record fully formed.

Assumptions do not count as "figured out long since". But just to be clear I never said there is no possible pathway.

 

[pshun2404]

And eyes have lens but eyes are not made in a glass factory.

And noses have bridges, but they are not made in a structural steel factory.

And arms have elbows, but they are not built in a pipe fitting factory.

Get the point?

It was not a point I made...but since all bacterial motor flagella are made according to the same general design (already coded for in the DNA before they become), with the same parts (already determined in the DNA), and function in the exact same way..."design" is a perfectly adequate word.

Now one can argue whether or not a God did it but that much is sure. Words like program, instructions, design, etc., are already now being used in the scientific community as well. Unless you are saying they are all superstitious morons or something...

For example, DR. Mark Krasnow of Stanford University, while studying the Lung, has asked “How living creatures build their branching organs from standard designs encoded in DNA?”

Tabitha M Powledge in the NIH primer on “Genetics and Disease” says “Scientists have known for a long time that the program does NOT generate branches randomly...Since there is a standard design for the human lung, that design MUST BE in our DNA instruction manual.”

However , in addition she asks, “how does the animal encode in its genes the programs for making a complex , three dimensional structure like an organ?” And I an confident science will one say discover this "how", but designed? Definitely! We KNOW the design is pre-coded in the DNA (google pre-coded equalibrium)

So when we see these words this does not automatically relegate the ideas and comparisons to something ID or creationist, but clearly one can see the "machine" quality of such a functional structure whether or not one believes in a God. It is so apparent one would in ignorance have to purposely avoid it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

A man walking along the beach discovers a watch and a stone, any number of explanations could account for the stone but clearly the watch was designed. Paley goes into great detail about the spring mecanism and the gears.

If I am walking through a woods and find a watch, I would conclude the watch was probably formed by cutting and molding parts out of metal and plastic.

If I find a chocolate chip cookie, I assume ingredients were mixed and baked in an oven.

If I find a dog, I assume nutrients from a mother dog grew the dog embryo in a womb as directed by DNA.

If I find (in a microscope I am carrying) a bacteria with a flagellum, I assume it probably was made at the direction of DNA that had evolved from other DNA in other bacteria.

If you find a bacteria with a flagellum, how do you assume it was made? I am not asking who you think made it. I am asking how you think it was made.

All of the assumptions above are based on past knowledge of how similar things are made.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The earliest bacterium with flagella appear in the fossil record fully formed.

Please show me your source for fully formed bacterium with a flagella in the fossil record.

 

[pshun2404]

And do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that for millions of years bacteria, and zebras, and bats, and lobsters and kangaroos just kept popping up out of nowhere as God made them?

So I would be interested in hearing about these alleged KABOOM pathways (which may be true but I have never heard about them).

One would think if animals just keep popping up out of nothing, I would have heard about it.

Guess you just never really looked. The evidence supports that some actually have dome exactly that )for examples explore triops cancriformus, helicobactor pylon, nautilus, bats, and more I can share if you would like to learn). Now I have no idea what the "Kaboom" theory is but these have no predecessors.But I suppose it could be the ghostly never seen or identified "Ancestor of the gaps" theory usually used to explain away the lack of confirmation...

 

[pshun2404]

Please show me your source for fully formed bacterium with a flagella in the fossil record.

For starters explore negibacteria, and eubacteria...they go way back and we have seen some semblance in fossil mats. Here is one article that proposes a possible beginning here (covered by Speedwell's first of three hypotheses)...

 

[Motherofkittens]

I understand, I have trouble keeping up with all the evolutionary beliefs on here too.

As one of your fellow evolutionists said quite well, we will just claim......

I do not know if this was corrected or not but everyone else said that would falsify evolution but a creationist said they will just claim this. I know this is from pages ago, sorry but I thought it important to correct.

 

[pshun2404]

MoK can you provide the post number?

 

[Speedwell]

No they are not "sufficient", and demonstrate ZERO, and I am well aware of the three hypotheses for possibilities (that are controversial even among evolutionists) but you said "Stepwise evolutionary pathways leading to the flagellum have been figured out long since" and they have not! The most obvious unfounded possibility which will be repeated so much it will be believed is defaulting to "the common ancestor" assumption. But as I already indicated there are no known ancestors period. The earliest bacterium with flagella appear in the fossil record fully formed.

Alas, you didn't like it--I thought it was an interesting speculation. Never mind, I'm probably satisfied with less than you. I have no reason to care if the flagellum evolved naturally, and a universal common ancestor disturbs me not a bit.

Assumptions do not count as "figured out long since". But just to be clear I never said there is no possible pathway.

Yes. But that is the "official" position, and ID fails without it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Guess you just never really looked. The evidence supports that some actually have dome exactly that )for examples explore triops cancriformus, helicobactor pylon, nautilus, bats, and more I can share if you would like to learn). Now I have no idea what the "Kaboom" theory is but these have no predecessors.But I suppose it could be the ghostly never seen or identified "Ancestor of the gaps" theory usually used to explain away the lack of confirmation...

Ah, so we finally have an answer to my question. Here it is again:

And do you support the kaboom hypothesis, that for millions of years bacteria, and zebras, and bats, and lobsters and kangaroos just kept popping up out of nowhere as God made them?
​

Bats did exactly that? Suddenly out of nothing a bat appeared out of mid air? Uh no, a bat may startle you, and that may seem to be what happens, but believe me, that is not how it works.

So please, please show me evidence that once, when there were no bats, KABOOM, suddenly a bat started existing out of nothing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It was not a point I made...

Ah, you were not saying the lens of the eye is made of glass.

But you were saying that the motor of the bacteria is made like other motors.

If you can determine how a component is made by the fact that people describe it by using the word "motor", then it seems the same logic says you could determine the lens of the eye is made of glass since people describe it as a lens.

In case you weren't aware of it, the use of certain words to describe similar things does not mean all aspect of the two things are identical.

but since all bacterial motor flagella are made according to the same general design (already coded for in the DNA before they become), with the same parts (already determined in the DNA), and function in the exact same way..."design" is a perfectly adequate word.

If using the word "design" proves there was a designer, then does using the word "lens" prove it was made by a person who makes lenses?

In case you weren't aware of it, the use of certain words to describe similar things does not mean all aspect of the two things are identical.

Now one can argue whether or not a God did it but that much is sure. Words like program, instructions, design, etc., are already now being used in the scientific community as well.

Ah, two different things are described by the word, "program".

In case you weren't aware of it, the use of certain words to describe similar things does not mean all aspect of the two things are identical.

Unless you are saying they are all superstitious morons or something...

Nope.

A scientist that uses descriptive words is not a superstitious moron. If he wants to use words like "program" or "design" or "lens" or "motor" to describe aspects of life, that does not mean he thinks those things are exactly identical to other things that use those words.

So when we see these words this does not automatically relegate the ideas and comparisons to something ID or creationist, but clearly one can see the "machine" quality of such a functional structure whether or not one believes in a God. It is so apparent one would in ignorance have to purposely avoid it.

Yes, machine qualities.

It is so good that evolution endowed its creatures with machine qualities.