Well as Larry Moran is right to point out, there are bacteria living right now with incomplete citric acid cycles. Go figure.
4 Likes
Pardon me but those were Jornâs own words from the podcast, spoken in his delightfully thick Danish accent.
2 Likes
Behe does not make a claim on how many paths are available. He also does not claim that IC systems âcanât evolveâ.
This discussion with @swamidass?/Behe should clear this up in the first 15 minutes.
Thatâs disingenuous. Behe considers only two possibilities: gradual accumulation of invariant parts and instant, simultaneous creation of all parts of a system. He doesnât claim that IC systems canât evolve, only that they are astronomically unlikely to evolve beyond a certain low level of complexity. Which is close enough to âIC systems canât evolveâ for most purposes.
1 Like
Where do you see him make this claim? John, you are trying to change his argument.
The real issue is that we cannot model the origin of irreducibly complex structures such as the flagellum with current evolutionary mechanisms.
The design inference is telling us that this may never happen which in itself is useful information.
Why canât we do that?
1 Like
None of the mechanisms are powerful enough to explain how you got from A to B. Matter in itself is limited. It does a very good job of explaining gravity as both Newton and Einstein were able to create useful models.
Why arenât they powerful enough? What does that even mean? Is something required to lift a heavy object, and thereâs not enough force?
Is there some duplication, or insertion, or substitution, that would require too much energy, in the flagellumâs evolution? Please point out what stage of the flagellumâs evolution there isnât enough âpowerâ to accomplish.
1 Like
Show him considering other possibilities.
Not only can we model such things, we have. Youâve seen models too many times to count.
1 Like
You need an organizing force. One that can arrange parts ending in a complex function. If there was a way to model this with the current mechanisms we would probably already have one.
Thatâs just natural selection acting on mutations.
Thatâs just the usual mechanisms of mutation. Change a gene here by substition, insertion, or deletion, duplicate some other part there. have the results of those mutations be subject to selection.
What is the problem? I ask again, is there some duplication, or insertion, or substitution, that would require too much energy, in the flagellumâs evolution? Please point out what stage of the flagellumâs evolution there isnât enough âpowerâ to accomplish.
1 Like
Sigh. Itâs pretty clear you are here on these boards to argue with Atheists. You arenât doing Christians, nor Christianity, any good when you limit your discussions so considerably.
And in the microcosm, all you are really doing is accentuating the âheatâ factor between Christians and Atheists ⌠instead of helping to promote PEACEFUL science.
Oh, you mean like organizing force empirically observed in evolutionary processes of genetic variations and selection feedback which youâre seen modeled ad nauseum? That kind of organizing force? 
1 Like
The problem is there is no model. You have a bunch of mechanisms but no model. You know this so lets not go 15 rounds here.
The beginning til the end. Organizing 100 nucleotides so it will build this motor reliably during every cell division. IMO there is no reason to believe any of the mechanisms you listed can do this without planning and foresight.
Evolution does a great job with existing populations. It does not do well explaining origin events of complex structures.
You claimed it isnât possible to model with current mechanisms. You know this isnât true, you made it up. Letâs not go 15 rounds.
Evolution of the bacterial flagellum
Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellumAbstract: The bacterial flagellum is a complex molecular system with multiple components required for functional motility. Such systems are sometimes proposed as puzzles for evolutionary theory on the assumption that selection would have no function to act on until all components are in place. Previous work (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000, A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol. 203 (2), 111-116) has outlined the general pathways by which Darwinian mechanisms can produce multi-component systems. However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion. A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria. Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility. The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellumâs complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.
Figure 7 : Summary of the evolutionary model for the origin of the flagellum, showing the six major stages and key intermediates. White components have identified or reasonably probable nonflagellar homologs; grey components have either suggested but unsupported homologs, or no specific identified homologs, although ancestral functions can be postulated. The model begins with a passive, somewhat general inner membrane pore (1a) that is converted to a more substrate-specific pore (1b) by binding of proto-FlhA and/or FlhB to FliF. Interaction of an F1F0-ATP synthetase with FlhA/B produces an active transporter, a primitive type III export apparatus (1c). Addition of a secretin which associates with the cytoplasmic ring converts this to a type III secretion system (2). A mutated secretion substrate becomes a secreted adhesin (or alternatively an adhesin is coopted by transposition of the secretion recognition sequence), and a later mutation lets it bind to the outer side of the secretin (3a). Oligomerization of the adhesin produces a pentameric ring, allowing more surface adhesins without blocking other secretion substrates (3b). Polymerization of this ring produces a tube, a primitive type III pilus (4a; in the diagram, a white axial structure is substituted for the individual pilin subunits; all further axial proteins are descended from this common pilin ancestor). Oligomerization of a pilin produces the cap, increasing assembly speed and efficiency (4b). A duplicate pilin that loses its outer domains becomes the proto-rod protein, extending down through the secretin and strengthening pilus attachment by association with the base (4c). Further duplications of the proto-rod, filament, and cap proteins, occurring before and after the origin of the flagellum (6) produce the rest of the axial proteins; these repeated subfunctionalization events are not shown here. The protoflagellum (5a) is produced by cooption of TolQR homologs from a Tol-Pal-like system; perhaps a portion of a TolA homolog bound to FliF to produce proto-FliG. In order to improve rotation, the secretin loses its binding sites to the axial filament, becoming the proto-P-ring, and the role of outer membrane pore is taken over by the secretinâs lipoprotein chaperone ring, which becomes the proto-L-ring (5b). Perfection of the L-ring and addition of the rod cap FlgJ muramidase domain (which removes the necessity of finding a natural gap in the cell wall) results in 5c. Finally, binding of a mutant proto-FliN (probably a CheC receptor) to FliG couples the signal transduction system to the protoflagellum, producing a chemotactic flagellum (6); fusion of proto-FliN and CheC produces FliM. Each stage would obviously be followed by gradual coevolutionary optimization of component interactions. The origin of the flagellum is thus reduced to a series of mutationally plausible steps.
2 Likes
Are you now claiming every individual bacterium has its flagellum hand assembled by the Magic Flagellum Pixies?
Yes, obviously. But, more to the current point, it makes a total mockery of Dyerbergâs claim that the only possibility if ID Creationism was not true is that the âenzymes would just be sitting there waiting for the next one to comeâ until the entire cycle had evolved.
You need to read more carefully. The passage I cited contains a verbatim quote from Dyerberg. Now, if the DI misquoted him or quoted him out of context, then thatâs their fault, not mine.
I see. So we can be assured that you have read Larry Moranâs text book as well as the studies from the âgeeky technical journalsâ on which the passage is based before arriving at this conclusion that the existence of these pathways is only âspeculativeâ, correct?
For instance James Tour, one of the suppsedly non-Bible thumping scientists you cited? The same guy who includes this on his personal webpage?
Based upon my study of the scriptures, which I have studied more than any other topic in my life, including chemistry, I believe:
- The Bible is the inspired word of God. Faithful Jewish scholars have preserved the Old Testament through the ages and it is an accurate account of Godâs dealing with mankind, and more specifically, with the Jewish people. The New Testament, particularly the record in the four Gospels, is based upon eye-witnessed historical accounts that are accurate beyond compare to any historical documents of their time.[1]
- Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and God himself, as declared in the New Testament.[2]
- Jesus Christ came to earth as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah to fulfill that which had been written about him in the Old Testament.[3]
- Although sinless himself, Jesus Christ suffered and died for the sins of humankind, he was buried, and three days later he physically rose from the dead and appeared to many, including more than 500 people at one time. He then ascended to heaven to be seated at the right hand of his Father.[4]
- By the act of suffering, dying, and resurrection, Jesus provided the one and only way for any person to have an eternal relationship with God.[3-5]
- Regardless of oneâs religious or ethnic background, nobody is born a Christian or automatically comes into salvation.[6]
- Salvation, or eternal life in Jesus, comes through a new spiritual birth into Jesus Christ.[7]
- There is nothing one can do to earn salvation, but it comes through believing and confessing the work that Jesus Christ did in dying for our sins and in his physical resurrection from the dead.[8]
- New birth, or salvation, is witnessed to the world by changes in followersâ lives, actions and words.[9]
- To those who have received Jesus Christ as their savior, they are no longer under the Old Testament Law, but are told to obey the commandments in the New Testament, of which there are more than 150.[10] [ Letter on Faith, HTML or PDF format]
- These commandments not only focus on the physical acts to be valued by Jesusâ followers, but they directly address the followersâ heart attitudes.[11]
- God provides sufficient grace for the believer in Jesus to obey the commandments. Grace is the God-given desire and power to fulfill the will of God.[12]
- Oneâs obedience to these commands is a direct relation to their love for Jesus Christ.[13]
- The follower of Jesus Christ is commanded to testify of him.[14]
- There is a direct command to have fellowship with other believers in Jesus Christ. [15]
- The Father God will place honor upon the person who serves Jesus Christ and is willing to die for him. Willingness to die for him is a requirement for being his disciple.[16]
- If one has no faith, it is impossible to be pleasing to God.[17]
- There will be a physical resurrection of both the followers of Jesus (those who have accepted the salvation provided by Christ) and those who have rejected him. The followers will live eternally with Jesus, while the others will live separated from him.[18]
- Everybody will have to give an account for his or her words and deeds.[19]
- Jesus Christ will come again, but next time he will come as the crowned King to receive his followers.
Yeah, âEddieâ, he doesnât sound like a Bible-thumper, not at all.
By now your mouth must have so many feet in it you have to see a podiatrist instead of a dentist.
https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/personal-statement/
Yeah, and heâs about the only one. About the silliest of them, too.
Which is very different from claiming that the process of evolution from a universal common ancestor requires guidance. Honest question: Has he ever expressed doubt on this matter? If not, then he doesnât belong on your list.
Ah, so on that basis you know about their personal religious beliefs? Do tell, âEddieâ.
Oh, so not a âBible-thumperâ, but one whose world view is deeply informed by his Catholic faith. This is the best you can do to support your claim that opposition to evolution is not all but invariably motivated by religious belief? Not very impressive, âEddie.â
1 Like
I said it may never happen and I do believe that. You want to keep trying and thats fine but this is just like the OOL discussion. You have some ideas of how this might happen and those ideas do not connect to an overall model so you are speculating.
Why are you trying to chase speculative claims?
Itâs already happened Bill. Models of how evolutionary processes can build complexity have been around for decades. Youâve been shown them so many times weâve lost count.
Why are you still trying to pass off your religiously induced scientific blindness as fact?
2 Likes