[Heartlander]

Evolutionary Origin of Bacterial Flagellum Through Cooption: A Critical Survey

[balrog666]

More desperate dishonesty from the creationoids.

[lelio]

But how would a lipid-making factory explain rotary propulsion? In the same way that protein pumping explains it -- it doesn't explain it at all.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. That we don't know with 100% certitude what each part in this bacteria does? That's not news.

[BCrago66]

OK let's say for the sake of argument that there are flaws in evolution. It's still a scientific theory, sensitive to evidence.

Creation is hedonism. Intellectual hedonism. It means: I believe X because it makes me feel good to believe X. That's not a scientific theory. That's faith.

[VadeRetro]

It's obviously possible to make useable mousetraps out of surplus parts from other stuff. I don't mean extensively modified other stuff, I mean old junk. You can make all kinds of stuff out of old junk, if you don't mind your stuff looking like it's made out of old junk.

I'm way past the point of wondering whether Behe can see the problems with his original arguments. Way past.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Imagine that! A evo tries to derail a crevo thread not posted by one of their own. Surprise.

(Don't worry - I'll start a new thread if this one gets yanked)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

As much as some Darwinists might wish, there is no quick fix solution to the problem of irreducible complexity.

Nor is there a definition.

Again we hear the argument that since men can't know what God knows, science is wrong. Indeed, men can know nothing, even when they see it.

[AndrewC]

Nice link.

[Lael]

BTTT!!

[steve-b]

Behe might fool the rubes, be he ain't gonna fool people who have battled masters of spurious argument for eight long years.

The ID argument is, and always has been, that because 1)such-and-such a biological system requires all of parts A,B,C,...,Z and 2)possession of only a subset of those parts conveys no advantage and thus is not preferred by natural selection, then the biological system in question must have arisen fully-formed like Athena from the forehead of Zeus.

The fact that components of an allegedly "irreducably complex" system serve other functions in their own right refutes premise (2) -- if A does something useful, whether or not it is related to the function of the A,B,C,...,Z combination, then natural selection will tend to keep it around even without any of the other components. The entire argument thus crashes down.

Behe's argument is simply a bit of prolix razzle-dazzle designed to focus attention on premise (1) in order to distract attention from the failure of premise (2). Unfortunately, his irreducably complex argument cannot function without both of them.

[realpatriot71]

Spank'em Behe! Want to know why I believe what I do from a scientific point of view pick up Darwin's Black Box

[biblewonk]

Boy this is a very religious thread, especially on the evo side.

[edsheppa]

What a pile.

[Jeff Gordon]

Any time you see Evolution Theory called "Darwinism" you know that a Crevo Crapper is around.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Festival of trolls placemarker.

[nmh]

I always get a healthy chuckle seeing evolutionists insisting that a round peg fits nicely in a square peg. Evolution doesn't add up and it never will no matter how one tries to contrive the sitution since evidence does not support evolution.

[Edgewood Pilot]

Excellent read.

Thanks for posting !

[Ronzo]

That’s what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms--the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle.

You, that's EXACTLY the same tactic that liberals use every single day...redefine the terms, so that they can win the PR wars.

Obviously, this proves that liberals are a product of evolution...while conservatives are obvioulsy created.