amazing. people resort again and again to the flagellum. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1528-the-flagellum?highlight=flagellum How can "some mutation" alone turn a secretory system into a flagellum? Think about this, the T3SS has over 25 proteins, the flagellum has over 60 proteins, and both share only 9 to 13 proteins.. So, instead of a single "crooked" mutation, the transition from one machine to another would require the novel evolution of over 50 proteins along with huge structural rearrangements (that would certainly disrupt the function of the system).. Clearly, evolution seems plausible, UNTIL we try testing against actual, more detailed facts taken from molecular biology Millers refutation of irreducible complexity of the Flagellum through co-option is a prima facie example of a pseudo scientific argument. Since Miller recognizes implicitly that a gradual evolutionary step by step development of the flagellum is not possible, he comes up with a ad hoc explanation, namely co-opting parts from other biological systems. That copying, modifying, and combining together preexisting parts , already operating in other systems, would do the job. But, is it really ? Could it be, that super evolutionary mechanisms would act that way, borrowing parts from other biological systems and assemble them to a flagellum with a new function , perfectly ordered, with perfect fits, and new functions,with the help of saint time , that would do that miracle ? Even thinking, that time in this case would rather be detrimental, than help ? Would it really be, that the most perfect and efficient motor in the universe could arise by copy/pasta , by a supernatural pick and add , a molecular quilt and patchwork mechanism? The question that follows is what exactly did the recruiting? What provokes recruitment to another system? and you believe in Santa Claus, as well ? Thats not only insane, but completely impossible. NO, no indeed. The probability may be on the low side, but given the enormous time span and the exponentially expanding evolution as expressed in the great variety of species or sub-species, the formation of the flagellum is rather mundane, no more unusual than say turning gills into lungs, or ground insects sprouting wings. But if the giraffe (illustrated in the bible) is a very poor example of efficient design. But if your food source is tree leaves, your neck will grow longer (by natural selection) but in the process did not redesign the system which had evolved into a vascular system designed for short necks, but just stretched it, resulting in a inefficient arterial network. If we were to start from scratch, we'd build a giraffe with a neck which is perfectly designed, and demonstrably more efficient than the current "design".Adonai888 said 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.Lausten said, 3. Yes they do.Wow. Great news. Any example at hand ? with empirical evidence to back up your claim ?You need to read the question closer. Examples: a) *Rainbows* are undirected (spontaneous) complex objects. But of course they are reducible, as is everything else. b) *Flagella* are reducible complex objects, Behe is wrong. It was proven to be composed of parts which filled different functions before evolution increased their complexity and mutated a FUNCTIONAL simpler object into a flagellum..
What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?
NO, no indeed. The probability may be on the low side, but given the enormous time span and the exponentially expanding evolution as expressed in the great variety of species or sub-species, the formation of the flagellum is rather mundane, no more unusual than say turning gills into lungs, or ground insects sprouting wings. But if the giraffe (illustrated in the bible) is a very poor example of efficient design. But if your food source is tree leaves, your neck will grow longer (by natural selection) but in the process did not redesign the system which had evolved into a vascular system designed for short necks, but just stretched it, resulting in a inefficient arterial network. If we were to start from scratch, we'd build a giraffe with a neck which is perfectly designed, and demonstrably more efficient than the current "design".So your epistemology is basically based on blind faith. Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2025-time-makes-everything-becoming-possible-really This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature. What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process. The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does. http://bevets.com/evolutionevidence.htm A Parable: Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire." You say "Prove it." He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.) You say "What does that prove?" He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them" You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?" "Because it's GREEN" he says. "What else can you show me?" He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire." You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask. "I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?" "Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, The possible probable, And the probable virtually certain, One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles." (Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954) 1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html Recurrent laryngeal nerve , evidence of poor design ? http://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve
Precellular life must have been some crazy goo. Just think of the level of variation that could take place in the mashup. One little process lives off of another little process so surely adjajcent processes would have been very relevant. Likely some organization did evolve in this precellular community. Some real juicy tidbit like an oil producer would probably get surrounded by oil eaters. Could that be a first cell? Any construction which has a key innerd that is surrounded by affiliates will suffice as a cell. Even a membrane can wait to be born. Membranes are semipermeable anyways. Membranes are a key feature in terms of establishing boundaries, but his is also true above the cellular level.what is that ? precellular life ? any example at hand ? https://www.sciencenews.org/article/enzyme-forges-carbon-silicon-bonds-little-human-help Enzymes are a fine instance of processors which are nearby to catalytic reactions. We know that endothermic and exothermic reactions occur and temperature sensitivities are relevant. Even just a stable thermocline would be enough to form an organizing principle. We are clearly dealing in CHON and proteins and their predecessors amino acids. Throw in a few interesting trace elements and the level of dynamics is huge, particularly without cell boundaries. Disturb the thermocline and you have a form of evolutionary selection; the 'strongest' affiliates will remain, but this terminology of strength is merely a self fulfilling prophecy. It all really is quite farcical down at this level and as macro objects that result we are somewhat farcical. I don't mind your viewpoint so long as it remains farcical. We are prisoners of spacetime. We do not inherently have access to its fundaments. I will not be able to prove anything to you here, but can certainly support precellular processes and dynamics without too much trouble, and I'm not even a biologist nor a chemist. It's very clear to me that the level of variation at this stage would have been remarkable. What you are really after is a naturally occurring container. Oil is one such and such metabolic creatures still exist within our own cells. Since the vacuole is inside of a cell proper it is a fine instance, though an advanced one, of precellular function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuole
Enzymes are a fine instance of processors which are nearby to catalytic reactions. We know that endothermic and exothermic reactions occur and temperature sensitivities are relevant. Even just a stable thermocline would be enough to form an organizing principle. We are clearly dealing in CHON and proteins and their predecessors amino acids. Throw in a few interesting trace elements and the level of dynamics is huge, particularly without cell boundaries. Disturb the thermocline and you have a form of evolutionary selection; the 'strongest' affiliates will remain, but this terminology of strength is merely a self fulfilling prophecy. It all really is quite farcical down at this level and as macro objects that result we are somewhat farcical. I don't mind your viewpoint so long as it remains farcical. We are prisoners of spacetime. We do not inherently have access to its fundaments. I will not be able to prove anything to you here, but can certainly support precellular processes and dynamics without too much trouble, and I'm not even a biologist nor a chemist. It's very clear to me that the level of variation at this stage would have been remarkable. What you are really after is a naturally occurring container. Oil is one such and such metabolic creatures still exist within our own cells. Since the vacuole is inside of a cell proper it is a fine instance, though an advanced one, of precellular function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuolecan you explain in your own words what they propose ? i understand dont anything of this.......
amazing. people resort again and again to the flagellum. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1528-the-flagellum?highlight=flagellum How can "some mutation" alone turn a secretory system into a flagellum? Think about this, the T3SS has over 25 proteins, the flagellum has over 60 proteins, and both share only 9 to 13 proteins.. So, instead of a single "crooked" mutation, the transition from one machine to another would require the novel evolution of over 50 proteins along with huge structural rearrangements (that would certainly disrupt the function of the system).. Clearly, evolution seems plausible, UNTIL we try testing against actual, more detailed facts taken from molecular biology. Have you ever been to a dog show? Miller demonstrated that you can take lots of parts away from the flagellum and still have a functional system. Even if we assume that each of those parts are irreducibly complex, by combining them into another functional system, that still makes the flagellum a *reducible* system. This is not an unusual event! It has happened many times in different ways. Ask yourself, how does the *miracle* of metamorphosis from a caterpillar into a butterfly work? Is this due to a "guiding hand" or just plain old mathematical chemical functions?Adonai888 said 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.Lausten said, 3. Yes they do.Wow. Great news. Any example at hand ? with empirical evidence to back up your claim ?You need to read the question closer. Examples: a) *Rainbows* are undirected (spontaneous) complex objects. But of course they are reducible, as is everything else. b) *Flagella* are reducible complex objects, Behe is wrong. It was proven to be composed of parts which filled different functions before evolution increased their complexity and mutated a FUNCTIONAL simpler object into a flagellum..
Miller demonstrated that you can take lots of parts away from the flagellum and still have a functional system.Did he ? which parts did he demonstrate that can be taken away ?
Miller demonstrated that you can take lots of parts away from the flagellum and still have a functional system.Did he ? which parts did he demonstrate that can be taken away ? The hold down bar. Have you forgotten about him using a mouse trap as a tie clip?
Miller demonstrated that you can take lots of parts away from the flagellum and still have a functional system.Did he ? which parts did he demonstrate that can be taken away ? Feast your brain on this. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/fig-1.jpg
Figure 1: The eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament complex. OM, outer membrane; PG, peptidoglycan layer; IM, cytoplasmic membrane (From Yonekura et al 2000).and
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Miller demonstrated that you can take lots of parts away from the flagellum and still have a functional system.Did he ? which parts did he demonstrate that can be taken away ? Feast your brain on this. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/fig-1.jpg
Figure 1: The eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament complex. OM, outer membrane; PG, peptidoglycan layer; IM, cytoplasmic membrane (From Yonekura et al 2000).and
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html the only thing that was demolished, was millers reputation as a serious scientist. He has become an icon of pseudo scientific explanations. His refuations are really foolish ones. Gram-negative bacteria (fitted with a T3SS injectosome protein appendage) cannot swim. That is why the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. The reason why Behe used the illustration of a mouse trap is because if any of it's parts are removed, the machine will be incapable of catching mice. So likewise, if any gene/protein is removed from a bacterial flagellum the bacterium will no longer be capable of swimming. The function of the flagellum operates as a propeller engine providing propulsion to enable the bacteria to swim. Remove any part, and it cannot swim anymore. Secondary functions are IRRELEVANT. It is irrelevant someone can still use a broken mousetrap as a tie clip, and It is irrelevant if subparts of a molecular machine can serve a different function. The moment anyone discusses some different function, they are no longer talking about irreducible complexity, they are talking about something else. Behe already directly responded to this nonsense, stated himself that mentioning other functions is a strawman, and went on to comment that never once did he ever suggest that subparts could not have secondary functions. He never discussed them because those questions are irrelevant. The scientific research and literature confirms Behe's predictions. The flagella are required for propulsion motility (ability to swim). The bacteria that do not have the device are limited to surface motility (crawling like a snail). Just because there are bacteria that do not have the machinery does nothing to falsify Behe's hypothesis. If anything, the bacteria that do not have the propulsion system have less parts, and indicates a loss of information. Whether Archaea cells have their own flagella has not falsified Behe's work. Archaea flagella have been shown to have no evolutionary pathway with bacterial flagella. If there were an evolutionary trajectory of descent connecting the two 2 domains the Behe's hypothesis would be falsified. Convergent evolution is what it is, but there is nothing about convergence that falsifies IC. The issue is not how silly or practical irreducible complexity might be. No one ever said this is some gamechangine breakthrough discovery. Had Behe not been so heavily criticized by his claims the concept might have just been set aside and long forgotten. The publicity of the criticism against Behe fueled the emphasis on his work, and amplified that he actually technically was never falsified. If the best argument against his work is a strawman, then that is very telling of how credible his work is. Whether the concept is silly is irrelevant. Either the bacterial flagellum, cilia, blood clotting cascade, and vertebrate immune system are irreducibly complex when applying Behe's definition or they are not. If they are, then his prediction is correct regardless of how insignificant the discovery might be. Had Behen been ignored, that would have told us that the discovery was meaningless. It was the vigorous resistance to his work BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY that set how significant the discovery is. If his work is nothing than just silly, then it should not have received any attention. Behe claims his predictions are a design-inspired prediction because when he looked at bacterial flagella under a microscope it reminded him of an outboard motor he's seen on boats. In essence, a flagellum is a motor that spins a fillament in the same manner as a propellor. Had Behe not contemplated the mechanical engineering of propulsion he would have not discovered irreducible complexity or proposed the predictions he made in his book, "Darwin's Black Box" (1996). http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1528-the-flagellum
Miller demonstrated that you can take lots of parts away from the flagellum and still have a functional system.Did he ? which parts did he demonstrate that can be taken away ? Feast your braon this. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/fig-1.jpg
Figure 1: The eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament complex. OM, outer membrane; PG, peptidoglycan layer; IM, cytoplasmic membrane (From Yonekura et al 2000).and
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html the only thing that was demolished, was millers reputation as a serious scientist. He has become an icon of pseudo scientific explanations. His refuations are really foolish ones. Gram-negative bacteria (fitted with a T3SS injectosome protein appendage) cannot swim. That is why the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. Wrong, that's why natural selection gave an advantage to the bacteria who's "injector" could also function as a propeller.
The reason why Behe used the illustration of a mouse trap is because if any of it's parts are removed, the machine will be incapable of catching mice. So likewise, if any gene/protein is removed from a bacterial flagellum the bacterium will no longer be capable of swimming. The function of the flagellum operates as a propeller engine providing propulsion to enable the bacteria to swim. Remove any part, and it cannot swim anymore. Secondary functions are IRRELEVANT.You have this backwards, originally the bacterium could not swim but had the appendage before it evolved into a flagellum. Evolution!
It is irrelevant someone can still use a broken mousetrap as a tie clip, and It is irrelevant if subparts of a molecular machine can serve a different function. The moment anyone discusses some different function, they are no longer talking about irreducible complexity, they are talking about something else. Behe already directly responded to this nonsense, stated himself that mentioning other functions is a strawman, and went on to comment that never once did he ever suggest that subparts could not have secondary functions. He never discussed them because those questions are irrelevant.IOW, Behe admits the flagellum is NOT irreducible complex if its parts did perform other functions, prior to becoming a flagellum. If you quoted Behe correctly, he contradicted himself or does not understand the term *irreducible complexity*. From Miller's link: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/fig-2.jpg
Figure 2: There are extensive homologies between type III secretory proteins and proteins involved in export in the basal region of the bacterial flagellum. These homologies demonstrate that the bacterial flagellum is not "irreducibly complex." In this diagram (redrawn from Heuck 1998), the shaded portions of the basal region indicate proteins in the E. coli flagellum homologous to the Type III secretory structure of Yersinia. . OM, outer membrane; PP, periplasmic space; CM, cytoplasmic membrane.Stated directly, the TTSS does its dirty work using a handful of proteins from the base of the flagellum. From the evolutionary point of view, this relationship is hardly surprising. In fact, it's to be expected that the opportunism of evolutionary processes would mix and match proteins to produce new and novel functions. According to the doctrine of irreducible complexity, however, this should not be possible. If the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, then removing just one part, let alone 10 or 15, should render what remains "by definition nonfunctional." Yet the TTSS is indeed fully-functional, even though it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum. The TTSS may be bad news for us, but for the bacteria that possess it, it is a truly valuable biochemical machine.
Miller demonstrated that you can take lots of parts away from the flagellum and still have a functional system.Did he ? which parts did he demonstrate that can be taken away ? Feast your braon this. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/fig-1.jpg
Figure 1: The eubacterial flagellum. The flagellum is an ion-powered rotary motor, anchored in the membranes surrounding the bacterial cell. This schematic diagram highlights the assembly process of the bacterial flagellar filament and the cap-filament complex. OM, outer membrane; PG, peptidoglycan layer; IM, cytoplasmic membrane (From Yonekura et al 2000).and
The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html the only thing that was demolished, was millers reputation as a serious scientist. He has become an icon of pseudo scientific explanations. His refuations are really foolish ones. Gram-negative bacteria (fitted with a T3SS injectosome protein appendage) cannot swim. That is why the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. Wrong, that's why natural selection gave an advantage to the bacteria who's "injector" could also function as a propeller.
The reason why Behe used the illustration of a mouse trap is because if any of it's parts are removed, the machine will be incapable of catching mice. So likewise, if any gene/protein is removed from a bacterial flagellum the bacterium will no longer be capable of swimming. The function of the flagellum operates as a propeller engine providing propulsion to enable the bacteria to swim. Remove any part, and it cannot swim anymore. Secondary functions are IRRELEVANT.You have this backwards, originally the bacterium could not swim but had the appendage before it evolved into a flagellum. Evolution!
It is irrelevant someone can still use a broken mousetrap as a tie clip, and It is irrelevant if subparts of a molecular machine can serve a different function. The moment anyone discusses some different function, they are no longer talking about irreducible complexity, they are talking about something else. Behe already directly responded to this nonsense, stated himself that mentioning other functions is a strawman, and went on to comment that never once did he ever suggest that subparts could not have secondary functions. He never discussed them because those questions are irrelevant.IOW, Behe admits the flagellum is NOT irreducible complex if its parts did perform other functions, prior to becoming a flagellum. If you quoted Behe correctly, he contradicted himself or does not understand the term *irreducible complexity*. you are beating a dead horse. Behe did never admit the flagellum was not ic. Revisiting Co-option Is the flagellum like the Type III injectisome? This question was addressed in the film. (Evolutionists have tried to point to the TTSS machine as an intermediate; see "Two of the World's Leading Experts on Bacterial Flagellar Assembly Take on Michael Behe.") The new diagram shows some similarities between the two machines, but many differences, including the component parts. Here's their discussion: The flagellum and the virulence-associated injectisome share an analogous architecture and homologous T3S components. However, the structure and function of the rod are quite different in the two systems. The rod of the injectisome is formed by a protein (PrgJ in S. typhimurium). Rod assembly is required for proper anchoring of the needle structure. The function of the injectisome rod is to provide a conduit for protein transport from the bacterial cytoplasm to the host cell (Fig. 6D). In contrast, the flagellar rod and its complex interactions with the MS ring, P ring, and hook (Fig. 6B) provide dual functions: a hollow channel for protein secretion and a sturdy drive shaft to transmit torque between the motor and filament. So even if the flagellum "co-opted" parts from the TTSS, many parts are unique. As Minnich stated in the film: You're talking about a machine that's got 40 structural parts. Yes, we find 10 of them are involved in another molecular machine. But the other 30 are unique. So where are you going to borrow them from? Eventually you're going to have to account for the function of every single part as originally having some other purpose. So you can only follow that argument so far till you run into the problem of, you're borrowing parts from nothing. The new paper corroborates Minnich's remarks. In conclusion, the authors say, In summary, high-throughput cryo-ET, coupled with mutational analysis, revealed a complete series of high-resolution molecular snapshots of the periplasmic flagella assembly process in the Lyme disease spirochete. The resulting composite picture provides a structural blueprint depicting the assembly process of this intricate molecular machine. This approach should be applicable in determining the sequence of events in intact cells that generate a broad range of molecular machines. Eleven years is a lot of time to refute the claims about flagellar assembly made in Unlocking the Mystery of Life, if they were vulnerable to falsification. Instead, higher resolution studies confirm them. Not only that, research into the precision assembly of flagella is provoking more investigation of the assembly of other molecular machines. It's a measure of the robustness of a scientific theory when increasing data strengthen its tenets over time and motivate further research. Irreducible complexity lives!
Adonai said: you are beating a dead horse. Behe did never admit the flagellum was not ic.Well then, why is he (and you) arguing that the flagellum IS "irreducibly complex"? I'm done. on this subject anyway.
did you understand my response ? it does not seem so...... Behe never said, that he was mistaken on the flagellum. show me otherwise. A explicit admittance of defeat.Adonai said: you are beating a dead horse. Behe did never admit the flagellum was not ic.Well then, why is he (and you) arguing that the flagellum IS "irreducibly complex"? I'm done. on this subject anyway.
did you understand my response ? it does not seem so...... Behe never said, that he was mistaken on the flagellum. show me otherwise. A explicit admittance of defeat. Of course not. That's how he makes his money. The never ending march to war for the Divine Creator. Very noble. Except there is no war. The matter was settled in a court of Law on the strength of the testimony by expert witnesses. Be well........ friend or foe?Adonai said: you are beating a dead horse. Behe did never admit the flagellum was not ic.Well then, why is he (and you) arguing that the flagellum IS "irreducibly complex"? I'm done. on this subject anyway.
“What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?”
Consider the question: It asks if irreducibly complex systems such as cells can “emerge” (from any cause). The answer is YES.
The use of the term emergence suggests a duration of exchange of information in accordance to certain immutable constants inherent in the fabric of space.
The result is Time and that is the argument of Evolution, “change over time”.
.
no kidding
The best way to refute Judge Jones / Barbara Forrest’s claim is to let the reader see the testimony of Scott Minnich. Minnich is a pro-ID microbiologist who testified as follows on the next-to-last-day of the trial about his own research and experimentation into the irreducibly complex nature of the bacterial flagellum:
Q. Do you know employ principles and concepts from intelligent design in your work?
A. I do.
Q. And I’d like for you to explain that further. I know you’re prepared several slides to do that.
[…]
A. Sure. All right. I work on the bacterial flagellum, understanding the function of the bacterial flagellum for example by exposing cells to mutagenic compounds or agents, and then scoring for cells that have attenuated or lost motility. This is our phenotype. The cells can swim or they can’t. We mutagenize the cells, if we hit a gene that’s involved in function of the flagellum, they can’t swim, which is a scorable phenotype that we use. Reverse engineering is then employed to identify all these genes. We couple this with biochemistry to essentially rebuild the structure and understand what the function of each individual part is. Summary, it is the process more akin to design that propelled biology from a mere descriptive science to an experimental science in terms of employing these techniques.
[…]
So it was inoculated right here, and over about twelve hours it’s radiated out from that point of inoculant. Here is this same derived from that same parental clone, but we have a transposon, a jumping gene inserted into a rod protein, part of the drive shaft for the flagellum. It can’t swim. It’s stuck, all right? This one is a mutation in the U joint. Same phenotype. So we collect cells that have been mutagenized, we stick them in soft auger, we can screen a couple of thousand very easily with a few undergraduates, you know, in a day and look for whether or not they can swim.
[…]
We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can’t swim. Now, to confirm that that’s the only part that we’ve affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild type and reintroduce it by mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can’t swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We’ve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
(Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)
"What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?" Consider the question: It asks if irreducibly complex systems such as cells can "emerge" (from any cause). The answer is YES. The use of the term *emergence* suggests a *duration of exchange of information* in accordance to certain immutable constants inherent in the fabric of space. The result is Time and that is the argument of Evolution, "change over time". .the answer is no. in the same manner, as jumbos do not emerge from a tornado over a junk yard, nor a book by chance, a cell cannot emerge without guiding intelligence. quite obvious i'd say.
A mathematically functioning universe could. Anyway, you have not proven your point and it appears I have not been able to persuade you to change your view, So we are back to where it all stared. Hopeless.
"What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?" Consider the question: It asks if irreducibly complex systems such as cells can "emerge" (from any cause). The answer is YES. The use of the term *emergence* suggests a *duration of exchange of information* in accordance to certain immutable constants inherent in the fabric of space. The result is Time and that is the argument of Evolution, "change over time". .the answer is no. in the same manner, as jumbos do not emerge from a tornado over a junk yard, nor a book by chance, a cell cannot emerge without guiding intelligence. quite obvious i'd say. No, what is obvious is that it is not mathematically possible, the way you presented it. If it is not mathematically possible, then an event cannot happen, no matter how hard you try.
A mathematically functioning universe could. Anyway, you have not proven your point and it appears I have not been able to persuade you to change your view, So we are back to where it all stared. Hopeless.i am not here to be persuaded. Why do you have this goal anyway ? Can you not think for yourself, and understand that life could not emerge by chance ? what is so difficult to get that ? THINK !!