Please demonstrate that’s the minimal number needed to provide crude motion.
Which of these phone numbers is less “degraded”:
519-874-6790
647-992-3251
Thanks
I gave you the number and it is probably conservative. We know through knock out experiments that all are required. The reality Tim is the Neo Darwinian mechanism has severe problems beyond a few proteins.
Do you honestly think there is enough information to answer that question? Were these numbers generated randomly?
You claimed it. Please demonstrate it. Your claims have proven to be worthless.
The real reality Dory is you and the other ID-Creationists do nothing but argue from ignorance based personal incredulity. You’re made it into an art form.
3 Likes
Hmm. So I guess your example demonstrates nothing does it? Changing the numbers stored on your phone can’t be said to “degrade” them if you can’t quantify the degree of “degradation” any change produces.
1 Like
This data is well understood you can do your own homework to understand that design argument.
I thought you can tell if a sequence is degraded just by looking at it, without knowing any history? That’s what you claim you can do for genetic sequences.
1 Like
The question is does it call someone with a mutation. What are the odds? What would the odds be if the number was 20 digits long?
LOL! Dory makes claim, Dory punts when asked for substantiation. Yawn. 
1 Like
Here comes Dory’s version of IDC probability theory again.
1 Like
As I have explained elsewhere, and sorry to keep repeating myself it’s not to toot my own horn here, but it needs reiteration, that conclusion doesn’t actually follow.
What I’m not getting is: How does Behe eliminate the possibility that overall natural processes do not degrade the genome? Can he really extrapolate from a handful of recent examples to all life over deep time?
Of course not, but even if he could, his conclusion wouldn’t follow.
2 Likes
Looks like the number is 30 proteins not including assembly proteins.
A huge variety of bacteria live on our planet. Bacteria adapt and evolve in their living environment. Many bacteria swim in liquid environments and move on solid surfaces towards more favorable conditions and escape from undesirable ones for their survival. The bacterial flagellum is a supramolecular motility machine consisting of about 30 different proteins. These component proteins are highly conserved among bacterial species. The bacterial flagellum can be divided into at least three parts: the basal body, the hook and the filament. The basal body is embedded within the cell membranes and acts as a rotary motor. The hook and filament extend outwards in the cell exterior. The filament works as a helical propeller. The hook connects the basal body and filament and functions as a universal joint to smoothly transmit torque produced by the motor to the filament
No Bill, it isn’t. DNA repair is actually a source of mutation, and in any case, the mechanisms that reduce the rate of mutation (such as proofreading by polymerases) don’t reduce it to zero. They merely slow down the rate of mutations, they don’t prevent it entirely.
apoptosis
Why would apoptosis limit degradation of genes by beneficial “degenerative” mutations? In what way?
and purifying selection.
No, purifying selection removes deleterious mutations. It doesn’t remove beneficial degenerative mutations.
Everything you wrote is wrong.
Random change will breakdown a sequence until something resists that breakdown.
Yeah, there’s only one thing that does that: Natural selection. If the gene’s function is sufficiently beneficial, then purifying selection will prevent it breaking down. But if the gene’s function is NOT beneficial, then it’s breaking might actually be beneficial. Hence Behe’s “1st rule of adaptive evolution”.
2 Likes
Are you under the impression that if you had millions of peoples randomly changing the numbers in their phones, not a single one will call someone? Because mutations only degrade?
Please show the math that leads to that conclusion.
1 Like
That’s the minimum number we see in extant species. Please show the knockout experiments you claimed demonstrating that is the minimum number required at all for any mobility.
You weren’t just making your usual empty claims again, were you? Tsk tsk.
2 Likes
Even Behe admits it some times creates or increases function. He just says the relative frequencies are somewhere in the 99/100 to 999/1000 range.
One in one hundred to one in one thousand isn’t nothing.
I don’t know the background to this “Dory” business. But please leave it off.
You and Tim are mis representing arguments at this point I am going to step away.
“Dory” (voiced by Ellen DeGeneres) is the blue fish from Finding Nemo who has a memory retention span of only a minute or so. It seemed quite appropriate considering the apparent memory span of the ID-Creationist we are dealing with.
1 Like