robin said:Advocates of ID claim the thirty or so components of the rotary propulsion mechanism in flagellum exist only in these organisms & for that purpose thus indicating the presence of ID.
It's been shown however that these components do exist in organsims that are precursors to these flagellum
& all that was needed for the propulsion mechanism to evolve was for the components to have become organised in the right locations.
Thus ID is false science based on a false premise in this case.
It should not be taught in schools.
Simply not true. Even if it were, just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we won't find an origin, and it deffinetely is not proof at all of supernatural causes.oracle25 said:Yes, some of the mechanisms found in the bacterial flagellum are found in other organisms. But something like 60% of it's parts are brand new, and are not found in other organisms. Where did they come from?
ACtually it's more like a set of magnets coming together. You clearly do not understand self assembly thus I suggest you stay off this relation.oracle25 said:I think you are underestimating how unlikely it is that such a thing can assemble itself in the right order. It's sort of like saying an airplane or a car could assemble themselves in the right order if given enough time.
:rofl Oh man, that really brought a tear to my eye and a pain to my stomach. How ironic.oracle25 said:You have shown a complete ignorance to "science" by not doing sufficient research into this subject.
Robodoon said:Yes and Evolution thrown out.
Evolution was just introduced to destroy our Christian heritage, The rich have a new system for the world and plan to make us slaves.
Robodoon said:SEE EARTH CHARTER and the ARK OF HOPE
Robodoon said:ITS SATANIC AND FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, VIA GORBY, ROCKEFELLER AND STRONG.
Robodoon said:Also SEE REECE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATIONS on how the Rockefeller Foundation and others took control of our school systems so we could be dumbed down.
jfuh said:Simply not true.
Even if it were, just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we won't find an origin, and it deffinetely is not proof at all of supernatural causes.
ACtually it's more like a set of magnets coming together. You clearly do not understand self assembly thus I suggest you stay off this relation.
:rofl Oh man, that really brought a tear to my eye and a pain to my stomach. How ironic.
Un huh, yes it it, yeah it is. Seriously, grow up. There is no such detail.oracle25 said:Ummm, yes it is. What did your professors forget to inform you of that little detail?
Oh look, look at the volcano, it's exploding, the god's must be angry at us, quick toss in a virgin to quell their blood thirst. Again, ignorance.oracle25 said:Sort of like finding a watch on a beach, insisting nobody made it, and stubbornly waiting for some evidence to come along to vindicate your position.
Lol, nope, self-assembly. Plain and simple of various organic and inorganic compounds. Metal coordination, pi-pi stacking, amphiphillic interactions and so on.oracle25 said:I assume your referring too biochemical predestination?
Not your type of intelligence, if it can be called that.oracle25 said:Hmm, perhaps you should see a doctor. Oh, that's right, you don't need intelligence to fix problems, silly me....
jfuh said:Un huh, yes it it, yeah it is. Seriously, grow up. There is no such detail.
Oh look, look at the volcano, it's exploding, the god's must be angry at us, quick toss in a virgin to quell their blood thirst.
Again, ignorance.
Lol, nope, self-assembly. Plain and simple of various organic and inorganic compounds. Metal coordination, pi-pi stacking, amphiphillic interactions and so on.
Why does soap work? Same thing, self-assembly.
Not your type of intelligence, if it can be called that.
steen said:He is just a troll anyway, as nobody can be that ignorant and still know how to turn on the computer.
Oh, poor Einstein. Always having his quote taken out of context. How about you actually read where that quote comes from, eh?justone said:""""A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.""""
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein said:Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
Engimo said:Oh, poor Einstein. Always having his quote taken out of context. How about you actually read where that quote comes from, eh?
Einstein is not talking about organized religion, he is talking about the spirit of discovery that scientists must have in order to be compelled to do great things. He goes on to denounce the idea of a personal, Judeo-Christian-Muslim God two paragraphs later as being for those of "undeveloped mind".
Lame evasionist argument towards nothing.oracle25 said:Look, learn to spell, and then tell me to grow up.
Glad you find supernatural explanations so ammusing, perhaps you do have a chance to be taught science.oracle25 said::lol: That's funny, though it is merely a ploy to get off topic. I'll give you points for style though...:applaud
I know it when I see it.oracle25 said:Something you know a great deal about.
Have I said that to be the mechnism? No. Once the basic protiens are made they self assemble.oracle25 said:Seriously, do you hear yourself? The bacterial flagellum, assembled itself? It didn't evolve? How would such a thing occur? How would these "magnets" know how to assemble themselves? Especially if over half the parts were missing? Seriously, do some research, come back when you can argue intelligently.
Have I struck a nerve?oracle25 said:How immature and so very typical....
tryreading said:You know, I assumed the Einstein signature was not in context, but I never looked it up. Your post was enlightening.
Engimo said:Oh, poor Einstein
justone said:I would appreciate if could link me to the whole speach. I feel guilty before Enstein.
That is a minor, simplified view. Any change between generations is evolution.justone said:Omitting insignificant variations, I defined for myself the arguing sides as:
1.Evolutionists – those who know and can prove scientifically that all life around including humans evolved from a single living cell
Where life originated is NOT Evolution, it is Abiogenesis. And there is no evidence for it being by "accident."and the cell formed itself out off no-life material by an accident.
You might have missed that people can, Llike me, be both #1 and #2 (Kind off. Your definitioon is kind of weird).2.People of Faith (those who personally know that God exists on the level of their reflexes – when they push the button they get the food, and it always works unless they don’t push enough.).
Except that they can't prove this.3.Creationists - who can prove scientifically that God exists and therefore should be a subject in schools.
The ID crowd did NOT split from "Evolutionists." they came from creationism.4.Intelligent Design people – who originated in scientific community often splitting from Evolutionists and suggesting that life was designed and started by an Intelligent Being, but not God, as the Such is widely known.
False. Any science should be taught in science class. If it is not science, it can be taught but not in science class. Please don't mis-represent us.The situation is:
Only Evolutionists teach in the system of education, and they do not want others in.
False. Evolution does not contradict faith. It contradicts literal interpretation of Genesis. It does NOT preclude faith.Since Evolutionism contradicts Faith,
Actually, the Creationists and IDers have yet to show that they are about science.people of Faith have their feeling, but let me put them aside as a separate subject.
Creationists and ID people are attacking because Evolution must be wrong and they must have their better science in schools, or at least get one foot in the door.
We don't object to anything being taught in school. But we object to anythiong being taught in science class that is not science. If it is not derived through the Scientific Method, it has no business in Science Class.If you, guys, cannot resolve your problems – let the kids do.
This is my suggestion to Evolutionists – because you are the ones holding the door. My impression is you can stop the attacks only if you stop freedom.
Teaching facts and evidence is not "holding back."Kids already are talking on Internet and ID looks quite attractive to them. They will bring it to colleges and classes anyway. But if you hold them back for too long they may get angry.
If anybody has scientific evidence they want to share, they are very encouraged to do wo.You know what happens when kids get angry – they will through you out with all your goods. I would be sad because many of your goods have great value. If you let them in it is not inconceivable they would be able prove your point better than you can. You cannot loose.
Hmm, Einstein quote-mined?As to my affiliation, I love science, art, Led Zeppelin and life. I do not have a need to win on neither of the sides. I am a man of Faith on the level of my reflexes – if I need anything I just push the button.
""""A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.""""
Albert Einstein
why even bother? Oracle's a troll.black wolf said:dear oracle,
since you seem very fond of quoting any old IDist "argument" that has long been falsified (1996!), please take your time to read the following quotes from talkorigins.org:
[ID] Claim CB200.1:
Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.
Response:
This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.
One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.
The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).
The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.
The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.
The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.
The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).
Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).
Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.
AND:
...But what are the chances
>of such a self - assembling molecule happening in the primordial
>seas, not to mention surviving.
Quite good actually. There are 1.6 x 10^60 possible 100 nucleotide sequences. In a primordial ocean of 10^24 litres with a nucleotide concentration of 10^-6M (reasonably dilute), assembling a 100 nucleotides sequences on clay al la Ferris [3] and assuming it takes a week to make a full sequence, then you can have produced roughly 1 x 10^50 sequences in a year! As it has been estimated that one in every 1 x 10^17 random RNA sequences is a high efficiency ligase [4], the chances of getting at least one self-replicating polymerase (or small self replicating assembly) is quite high.
jfuh said:why even bother? Oracle's a troll.
black wolf said:dear oracle,
since you seem very fond of quoting any old IDist "argument" that has long been falsified (1996!), please take your time to read the following quotes from talkorigins.org:
This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally.
Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.
One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.
The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).
The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.
The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.
The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.
The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).
Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).
Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?