Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AnotherAtheist" data-source="post: 72439879" data-attributes="member: 199566"><p>First, that's a weblog they're quoting. There is some discussion about Liu and Ochman's paper, and some of the criticism of their being too eager to conclude a single origin for the flagella appears justified. <a href="http://emboj.embopress.org/content/30/14/2972" target="_blank">Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors</a></p><p></p><p>However, this is science, and other plausible explanations for the evolution of the flagella are available. E.g. <a href="http://emboj.embopress.org/content/30/14/2972" target="_blank">Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors</a> <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.489/full" target="_blank">How a neutral evolutionary ratchet can build cellular complexity</a> Certainly there is nothing in this research, and I just read several papers, which points to any part or the whole bacterial flagella being irreducibly complex. Quite the opposite: it appears that flagella have evolved independently a number of times.</p><p></p><p>So, this is similar to ID proponents claims for eyes. ID proponents claimed that eyes were too complex to have evolved naturally. (They often use the strawman 'by chance'). However, it turns out that eyes evolve easiily, and have evolved multiple times. It appears the same applies to the flagella.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Your above post doesn't find the same mutations. It reports whole regions that are broken in species that are not closely related (and where the broken genes will not have come from a common ancestor). But that does not mean that they are the same mutation. A whole region of a gene can be broken by a whole lot of different mutations. You are mischaracterising the research results that you presented.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AnotherAtheist, post: 72439879, member: 199566"] First, that's a weblog they're quoting. There is some discussion about Liu and Ochman's paper, and some of the criticism of their being too eager to conclude a single origin for the flagella appears justified. [URL='http://emboj.embopress.org/content/30/14/2972']Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors[/URL] However, this is science, and other plausible explanations for the evolution of the flagella are available. E.g. [URL='http://emboj.embopress.org/content/30/14/2972']Structural diversity of bacterial flagellar motors[/URL] [URL='http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iub.489/full']How a neutral evolutionary ratchet can build cellular complexity[/URL] Certainly there is nothing in this research, and I just read several papers, which points to any part or the whole bacterial flagella being irreducibly complex. Quite the opposite: it appears that flagella have evolved independently a number of times. So, this is similar to ID proponents claims for eyes. ID proponents claimed that eyes were too complex to have evolved naturally. (They often use the strawman 'by chance'). However, it turns out that eyes evolve easiily, and have evolved multiple times. It appears the same applies to the flagella. Your above post doesn't find the same mutations. It reports whole regions that are broken in species that are not closely related (and where the broken genes will not have come from a common ancestor). But that does not mean that they are the same mutation. A whole region of a gene can be broken by a whole lot of different mutations. You are mischaracterising the research results that you presented. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?
Top
Bottom