Why are We Disagreeing with ID?

[lee_merrill]

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

What’s the evidence against neutral evolution?

But random walks don’t get very far, very fast.

You didn’t answer the question, which was about evidence. You’re not working from evidence.

But it’s true, a random walk doesn’t get very far, very fast, it’s not a good way to get somewhere.

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

Behe said he hadn’t read that particular stack of books and articles.

His claim in the book was that none of them even exist. He claimed that he meant something completely different when challenged under oath.

Well, I’m sure he meant the content doesn’t exist, not the title.

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

That would support what?

Your claim that antibody binding sites aren’t new.

I agree that they are new.

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

This paper about constructing the MOTB ancestor cites 90% sequence similarity. With about 300 residues, that would be 30 changes, to get to the ancestor, so say about 30 changes to get to a homolog.

Your point being?

That homologs to MOTB are fairly far away.

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

Well, I don’t see a function for just a hook, without flagellin, for instance.

What you don’t see isn’t really evidence, particularly since you have no idea how structures are built or function in real time.

So, would you claim that a hook without flagellin is functional?

@Rumraket

But then we discover a variant of that protein that is 15% similar to the other one and yet it still functions. But then doesn’t that immediately imply the entire range spanning 100 to 15% must contain functional sequences? Shouldn’t that cause us to think there really is a pathway all the way from 100% to 15% similarity?

That may be, though certainly parts of the protein would need to be conserved. And this may not be typical of all proteins.

Also, homologs to MOTB would seem to need to have other functions than MOTB, this would not be one function all the way to a homolog. No need for a stator if you don’t have a motor!

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

Because a useless partial flagellum would be a burden to the bacterium, and would actually be selected against.

Yes a useless thing would be selected against. It’s just that partial flagella aren’t useless. Papers have been cited already that show this.

I’ve discussed Matzke’s paper in other forums, glad to discuss it again here if need be.

@Faizal_Ali

@lee_merrill

Because a useless partial flagellum would be a burden to the bacterium

Could you please explain why you hold to the belief that a structure that is useful and which uses some of the components of the flagellum would be selected against? Thanks.

A hook without flagellin would seem to be useless, for instance. If I’m understanding your question correctly…