Why are We Disagreeing with ID?

[lee_merrill]

@Rumraket

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.

How is a flagellum without flagellin a translocase, though? What does it transport, and how is that beneficial to the cell?

[scd]

@Roy

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

first, you involve horse now, which is by itself a complex motion system. in addition, i think that we can consider a working engine by itself as a type of a motion system (it might move the object a bit because of its vibration). so we start here with a motion system in first place.

@Tim

Who said convergent evolution (which is where this all started) requires “a new organ”?

electric organs in fish for instance?

@Paul_King

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.

@Rumraket

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

what will move the flagellin?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@scd

@Rumraket

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

what will move the flagellin?

The rest of the flagellum.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

Well, I haven’t seen more than a few, even by people eager to disprove Behe’s claim.

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?

I think it’s a reasonable conclusion,

You didn’t present it as a “reasonable conclusion.” You presented it as a stone-cold fact:

@lee_merrill

But there being only a few known new interactions…

You have no idea how many are known. You made it up. That’s bearing false witness.

@lee_merrill

note the trumpeting of T-URF13 as a counterexample.

Noted. How does that make your point?

@lee_merrill

People are eager to find a counterexample, and make it known.

But you pretend to know how much is known, when you clearly have never bothered to look. It’s your job alone to know the things you claim to know, not anyone else’s.

Why do you think the Ninth Commandment is phrased as bearing false witness?

Remember when you made the false claim that antibody binding sites weren’t new? Why did you abandon that for pasting Behe’s ridiculous handwaving?

[CrisprCAS9]

@lee_merrill

I picked them because they seem to be unique, not in the T3SS or in ATP synthase.

They’re homologous to other bacterial proteins.

@lee_merrill

But this does not refute my point.

It’s completely irrelevant to your point, as it is an entirely new point. And I have no interest in discussing the new point until we’ve finished with the old one. If you want to admit that your original argument can be dismissed as worthless, we can move on to your new (also unsupported) argument.

@lee_merrill

But that is a pretty sure conclusion, practically self-evident.

No, it isn’t. It’s possible that it would be non-functional AS A FLAGELLUM, but that irrelevant.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@lee_merrill

@CrisprCAS9

@lee_merrill

how about MotA and MotB?

Not my job to do your work for you…

I picked them because they seem to be unique, not in the T3SS or in ATP synthase.

Did you even read any literature on that? MotA and MotB are homologues, and they in turn are homologous to proteins found in other protein transport systems.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966842X05000545

Motor

MotA forms the proton or sodium channel and consists of a MotA_ExbB domain (PFAM PF01618), which is shared with proteins from other protein export systems, such as the TonB complex.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@lee_merrill

How is a flagellum without flagellin a translocase, though?

Because that’s what the rest of the flagellum does, transport proteins through it. It’s necessarily a protein export system because that very job is required to assemble the flagellum. All stages basal to the flagellum would have to involve protein translocation because anything constructed outside the membrane has to pass through the Type-3 transport apperatus.

@lee_merrill

What does it transport, and how is that beneficial to the cell?

I think you should read the links provided earlier.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@scd

@Roy

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

first, you involve horse now, which is by itself a complex motion system.

I’m not including a horse. A carriage with no horses does not have a motion system.

in addition, i think that we can consider a working engine by itself as a type of a motion system (it might move the object a bit because of its vibration). so we start here with a motion system in first place.

You can pretend that a pump-engine is a motion system all you want to, but I see no reason to follow you into those depths of desperation.

[Tim]

@scd

@Tim

Who said convergent evolution (which is where this all started) requires “a new organ”?

electric organs in fish for instance?

I note that you carefully avoided the two examples that I gave of convergent evolution that don’t require a new organ. Just as you carefully avoided my main point:

@Tim

You have gone from one in 10³⁰ to “a new organ even in every birth” without once offering a shred of evidence.

You appear to be ‘whistling past the graveyard’ here.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@lee_merrill

@CrisprCAS9

@lee_merrill

The flagellum would not seem to be useful until all the components were assembled.

Your personal feelings on the matter are not of particular interest.

But that is a pretty sure conclusion, practically self-evident.

Yet the scientific method literally exists because our intuition (clearly all you’re using here) is often wrong. That’s why we are far less arrogant than you and view our conclusions as hypotheses that are tentative and require empirical testing.

That’s why Behe is arrogant–he doesn’t test his hypotheses.

@lee_merrill

How is a flagellum without flagellin a translocase, though?

It translocates proteins, even without flagellin. Are you interested enough to look into this for yourself?

[scd]

@Rumraket

The rest of the flagellum.

how exactly? if you add a single part to a non spining system it will start to spin?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@scd

how exactly? if you add a single part to a non spining system it will start to spin?

Who said it weren’t spinning already?

[scd]

@Rumraket

Who said it weren’t spinning already?

if its already been able to spin then its already a motion system in the first place. so this isnt an example of geting a motion system from non motion system by a single step.

[lee_merrill]

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

People are eager to find a counterexample, and make it known.

But you pretend to know how much is known, when you clearly have never bothered to look.

I trust people who have looked, such as Behe.

@Mercer

Why do you think the Ninth Commandment is phrased as bearing false witness?

Yes, that’s saying something you know is false, whereas I have several reasons to believe the claim of only a few interaction is true.

@Mercer

Remember when you made the false claim that antibody binding sites weren’t new?

I’m willing to be corrected…

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@scd

@Rumraket

Who said it weren’t spinning already?

if its already been able to spin then its already a motion system in the first place.

It does not impart motility to the bacterium since the structure lacks the propeller(flagellin is the long “tail” part of the flagellum), so it isn’t a motility system. The fact that the central structure can still spin doesn’t make it a motility system. The fan blowing on my CPU isn’t making my pc travel around in my apartment.

[Faizal_Ali]

@lee_merrill

No, his claim is two new binding sites for a function, not one new binding site.

How can something be a binding site without something to bind to it?

[lee_merrill]

@CrisprCAS9

@lee_merrill

I picked them because they seem to be unique, not in the T3SS or in ATP synthase.

They’re homologous to other bacterial proteins.

Yes, so how many changes would be needed to get to MOTB, for instance?

@CrisprCAS9

@lee_merrill

But that is a pretty sure conclusion, practically self-evident.

No, it isn’t. It’s possible that it would be non-functional AS A FLAGELLUM, but that irrelevant.

Are you proposing that a partially-assembled flagellum has function? All along the way?

[lee_merrill]

@Rumraket

@lee_merrill

What does it transport, and how is that beneficial to the cell?

I think you should read the links provided earlier.

Well, it seems transport is needed (as you said) for constructing a flagellum, but we need selectable functionality along the way.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@lee_merrill

Well, it seems transport is needed (as you said) for constructing a flagellum, but we need selectable functionality along the way.

What’s the evidence against neutral evolution?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

People are eager to find a counterexample, and make it known.

But you pretend to know how much is known, when you clearly have never bothered to look.

I trust people who have looked, such as Behe.

Behe admitted under oath that he hadn’t bothered to look either. I’m a person who has looked much more, and have much more relevant expertise and experience, than both of you combined. So why don’t you trust me?

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

Why do you think the Ninth Commandment is phrased as bearing false witness?

Yes, that’s saying something you know is false, whereas I have several reasons to believe the claim of only a few interaction is true.

No, that’s making a claim with certainty when you are not certain. You are claiming to be a witness to something you can’t be bothered to witness–the evidence.

You also have no reason to believe that your claim is true. Wishing it to be true is not enough. Hearsay is not enough.

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

Remember when you made the false claim that antibody binding sites weren’t new?

I’m willing to be corrected…

Have you witnessed any evidence that would support it?