bacterial flagelem (sorry about spelling)

[waterbuckat]

I just saw a movie on this, it is a machine in human cells that proves that there was a creator.......

It was pretty convincing to me.........

 

[Raging Atheist]

uh huh... care to elaborate?

 

[waterbuckat]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
uh huh... care to elaborate?

 

It was basically showin how it couldn't of evolved from something else because there is nothing else like it in the world that scientists have discovered and there must of been a creator.  Which would be god............  sorry if I didn't answer what you were looking for, I don't know too much on the subject

 

[Raging Atheist]

I don't either, so I won't speak much on the scientific implications or contradictions... I will take this opportunity to point out the classic example between a theist and and atheist:

An atheist wants to know.

A theist MUST know.

What am I talking about?  The ability to handle uncertainties... just because science hasn't been able to account for it yet doesn't mean we should shift accountability for a phenomenon to a mythical deity...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by waterbuckat


 

It was basically showin how it couldn't of evolved from something else because there is nothing else like it in the world that scientists have discovered and there must of been a creator.  Which would be god............  sorry if I didn't answer what you were looking for, I don't know too much on the subject

Hi, WB. What you saw on the flagellum was probably inaccurate, judging by your re-telling of it. The story that the flagellum couldn't have evolved only goes back a few years, but it is rapidly becoming an "old saw". Please read the following:

In other words, you need to show how a bacterial flagellum can be built by small changes in successive generations, each of which would survive because it is of selective advantage to that individual.

To contradict the notion that a naturalistic evolutionary path to the flagellum cannot be conceived, I would like to describe such a path, even though it cannot be any more than a speculation, so it is vulnerable to the "just-so" criticism. We start with an initial bacterial species with no flagellum and living in moving water. It can extract some nutrients from the mud it contacts, but only if it sticks around long enough to carry out certain biochemical reactions. Some bacteria evolve a surface protein that attaches to molecules on a solid support like rock or sand grains in the mud and prevents the cell from being swept away by currents; and this strain of bacteria prospers and multiplies. The next development is that after using up all the nutrients within reach, the bacteria run into a metabolic dead end, until some cells evolve hair-like projections fastened to the cell wall that allow them stick to their sand grains but to forage nutrients over a wider area without being swept away by the water currents. (These are similar in structure and function to modern bacterial pili.) The next step is that these hair-like projections get longer (allowing a wider area for foraging nutrients) until some bacteria die when water currents spin them around and twist off their hair-like projections. Then some bacteria evolve a mechanism that allows the projections to rotate with respect to the surface of the bacteria so that the hair-like projections don't get twisted when the current spins the cells. When these molecular swivels become efficient, bacteria whose growth is prevented by limiting energy supplies evolve a mechanism for converting the mechanical energy of rotational motion at the base of the hair projections into ATP; they do this by borrowing components of the F1 ATPase already evolved to convert rotation into ATP. When this mechanism for converting rotational energy into ATP has evolved, some bacteria that have become detached from their sand grains evolve a mechanism for running the conversion mechanism backwards, i.e. so that ATP is used to generate rotation of the hair projection to provide motility. Voila, a primitive flagellum, evolved by multiple sequential steps, in which each individual component is dispensable when added because the earlier versions of the complex provide a function different that of the modern homolog, motility. Obviously I don't claim that this is necessarily the true evolutionary path that led to the bacterial flagella since we have no way to access that path, but I offer this scenario to show the worthlessness of the idea that no such path is conceivable. (Also, there is some evidence for sequence similarity between archaeal bacterial protein components of flagella and pili [Bayley & Jarrell J Mol Evol 46:370, 1998]).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/olson.html

Note the mention of the "just-so" criticism. This is a fairly common tactic among anti-evolutionists and ID proponents. Behe or Dembski might cite the bacterial flagellum as an "irreducibly complex" system which could not have evolved, and therefore must have been specially created. Others will reply showing how it could have evolved. Behe, Dembski, or others will come back and say "no that's a just-so story".

My response to them is, "well, that's a 'just-so story' that just disproved your contention that the flagellum couldn't have evolved."

 

[Raging Atheist]

http://minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~e21092/flagella.htm

 

paper citing possible evolutionary steps for our little motors...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Great link, RA

 

[chickenman]

actually, the genes for flagellum have also given rise to a set of related genes adapted for the purpose of allowing bacteria to inject toxins into eukaryotic cells

 

[npetreley]

To contradict the notion that a naturalistic evolutionary path to the flagellum cannot be conceived, I would like to describe such a path, even though it cannot be any more than a speculation, so it is vulnerable to the "just-so" criticism.

That just about wraps up the whole of evolution. Nothing more than speculation. And I just love what this author is really saying here -- I'm about to tell you a just-so story, so don't be surprised if any of those rabid creationists attack it by calling it a just-so story.

In short, evolutionary flagellum == evolution phlegm.

 

[Raging Atheist]

yeah... scientists are smart people... impressive how he made that call... I mean, he says it will probably be attacked, and there it is, attacked... I wish I could predict the future like that....

 

[Cyclo Rider]

Atheists tell so many lies, it's become a matter of eenie, meenie, miney, moe, when deciding which lie to refute.

http://members.aol.com/jasonte/faith.htm

Most American Presidents belonged to one Christian denomination or another, including George Washington.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
yeah... scientists are smart people... impressive how he made that call... I mean, he says it will probably be attacked, and there it is, attacked... I wish I could predict the future like that....

You're right. And since you believe this approach is permissible, allow me to enjoy the benefits. To contradict the notion that your defense of this just-so story is credible, I would like to describe how you're an uneducated moron with no qualifications for backing any TRUE stories let alone just-so stories like in that piece of dung posted on talkorigins, although admittedly my analysis is based on a personal assault, so it is vulnerable to the "ad-hominem" criticism.

Now let me look into my crystal ball...

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
Atheists tell so many lies, it's become a matter of eenie, meenie, miney, moe, when deciding which lie to refute.

http://members.aol.com/jasonte/faith.htm

Most American Presidents belonged to one Christian denomination or another, including George Washington.

Are you referring to the John Adams quote? Don't sweat it. Assuming this is the same John Adams who was our second president, and assuming the quote is accurate, and assuming it isn't taken out of context, I'll toss in an extra assumption of my own: He said it while in office. That means he was talking about himself and George Washington, and that's it. And he'd be wrong on at least half of those presidents in his list of non-Christians.

 

[chickenman]

cyclo rider is empty rhetoric

npeterly is empty rhetoric with added wit(debateable)

 

[Jerry Smith]

Nick said:

That just about wraps up the whole of evolution. Nothing more than speculation. And I just love what this author is really saying here -- I'm about to tell you a just-so story, so don't be surprised if any of those rabid creationists attack it by calling it a just-so story.

In short, evolutionary flagellum == evolution phlegm.

Just a few posts after I said:

Note the mention of the "just-so" criticism. This is a fairly common tactic among anti-evolutionists and ID proponents. Behe or Dembski might cite the bacterial flagellum as an "irreducibly complex" system which could not have evolved, and therefore must have been specially created. Others will reply showing how it could have evolved. Behe, Dembski, or others will come back and say "no that's a just-so story".

My response to them is, "well, that's a 'just-so story' that just disproved your contention that the flagellum couldn't have evolved."

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
Atheists tell so many lies, it's become a matter of eenie, meenie, miney, moe, when deciding which lie to refute.

Then pick one and refute it.

 

[choccy]

Atheists tell so many lies, it's become a matter of eenie, meenie, miney, moe, when deciding which lie to refute.

http://members.aol.com/jasonte/faith.htm

Most American
Presidents belonged to one Christian denomination or another, including George Washington.

Most people lie from time to time. Not everybody are man (or woman) enought to fess up though. Anyway, what on earth does your link have to do with creation/evolution?

Choccy

 

[Raging Atheist]

Originally posted by npetreley


You're right. And since you believe this approach is permissible, allow me to enjoy the benefits. To contradict the notion that your defense of this just-so story is credible, I would like to describe how you're an uneducated moron with no qualifications for backing any TRUE stories let alone just-so stories like in that piece of dung posted on talkorigins, although admittedly my analysis is based on a personal assault, so it is vulnerable to the "ad-hominem" criticism.

Now let me look into my crystal ball...

tsk... angry little Christian... and don't be silly... I said SCIENTISTS could predict the future... so you can put your crystal ball away...

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by choccy
Anyway, what on earth does your link have to do with creation/evolution?

Cyclo's link claims "Secularists often suggest that George Washington wasn't a Christian" then argues against this strawman that Washington was a Christian. Apparently Washington was an Episcopalian, which, last time I checked, is a form of Christian.

On the other hand Cyclo would probably claim that any Christian that understands that the earth is billions of years old is not a Christian, because such an understanding supposedly contradicts the bible.

So one could turn the tables on Cyclo and restate his website's assertion as follows: "Creationists often suggest that Hugh Ross isn't a Christian" since, as an astronomer, Ross is familiar with the evidence for an ancient universe.

In other words Cyclo has no point whatsoever that is related to evolution or otherwise. It's easy to refute an argument no one has made.

 

[Raging Atheist]

my quotes keep getting me in trouble... tsk... reread it...

professor

\Pro*fess"or\, n. [L., a teacher, a public teacher: cf. F. professeur. See [URL='Look up "]rofess"' href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Profess">Profess[/URL].] 1. One who professed, or makes open declaration of, his sentiments or opinions; especially, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church. ``Professors of religion.'' --Bacon.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/washington.htm

now... if you bother combining the two, does it sound like Washington would be a televangelist if he was alive today?  I think not... there is a difference between going to church because it is unacceptable for you not to and going to church because you want to...