This, I believe, is the crux of the issue. Clearly if you go back to Berg’s paper, there was no hesitation to use the word motor to describe the BFM, because it made sense to anyone who would see a diagram or read how it operates. But the equivocation or co-opting of the term as evidence that it is something creates a huge backlash. It is unfortunate, because these are the kinds of things that really keep the conversation from progressing, peacefully.
2 Likes
Professor Swamidass,
Please, would you mind answering the questions in post #54 at your convenience? Thanks.
It honestly seems like it is intentional obfuscation.
Berg would agree with us that the analogy to a human designed motor is inadequate, and if you read his paper, you will see all the places where that fact pokes through. Even though of us that make famous analogies are usually quick to point out where the metaphor fails.
If all you have to make an argument is word parsing, well I suppose this is what you must do. This sort of shenanigans is what convinced me there was something to evolutionary science in the end…
1 Like
That meaning is long obsolete in biology. If you cling to it you will not only embarrass yourself, you will also be unable to communicate with others.
2 Likes
I already did.
You said evolution was poorly defined and included things like Z2A (which is just development). Evolution is not development. I’m just not sure what you are disputing at this point.
1 Like
?? I was agreeing with you. Are you talking to me? Or to the topic in general? All I ever said was that “motor” was an acceptable analogy, but it was not an identity and should not be co-opted as evidence.
2 Likes
I’m not disputing you, but adding to it with a little rant. We are on the same page, as usual.
2 Likes
I’m a little sensitive today… Nice rant though. 
1 Like
But that doesn’t mean that I called Z2A or Z2E evolutionary biology. I just said that it is a kind of evolution in general terms, which shows that under the term evolution we could find many things.
For example, we can find the famous Galapagos Finch beaks issue. That’s a kind of evolution. But we also can find under the wide umbrella called “evolution” the appearance of Eukaryota. Would you say that both the finch beak issue and the Eukaryota appearance are comparable? Are they in the same league? The term evolution requires a qualifier in order to have more specific meaning. Some folks may catalog the finch beak issue under micro-evolution and the appearance of Eukaryota under macro-evolution. The former is more observable WYSIWYG but the latter leads to much speculation and even nonsense.
BTW, do you know how the Eukaryota appeared? Can you point to the literature that explains it?
Why do you consider macro-evolution to be speculation and/or nonsense? There is a huge body of consilient scientific evidence collected over many years and many scientific disciplines supporting the fact.
2 Likes
Why bring up anything so pointless? Or is there a point, and if so what is it?
What issue? I’m unaware of any issue except among creationists.
There is considerable question whether there is any significant difference other than one of degree of accumulation. What do you think?
Does it? What are you thinking of here? Are you perhaps one of those creationists who don’t believe that macroevolution happens?
Very briefly, it appears to have involved parasitism of an archaean by a eubacterium, after which most of the eubacterial genome was transferred to the archaeal genome. Do you find that nonsensical? A little googling should find you some of the literature.
That’s just much speculative talk without proven substance. It’s a waste. Very unscientific.
The coherent and comprehensive explanation of the appearance of Eukaryota must be so solidly founded that it should be available in textbooks and video courses like the MIT developmental biology online course by Professor Hazel Sive. But where is it?
There you go again, confusing developmental biology with evolution.
I’ll ask again. How much of the primary scientific literature on the topic have you actually read? You’ve regressed to simply regurgitating the bog standard Creationist denials from ignorance.
How does that relate to my text?
Do you still want to discuss?
The part of the post that you omitted may answer your question.
So the answer is zero. You’ve read none of the scientific literature on the topic of macro-evolution and are just offering ignorance based personal incredulity.
1 Like
The OP picture looks an awful lot like what I’ve seen an ID video describe as the central spine and vanes of a nano-scale virtual turbine before. House this inside the right-sized microtubule, with moving fluids inhabitating the interior spaces, and they could have a point.
1 Like
Yup that is exactly right. That is what it looks like, but looks are deceiving. This structure does not rotate. It is therefore not a turbine. The whole point is that just because a biological structure looks on way in a diagram does not mean our intuition about it will be remotely correct.
1 Like
@swamidass, is the item in the picture housed inside a microtubule? If not, their comments obviously do not pertain to this particular picture.