Tiktaalik vs. Bacterial Flagellum

[inquiring mind]

Which is more convincing evidence... Tiktaalik for Darwinian Evolution or Bacterial Flagellum against it? 'Why' would be interesting, or just comments if you like. These two seem to be the heavy weight contenders in the Creation-ID/Evolution battle, as far as science goes anyway.

 

[morse86]

Facts:
Have you personally seen, observed the tiktaalik? Answer NO. Beware of CGI and artist renderings.
Can you prove bacteria exists according to Koch's postulates? Answer NO. It is an figment of the imagination...it's cell and other particle debris.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Facts:
Have you personally seen, observed the tiktaalik? Answer NO. Beware of CGI and artist renderings.
Can you prove bacteria exists according to Koch's postulates? Answer NO. It is an figment of the imagination...it's cell and other particle debris.

Well, I must have imagined that I saw bacteria under light microscopy, both live and fixed/stained. As for the Tiktaalik, I tend to think the bottom-dwellers got buried under the sediments first during the flood of Noah.

 

[USincognito]

Which is more convincing evidence... Tiktaalik for Darwinian Evolution or Bacterial Flagellum against it? 'Why' would be interesting, or just comments if you like. These two seem to be the heavy weight contenders in the Creation-ID/Evolution battle, as far as science goes anyway.

I'm curious as to why you think the bacterial flagellum is evidence against evolution (the science has moved far beyond Darwin so I don't know why folks keep using that prefix).

 

[Occams Barber]

Which is more convincing evidence... Tiktaalik for Darwinian Evolution or Bacterial Flagellum against it? 'Why' would be interesting, or just comments if you like. These two seem to be the heavy weight contenders in the Creation-ID/Evolution battle, as far as science goes anyway.

The Bacterial Flagellum argument for ID had its first major outing in the 2005 Dover Vs Kitzmiller trial. Trial testimony (from the ID front organisation - The Discovery Institute) showed it to be a farcical argument. Scientific investigation clearly demonstrated that its 'irreducible complexity' was easily shown to be reducible to a number of useful sub-stages. The bacterial flagellum argument was dead and buried more than a decade ago.

While Tiktaalik is a part of the overall evidence for evolution it is hardly the centrepiece. Evidence for evolution comes from a wide range of sources and scientific disciplines; most recently the science of genetics which was unknown to Darwin. There is no single gee whiz "proof" but there is a huge body of evidence which has been amassed from various scientific disciplines over time. Descent with Modification is a scientific fact explained by the Theory of Evolution. When the facts contradict the theory the theory will change. At this point Evolution is probably the most attested theory in science. I've found that ERVs (Endogenous Retro Virus') come closest to a 'gee whiz' argument particularly in relation to human evolution.

Judging from your post you are not particularly well informed on the topic. This on-line course was put together by UC Berkeley and will help you better understand Evolution.
OB

 

[mark kennedy]

The Bacterial Flagellum argument for ID had its first major outing in the 2005 Dover Vs Kitzmiller trial. Trial testimony (from the ID front organisation - The Discovery Institute) showed it to be a farcical argument. Scientific investigation clearly demonstrated that its 'irreducible complexity' was easily shown to be reducible to a number of useful sub-stages. The bacterial flagellum argument was dead and buried more than a decade ago.

While Tiktaalik is a part of the overall evidence for evolution it is hardly the centrepiece. Evidence for evolution comes from a wide range of sources and scientific disciplines; most recently the science of genetics which was unknown to Darwin. There is no single gee whiz "proof" but there is a huge body of evidence which has been amassed from various scientific disciplines over time. Descent with Modification is a scientific fact explained by the Theory of Evolution. When the facts contradict the theory the theory will change. At this point Evolution is probably the most attested theory in science. I've found that ERVs (Endogenous Retro Virus') come closest to a 'gee whiz' argument particularly in relation to human evolution.

Judging from your post you are not particularly well informed on the topic. This on-line course was put together by UC Berkeley and will help you better understand Evolution.
OB

So you are fine with 8% of the human genome being the result of germline invasions? The ERV argument is the worst homology argument I've ever seen. They are nothing more then busted reading frames assumed to be the result of germline invasions, no proof what so ever. Does the HIV virus represent a major evolutionary trend because all they really do is to invade white cells and destroy them.

No one is really denying evolution, the question becomes are we going to sit by and let naturalistic explanations replace God as first cause?

 

[Occams Barber]

No one is really denying evolution, the question becomes are we going to sit by and let naturalistic explanations replace God as first cause?

Given that you are not denying evolution we seem to be in furious agreement.

I don't believe in your God but, if you want Him as your as your 'first cause', who am I to object?
OB

 

[mark kennedy]

Given that you are not denying evolution we seem to be in furious agreement.

I don't believe in your God but, if you want Him as your as your 'first cause', who am I to object?
OB

Well thank you, at least we can agree that this is an origins issue.

 

[Occams Barber]

Well thank you, at least we can agree that this is an origins issue.

You would first need to explain what you mean by "this" and secondly what you mean by "origins issue".

The OP raised the question of Tiktaalik vs Bacterial Flagellum. I addressed that issue. You didn't.

Now, if you want your God to be responsible for abiogenesis (life 'origins') or the Big Bang (universe 'origins'), you are free to have an opinion but please stop trying to confuse the issue by shifting the topic.
OB

 

[mark kennedy]

You would first need to explain what you mean by "this" and secondly what you mean by "origins issue".

The OP raised the question of Tiktaalik vs Bactierial Flagellum. I addressed that issue. You didn't.

Now, if you want your God to be responsible for abiogenesis (life 'origins') or the Big Bang (universe 'origins'), you are free to have an opinion but please stop trying to confuse the issue by shifting the topic.
OB

This, means origins, I would think that much is obvious. I don't think God is responsible for abiogenesis, I think the term is absurd. I think God created life fully formed 6000 years ago. If you want to get into details concerning bacteria flagellum or lizards I'm all ears, I haven't seen a single substantive issue raised.

I made a passing comment and I just admitted this was an origins debate, thought we agreed, that was it.

 

[Occams Barber]

This, means origins, I would think that much is obvious. I don't think God is responsible for abiogenesis, I think the term is absurd. I think God created life fully formed 6000 years ago. If you want to get into details concerning bacteria flagellum or lizards I'm all ears, I haven't seen a single substantive issue raised.

I made a passing comment and I just admitted this was an origins debate, thought we agreed, that was it.

No Mark. I've been around long enough to know that 'origins' can have multiple meanings and will be reinterpreted by some Christians to suit their argument.

Read the OP. This was never an "origins" debate and trying to reframe it as such is either disingenuous or intentionally deceptive.

If you want an "origins" argument start your own thread.
OB

 

[inquiring mind]

Can you prove bacteria exists according to Koch's postulates? Answer NO. It is an figment of the imagination...it's cell and other particle debris.

Koch's postulates 'alone' are a little outdated for today's molecular scientists... aren't they? I understand that HIV/Aids and many cancer causing virus' didn't follow from Koch's postulates either... are they imaginary?

 

[Job 33:6]

Tiktaalik is good evidence for common descent in that it was predicted to exist in shallow marine mid devonian rock, dated older than fish dominated rocks such as in the early devonian but younger than reptile dominated rocks such as in the Carboniferous. It's prescense in rock of shallow marine origins also lends credence to the idea that fish would evolve to walk on land in areas in which water is shallow and where this water meets land. Indeed the neighboring terrestrial mid devonian rocks did not contain tiktaalik like species, nor did the deep marine rock to the east. Only the shallow marine of what the geology shows was a continental margin.

And of course anyone can look at images of tiktaalik to see it has scales, gills and fins like a fish, while it also has a flat head and unfused neck much like an amophibious salamander. It also has robust pectoral girdles much like a salamander, and wrist bones like a salamander as well. And yet...clearly it's a fish with fins and scales. So it has features of both fish and amphibian tetrapodomorph, and it's been found in rock where it was predicted to be, specially up in the Canadian arctic, as well as vertically, lithologically and superpositionally in shallow marine rock.

And there have been other shallow marine tetrapodomorph tracks also found in the early devonian as well in Poland. Between the two, along with a whole collection of Hybrid fossils, this lends credence to the suggestion that the Cambrian, ordovician and silurian were dominated by marine fauna, and sometime in the early to mid devonian they evolved to walk on land. Then by the late devonian we have domination of strata by tetrapods and salamander like fauna. Then by the Carboniferous you have reptile like amphibians and amphibian like reptiles, lizard salamander hybrids etc.


If the first tetrapods were found in the Cambrian or ordovician, or even the Carboniferous, Permian, mesozoic (Triassic, jurassic, cretaceous) or cenozoic (tertiary, pleistocene, pliocene, miocene, oligocene etc.), it would disprove evolution. But here tiktaalik lay, between earlier fish and later amphibious salamander in the devonian.

 

[VirOptimus]

Which is more convincing evidence... Tiktaalik for Darwinian Evolution or Bacterial Flagellum against it? 'Why' would be interesting, or just comments if you like. These two seem to be the heavy weight contenders in the Creation-ID/Evolution battle, as far as science goes anyway.

Heh no, there are no real debate. The ToE is an incribly wellsupported scientific theory. There are no ”evidence” against it.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm curious as to why you think the bacterial flagellum is evidence against evolution (the science has moved far beyond Darwin so I don't know why folks keep using that prefix).

If bacterial flagellum's "irreducibly complex" make-up, as Behe calls it, at the molecular level is considered some of the strongest 'scientific' evidence for ID, and therefore Creation... wouldn't that be evidence against Darwinian Evolution and any form of macro evolution really?

 

[inquiring mind]

Heh no, there are no real debate. The ToE is an incribly wellsupported scientific theory. There are no ”evidence” against it.

You keep saying that.

 

[inquiring mind]

The Bacterial Flagellum argument for ID had its first major outing in the 2005 Dover Vs Kitzmiller trial. Trial testimony (from the ID front organisation - The Discovery Institute) showed it to be a farcical argument. Scientific investigation clearly demonstrated that its 'irreducible complexity' was easily shown to be reducible to a number of useful sub-stages. The bacterial flagellum argument was dead and buried more than a decade ago.

Well, I must admit I was impressed by this recent video (2017 I think, I apologize if it’s older), which shines a new light on Michael Behe’s ‘Black Box’ controversy, in regard to those who challenged his case for ID. It’s an hour long, but I found it very interesting.
https://revolutionarybehe.com/

 

[inquiring mind]

While Tiktaalik is a part of the overall evidence for evolution it is hardly the centrepiece.

Well, it has been presented here in this forum as the coup de grâce for Creationism.

 

[inquiring mind]

Judging from your post you are not particularly well informed on the topic. This on-line course was put together by UC Berkeley and will help you better understand Evolution.

Thank you... I'm trying.

 

[VirOptimus]

You keep saying that.

Its the truth.

Educate yourself and you will understand.