I should indeed have said “could be favored”, though I think if a mutation could be favored, some lucky organism (especially if we’re talking microorganisms) will find it.
I know its possible to remove parts from a motion system and get a different (working) system because I’ve seen someone take the front wheels off a mini and use a rotating wheel hub as a winch.[1]
I expect you to ignore this counterexample and once again ask for something completely different. But that’s fine - if you do, everyone will be able to assess your level of integrity.
Scrapheap challenge. ↩︎
2 Likes
Irrelevant. You asked for an example where adding a single part to an object that couldn’t move would produce an object that could move. You were given such an example.
Rather than acknowledging that example, and either reworking your argument or abandoning it, you chose to completely ignore the example provided and ask for something else instead. A goal-post move.
You followed that with this:
We weren’t talking about a living creature at all. You asked for a motion system designed by a human: “can you as a designer made a motion system that is base on a single part.”
It should be clear to everyone that you are evading the answer to your question. All that’s left is to thank you for making your evasion so obvious.
P.S. it’s equally trivial to note that any motor already present need not have “no function at all”, since there are many possible functions for a motor other than movement, e.g. a pump.
3 Likes
so what are you want to suggest? that we might get a begining of a new organ even in every birth? we need to be realistic after all. and if that was the case we whould heard about that a long time ago in the science news.
well, do you think that a complex organ like the eye can evolve only by neutral mutations till we get a working eye?
no problem. you take any object that cant move. can you make it move by its own by adding\changing a single part?
isnt it scientific to conclude design when we see a motor\gears?
sure. many sub-parts in designed objects are also functional. for instance a screen of a cell-phone or even a car engine can act as a radiator. but you cant add a single part to a non motion system and get a motion system.
no problem. I will rephrase the question: can you add a single part to an object that cant move and make it move, but without using existing non functional parts that are already in place in order to change into a motion system?
So you made it up. Wasn’t claiming to know that only a few things exist bearing false witness, when you’re now acknowledging that you’ve never bothered to look?
2 Likes
Okay but where is the evidence for your your entirely hypothetical and imaginary for evolution, then? Please don’t quote me Michael Behe merely asserting that X would be a big problem. Show me some adaptation and that it couldn’t evolve because it would have to pass through this hurdle you’ve concocted.
T-URF13.
1 Like
Behe says there shouldn’t be any. So his claim is disproven.
2 Likes
Yes, that’s why I made it.
Not my job to do your work for you…
No, and it would be a completely different argument from the one you’ve been making.
Your personal feelings on the matter are not of particular interest.
To sum up: You have no actual examples relevant to your (Behe’s) actual argument, so your argument is irrelevant to reality. Which is what I said days ago. At this point, I think you can either provide an actual example in need of an explanation, or drop this farce entirely.
2 Likes
Yes, by adding a connecting rod between a gear in an already functional engine that’s driving something else (e.g. a pump) to a gear on an axle that’s part of an already existing functional set of wheels that is allowing a carriage to be horse-drawn. It can even be done without adding a part simply by moving the two gears so that they mesh.
You are hung up on adding parts and functions with no option for changing them. Neither engineering nor biology work that way.
2 Likes
If it’s “no problem” then you could produce a real example, as I asked. So go on. Let’s have a real example, not worthless hypothetical scenarios.
3 Likes
Who said convergent evolution (which is where this all started) requires “a new organ”? Flight doesn’t require a new organ, it just repurposes limbs. Echo-location doesn’t require a new organ, it just refines hearing.
You have gone from one in 1030 to “a new organ even in every birth” without once offering a shred of evidence. What I “want to suggest”, and in fact have already suggested, is that all this needs to be calculated from the evidence.
The problem appears to be that you are attempting to make an argument without any evidence – and that is not “realistic” at all.
I am going to reject any probability presented without evidence. I would have thought that this would have been blatantly obvious by now.
2 Likes
Sure you can. Add flagellin to a non-flagellar structure that has all components of the flagellum but flagellin, and that will turn it from a protein translocase and receptor into a motion system. Not that this is necessarily how the flagellum evolved, but that sort of change obviously would do exactly what you says can’t be done.
3 Likes
Of course, Nigel Tufnel also had options other than continuing to repeat “These go to 11.” But he never explored them.
3 Likes
I believe I already describe the appropriate conclusions and reasons why. I take your response as an indication that you understand my point, even if you do not agree to it, which is really all that I can ask. 
1 Like
How is this a theological claim?
I think it’s a reasonable conclusion, note the trumpeting of T-URF13 as a counterexample. People are eager to find a counterexample, and make it known.
The cilium has hundreds of protein parts, it probably didn’t evolve, since most if not all of these parts would need to be in place before it’s functional, and selectable for that function. Surely there is not an all-selectable-steps path through hundreds of parts.
Which we are discussing in the T-URF13 thread.
No, his claim is two new binding sites for a function, not one new binding site.
I picked them because they seem to be unique, not in the T3SS or in ATP synthase.
But this does not refute my point.
But that is a pretty sure conclusion, practically self-evident.