Not at all, people (here) are eager to show Behe as wrong.
No, I claimed that he said words to the effect of “If you want to catch up on an area in science, read the most recent literature.”
Well, it apparently hasn’t been found yet! Or we would have heard about it.
I don’t see how that invalidates what I’ve been saying about their paper.
Then there is no help for you. You’ve been going on and on about the mutations that cause 1% changes being selected, etc., and the point is that the probabilities of particular mutations, let alone 1% mutations, are not a factor in the model. All that about mutations was irrelevant.
You keep saying that, but since you don’t hear about many things that I have heard of, it’s not at all convincing.
Do you think that assertion should convince anyone, particularly since you also falsely denied that Behe had admitted not reading the relevant literature under oath?
That’s not true. Here’s what you wrote (emphasis added):
So you explicitly denied that he admitted it under oath.
But mutations are implied in these steps, is the point…
Well, I haven’t heard of it from persons here, who would be glad to hear of a paper or a book that outlines evolution of the flagellum.
I meant that your statement was inaccurate, you were claiming Behe had not read the relevant literature, IIRC.
The point is that they aren’t. For humans, there’s a million-fold more existing variation than new mutations for selection/drift to act upon. You’ll notice that existing variation tends to be ignored by evolution denialists.
You’ve heard of a lot of things, but you don’t listen.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro1493
Now you have. I’m citing the paper, not the abstract.
Nice try, but no recall is necessary. My statement is perfectly accurate. Your explicit denial is quoted and emphasized above.
The paperback edition (not the first) was published in June 2008. When did Behe admit that he was wrong about HIV?
But they aren’t. What part of standing variation and quantitative characters is unclear at this point?
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
But it would seem unreasonable to expect existing variation to exist throughout the increasing of an orb! Maybe for the first step, existing variation could be recruited, but for subsequent steps, fresh mutations would seem to be required.
“We dismiss the need for any great conceptual leaps in creating a model of flagellar evolution and speculate as to how an experimental programme focused on this topic might look.”
Well, I’ve discussed Matzke’s ideas with him (see above, for instance), I hope he has abandoned the T3SS as a precursor to flagella.
I have discussed this in detail, with Nick Matzke, even! For starters, “The model begins with a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus” is incorrect, the T3SS is now concluded to be subsequent to flagella.
Not if you understand any biology. I can’t think of the size of anything in biology that would be controlled only by a single gene.
Do you realize that your ID hypothesis is generating false predictions about how biology is known to work?
I don’t see why, but I’m just a geneticist. Explain it to me from an engineering perspective, but refrain from presenting your assumptions as facts, as that constitutes bearing false witness.
I don’t see any discussion above, and we weren’t discussing your opinion of such a paper. So are you saying that you were denying the existence of something that you knew for a fact exists?
Then I am all the more perplexed both by your demand for a reference seemingly to assert one does not exist, and because Nick Matzke addresses that exact objection in his 2003 article, and you seem to have misunderstood what he means by saying that.
The extant T3SS is derived from some ancestral flagella much like extant flagella, but that doesn’t mean an ancestral state through which flagella evolved was not or could not be a T3SS-like(however much) structure, particularly when there are organisms living in the present that do use reduced flagella as their protein secretion systems(see the numerous references already given).
Nobody is saying extant flagella derive from extant T3SSs, but rather that extant flagella had a T3SS-like ancestral state before they evolved into flagella. That when flagella evolved they passed through an T3SS-like(even if that is not identical with extant T3SSs) state. And that those ancestral flagella in turn diverged into extant flagella and extant, more specialized T3SSs and injectisomes. Quite possibly through further specialization of a structure very much like extant flagellar T3 secretion systems.
Nick Matzke explained all this all the way back in his 2003 article:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#nonflag
Go to the section “3.2.2. Are nonflagellar type III secretion systems derived from flagella?” and read on from there. It is simply not a necessary assumption for the proposed model of flagella evolution that extant T3SSs and injectisomes are phylogenetically basal to extant flagella. It just isn’t, so the continued invoking of this (anticipated) objection persists in meaninglessness.
So just out of curiousity, what did Matzke tell you when you erected this exact objection he anticipated in his 2003 article?
Why? What lies behind this supposed seeming?
He may have forgotten. It wouldn’t be the first time.
It’s an empirical prediction of Lee’s ID hypothesis. If life was designed, there would be a size gene, instead of size being an emergent property.
If Lee was more humble, he wouldn’t present his false predictions as facts, but the fact that the prediction is false still falsifies his hypothesis.
There could be multiple genes, I only find it difficult to believe that existing variation is available at every step in the increasing of an orb,
So after the first step or so, if existing variation was already available for all subsequent steps, then evolution could skip all those steps, and go right to a full orb.
No, I’m saying the flagellum probably did not come about through evolution.