It appears that you are saying that the entire evolutionary process to generate the genome to build a flagellum must arise, de novo, every time a bacterium divides. You may not have intended that meaning, but that is what you appear to have just said.
2 Likes
I am simply saying that the DNA must become organized enough so that the bacteria can reliably reproduce this motor during cell division. This would be required for the motor to become fixed in a population.
If that’s what you meant, you may want to go back and edit your earlier post. I don’t think it is susceptible to such an interpretation as you are now giving, because you said that this organization must happen EACH TIME a bacterium divides. There’s a good deal of difference between saying that this must have happened over the course of the past in order to produce the modern version of a functional flagellum, and saying it must happen with each cell division.
2 Likes
Where is the ID model?
As you stated before, Behe only has a subjective opinion as to what he thinks can or can’t evolve. That doesn’t mean much.
Where did I say this?
Here:
I do not believe these are equally subjective claims as one is an extrapolation of observed phenomena, whereas the other proposes ad hoc design by an unknown or transcendent designer.
This is the essence of the argument. I disagree but understand your position. If the natural explanation was close I would agree with you. Given we cannot test how the DNA became organized I think both subjective arguments are in the hunt.
That is subjective since I could say it is close.
How many detectives give equal time to the idea that God killed someone when they don’t have a viable suspect for a murder?
When has the supernatural ever been the verified cause for anything in nature? Of all the things that we were once ignorant of in nature and now have an answer to, how many times has God turned out to be the correct answer?
1 Like
Bill, we’re still waiting for your answer to this rather important question. Is there a reason you keep refusing to answer?
1 Like
Gil, are you going to answer this question?
1 Like
You’ve got it backwards, Bill. The theory (not just a model) PREDICTS the relationships between proteins. It’s not just a post hoc explanation.
You just gave the whole game away. Why does Behe only have a puny argument to wield against all of these successful predictions? Why doesn’t he have a model? A hypothesis? A theory?
This characteristic is called motility, not mobility.
1 Like
[quote=“TH, post:406, topic:9427”]
No, just as he will never consider what his hypothesis about VDJ information predicts experimentally.
Just as Gil and Bill will never explain why human MYH7 is so polymorphic, with the vast majority of those variants present in perfectly healthy people.
I don’t know about Gil and Bill but I wouldn’t be surprised if many people would adapt a familiar Young Earth Creationist trope here: “The Designer loves variety.”
Actually, I do believe that God loves variety. That’s probably why he created evolutionary processes to make lots of it.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
2 Likes
Yes, but then you’d have to explain the rare individuals who die as a consequence of this variety.
Evolution explains the majority who live and the minority who die.
I’m not sure I follow that—in terms of why that would present a problem. (Are you suggesting a rehash of theodicy, which was settled among philosophers about a century ago? Or am I missing something here? Most YECs and IDs don’t have disagreement with theodicy explanations.)
Variety in biological forms certainly does bring “mixed results”. But the same can be said of variety in weather (air mass movements bring needed rain but also can bring tornadoes and hail.) Nothing in theology denies that some live healthy and long while others get sick and die young. There’s no Biblical doctrine of “equality” in that regard. So I don’t think most evolution-deniers and ID-defenders would be bothered by this.
I certainly agree.
ok. so we both agree that the flagellum is a motor (some guys here dont think so). we just dont agree about its origin. now, do you agree that the burdon of proof is on the side who claim that a motor can evolve naturally?
so a motor must have these traits to be a motor and if not its not a motor?
you see a flying UFO (spaceship). can you detect design only by looking at that?
so you are open to the possibility that that UFO might evolve naturally?
I don’t really grasp your idea to flip branches left-to-right at one fork on the phylogeny.
Whatever, I have blasted the Astrotactin 2 protein of Carassius Auratus (CA), a fish belonging to the same family (Cyprinidea) than the winnow, against the different animals you are referring to, and get the following bitscores:
CA vs starfishes: 40
CA vs amphibians: 1470
CA vs Lizards: 1830
CA vs birds: 1850
CA vs mammals : 1857
CA vs human: 1850
CA vs piranha (as the winnow, a teolost): 1514
CA vs catfish (another teolost): 2215
CA vs perch (another teolost): 2078
CA vs cartilagenous fish: 1691
So, you see, the data don’t support your hypothesis. But they confirm the reality of the impressive information jump that occurred at the dawn of vertebrates.
Whether the flagellum is a motor is an argument. You are taking it as a fact.
It’s an argument, because there isn’t broad agreement. The category “motor” is not precisely defined. So whether the flagellum is included in that category is not fixed by our normal usage of the word “motor”. That could change over time. But, right now, it isn’t anything like a settled matter.
I think you to review this discussion further. @Mercer’s question re: human MYH7 pertains to a specific issue that is not addressed by the answer “God loves variety.”