Centriole? Huh?

[John_Harshman]

@Guy_Coe

is the item in the picture housed inside a microtubule?

No. In fact it consists of microtubules, made of tubulin.

[John_Harshman]

@pawas

How does that relate to my text?

You suggested that an explanation of the appearance of Eukaryota should be taught in a developmental biology course. Did you not intend to do that?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

is the item in the picture housed inside a microtubule?

No. In fact it consists of microtubules, made of tubulin.

Exacctly…

@Guy_Coe

If not, their comments obviously do not pertain to this particular picture.

You were remembering correctly. There was a DI video made and article published (and then later memory holed) where they claimed that the centriole spun like a turbine, but evolutionists were too blinded by ideology to figure this out. It looked like a turbine, so they were sure it spinned like a turbine. Turned out they were wrong.

[Guy_Coe]

Live and learn!

[Timothy_Horton]

Please please please let’s have no one arguing over the definition of “turbine”.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@John_Harshman

You suggested that an explanation of the appearance of Eukaryota should be taught in a developmental biology course. Did you not intend to do that?

Not only that @John_Harshman, @pawas also just insisted we were misrepresenting him for saying said developmental biology was evolutionary biology. Now developmental biology classes are to be faulted for not answering evolutionary biology questions unrelated to development? Whiplash…

@Timothy_Horton

Please please please let’s have no one arguing over the definition of “turbine”.

You know it’s bad when @Timothy_Horton is scared of the argument, hehe. Someone deserves a medal of some sort .

[Guy_Coe]

Found it: https://youtu.be/NNvXTassmHM
In fairness, Wells wrote that this was his hypothesis, based on an ID understanding, but that it could turn out later to be falsified (see page 205 here: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism And Intelligent Design - Jonathan Wells - Google Books ).
Sounds like a reasonable attempt at doing science based on inferences to me. Even if it turned out to be a failed hypothesis. Just sayin’… Science, after all, is slowly built up by testing competing hypotheses, right? And who doesn’t tentatively proceed based on inferences?
Here’s a valid question, @swamidass --is it ethical to make videos for the general public this early on in the stages of testing such an hypothesis? The answer to that does make one pause and consider the degree to which ID has let it’s public speculations outrun its scientific rigor.
And yet, Wells is famous for pointing out how the embryonic homology charts have deceptively done just that, for decades, now.
And the wheel keeps going round and round.

[Timothy_Horton]

@swamidass

You know it’s bad when @Timothy_Horton is scared of the argument, hehe.

Not scared, just bored to tears with silly rhetorical games.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@pawas

That’s just much speculative talk without proven substance.

Is not.

It’s a waste.

Nope. It is very fruitful, and the investigations into the evolutionary origins of eukaryotes have yielded many useful insights into the role and functions of mitochondria (for example), which in turn have revealed crucial aspects of certain metabolic and even neurological diseases. I know this because this exact subject was discussed in my former job at a neurodegenerative disease research laboratory.

You just can’t predict what field of investigation will produce useful insights, and often times the ingenuity of scientists who have to find ways of answering technically challenging questions, regardless of how “relevant” the questions might seem at first glance, produces insights and data that has a huge impact on a whole host of other fields of investigation.

Very unscientific.

It is thoroughly scientific. And important work.

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?

Why should it be AS solidly founded as developmental biology? Isn’t it obvious that inferences of past events can never directly compete, in the level of evidential support, with directly observed phenomena? That doesn’t mean they can’t be supported by so much evidence that to deny it becomes irrational. They can.

The origin of eukaryotes by endosymbiosis is one such example of a theory, which while it can’t be said to be resting on an equally certain foundation as directly observed phenomena, is still overwhelmingly well supported and to deny it once one have become aware of and understands this evidence, would be patently irrational.

Read books, scientific articles, and watch lectures by people like Nick Lane, Bill Martin, and their numerous collaborators if you want details on eukaryote origins and evolution. I highly recommend Nick Lane’s latest book The Vital Question too which deals extensively with this subject.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@pawas

The term “evolution” has a general meaning that applies in the case of development. Your opinion can’t change that, no matter how disappointing that is to you. The zygote develops (i.e. evolves) to a much more complex system.

If learning that specialists employ words differently from you makes you sad then you are entitled to your personal non-specialist vocabulary. To each his own I guess. Just don’t be surprised when specialists keep misunderstanding and correcting you going forward.

[pawas]

@John_Harshman

You suggested that an explanation of the appearance of Eukaryota should be taught in a developmental biology course. Did you not intend to do that?

Can you quote the text where I suggested such a nonsense?

Thanks

[pawas]

@swamidass

Not only that @John_Harshman, @pawas also just insisted we were misrepresenting him for saying said developmental biology was evolutionary biology.

Sorry to see you still don’t understand what I wrote. Apparently I didn’t write it clearly enough. If that’s the case, my fault.
Do you want to understand it?
Remember that the meaning of a text is its author’s, not its readers’.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@pawas

Can you quote the text where I suggested such a nonsense?

You imply a lot but seemingly make a conscious effort not to state it directly, just so you can then do this “can you quote me saying that?” routine. And it’s getting really tiresome.

Are you here to have a real conversation, or just state your irrelevant opinions?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@pawas

Sorry to see you still don’t understand what I wrote. Apparently I didn’t write it clearly enough. If that’s the case, my fault.
Do you want to understand it?

Sure, please do explain yourself. It would have been nice if you had clarified sooner.

[pawas]

@swamidass

Now developmental biology classes are to be faulted for not answering evolutionary biology questions unrelated to development? Whiplash…

Sorry to see you misunderstood my text. Perhaps it wasn’t written clear enough.
I could try to simplify it more for y’all to understand it. But only if you’re truly interested in understanding it.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@pawas

Sorry to see you misunderstood my text. Perhaps it wasn’t written clear enough.
I could try to simplify it more for y’all to understand it. But only if you’re truly interested in understanding it.

Everyone here is seemingly more interested in understanding it than you are interested in clearly explaining it. Here’s how we know that: You are wasting time begging us to ask you to explain it clearly, instead of just explaining it clearly.

[John_Harshman]

@pawas

Can you quote the text where I suggested such a nonsense?

I could, but you have already said that it doesn’t mean that. Put it down to a poorly formed sentence.

[pawas]

@swamidass

Sure, please do explain yourself. It would have been nice if you had clarified sooner.

I’ll try to clarify it as soon as I get some time to do it. I’m in the middle of an important activity (just took a short break).
It may take me some time to simplify the misunderstood text well enough. Basically it’s an English language issue. I’m not a good communicator. Still learning it. Not there yet. Y’all are better from what I see here.

[pawas]

Ok, I take that criticism as valid. But it may take some time for me to clarify what I wrote so it’s easier to understand. It’s mainly an English language issue. Perhaps I used incorrect grammar. I’m consulting with language experts to get help from them before I can post it here.
English is not my first language.

[pawas]

I’ll review it with the help of an English language consultant so that it is better written next time. It seems like I used incorrect grammar or something like that.